Rutherford era, view of marriage not sacred cuz Superior Authorities said so

by FatFreek 2005 16 Replies latest watchtower scandals

  • metatron
    metatron

    In talking with Witnesses who lived thru the Rutherford era, it became apparent that "you had to be there" to fully understand the full weirdness of what (de facto) went on went the Judge ruled with an iron hand.

    First, please consider what happened after the Judge died and Knorr assumed power: 'Living together' marriages were rejected. Prominent homosexuals in the organization were demoted or expelled (as with Canada). Disfellowshipping was made official, explicit and enforced.

    The cult nature of the Organization was exposed (to anyone truly discerning) by the sudden wave of marriage proposals that followed Knorr getting married. If I was a female Witness, I would have replied (to potential suitors) 'How did it happen that you weak-kneed men suddenly got the b@lls to get married?"

    As a matter of history, after Rutherford rejected "character building" (which was plainly scriptural) in favor of "preaching", things only got more weird. An unmarried brother who had sex with an unmarried sister was asked by the Judge, "Did you tell her you were sorry?" (as if a personal apology fixed the matter - apparently, he did!)

    There were brothers who divorced or 'walked away' from bad marriages and were OK with the Organization. Remember, there was no official disfellowshipping. In addition, there were some very odd relationships at the heart of the organization - and they went beyond Berta Peale (the Judge's "Private Cook").

    I once asked about all this weirdness to two older Witnesses. I got two answers: "Morals weren't emphasized because most people were moral, even in Christendom" (naive) and "David would not touch Saul as "God's anointed" (an indirect way of telling me I was correct about things without actually admitting that things were corrupt beyond belief)

    metatron

  • FatFreek 2005
    FatFreek 2005

    AnnOMaly: I heard something a while back (I get the feeling it was a post by Jim Penton somewhere else, but I could be wrong) to the effect that, at one time the Society tolerated 'common law' marriages under certain circumstances because the only way a couple could become legally married in their locality was to be married in a church by a priest or minister - and that was a no-no! Can anyone confirm that was the case?

    That's what I read also. Thanks for supporting that.

    Thanks to Leolaia who sourced the question posed about marriage, I looked that 1935 issue up for myself. There were actually several questions from readers and the one about marriage was one of them. I decided to paste that entire question and the entire answer below. I see nothing where Watchtower (therefore Rutherford) endorsed living together without the benefit of marriage. That said, I understand (but can't support it here) that it wasn't until c.1947 that Watchtower clamped down on multiple wives in certain foreign lands where that was practiced. So much for their critique of Mormons who had abandoned their polygamy practice in the 1890s.

    ***

    "Looseness of morals is also quite noticeable. The thought has been prevalent amongst some that it is unnecessary for Jehovah’s witnesses to go through the form of marriage prescribed by the State, and some have lived as man and wife without subscribing to the legal requirements, claiming their authority for so doing to be the article on marriage in the Home and Ilappiness booklet.

    "When one of Jehovah’s witnesses considers mnrriage, should he not meet the legal requirements, aa long as they do not conflict with God’s law?

    "Would it be proper for one professing to be of the remnant to marry and remarry three or four different times, obtaining a divorce after each marriage?

    ***

    Concerning marriage, there seem to have been some who have entirely misconstrued what the Scriptures say about it and what has been published in the WATCH TOWER publications. Persons who enter into a contractual relationship must first be qualified to make such contract. If a man has a wife or the woman has a husband, then, of course, such are not qualified to make a contract with another. The Scriptures provide that the marital relationship may be severed under certain conditions. When severed the innocent party is qualified to enter into a new contract. The booklet Home and Happiness contains a brief discussion of marriage. The language there is not ambiguous and is not subject to conflicting constructions. Assuming that the parties are Scriptural and legally qualified to marry, concerning such it is stated in that booklet as follows :

    "A marriage in the sight of God, therefore, may be properly defined as a contract or agreement entered into between man and woman to become husband and wife, and by the full performance by both parties of the terms of that contract. A legal marriage is properly defined as a contract entered into between man and woman to become husband and wife and then to have a ceremony performed in the presence of witnesses by one legally authorized to solemnize marriages. Such ceremonies comply with the law of the land, and it is proper to observe and obey the law where the law of the land does not directly conflict with Cod’s law. Since the law of God does not prohibit the performance of ceremonies, and the law of the land provides that they shall be performed by a third person, the ceremony by some such officiating person is lawful and proper. It is therefore seen that a ceremony performed by a justice of the peace, a magistrate, a judge of a court of records, or other judicial officer authorized so to do, is just as effective and binding as that performed by any priest or clergyman. The fee charged by the latter is often exorbitant and works a hardship on the poor.

    "The marriage relationship is too sacred a thing to depend upon a few words spoken by an imperfect man, whether he be a priest or a judicial officer. It is also too sacred to be annulled by the whim, decree or opinion of some officer of the law."

    Concerning the marital relationship the Lord Jesus said: "And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning, made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife : and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, suffered you to put away your wives; but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery." (Matt. 19 : 4-9) Advice concerning the marital relationship is plainly set forth at 1 Corinthians 7: l-15, which The Watchtower has repeatedly discussed in times past. Watch Tower, March 1, 1935, p 76, 77

  • metatron
    metatron

    Keep in mind one more thing: their view of "Superior Authorities" (Romans 13) was critically different. This difference is manifest by the development of a separate group of Witnesses in Romania who rejected the Society's current view of Romans 13.

    Remember too, that their view of marriage and its legal staus changed when Knorr took over. What does that tell you?

    metatron

  • thetrueone
    thetrueone

    Rutherford appeared to have a belittling opinion of woman, other than they have little importance outside of serving him as a assistant,

    perhaps even as a sexual subservient when willed.

    His first and most important love in his life became the WTS. and his stature within the organization, wife and family were deemed with little

    significance. One can only come to the conclusion being of what he internally thought of marriage and any producing families that came out of

    those marriages were the same as his own appreciative perspective. Marriages in his eyes was a detrimental folly that had the potential to take

    people way from serving him and his publishing and distributing business.

  • Band on the Run
    Band on the Run

    I don't understand how these strong men emerge. Who validates them? I also notice that no one seems to be recruited despite a willingness to do r and f FS for life. How does one gain the expertise?

  • thetrueone
    thetrueone

    I don't understand how these strong men emerge. Who validates them?

    They were driven to validate themselves as they pursued greater power and control, the WTS. became that power and control.

    To demean marriages and family is just an element that was used to cultivate and sustain their own support.

    The WTS. had become a self induced vehicle of power for these men, exploited no less by peoples insecurities and ignorances,

    in that sense nothing has changed from Rutherford's era, Knorr's and so on.

  • metatron
    metatron

    Yes, you bet your a$$ they had a belittling attitude towards women !!!!

    The Rutherford era brothers liked to say that a woman was nothing more "than a stack of bones and a hank of hair" !

    metatron

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit