"Scriptural divorce"

ilikecheese

So I was talking to my boyfriend about the whole JW scriptural divorce idea. I made the point initally that I think when Jesus was talking about reasons to get divorced, he was more or less just trying to discourage divorce for frivilous reasons. You have to admit that there are a lot of people out there who just don't put much effort into it and just give up. I feel like, in the context, he was trying to make people realize that marriage was a serious thing and a serious commitment.

Anyway, obviously being significantly different from a fundie, although a church goer who at least knows my new testament pretty well, I said that I think abuse, emotional neglect, and alcoholism are also really good reasons to get divorced. I think if you break the marriage vows or sort of "commit adultery against your relationship" (ie, showing it and your partner disrespect) that it's perfectly acceptable to get divorced. Obviously, he's got the JW mindset of you can leave for those things, but you can't get married again or it's "adultery."

All of this led to a question. Since Jesus said that looking on someone other than your spouse with lust is the same as adultery, would a porn problem constitute a scriptural reason for getting divorced? Technically speaking, the husband/wife who is doing that is committing adultery as per the definition that Jesus gave. I don't think we have any fundies here, really, and I'm certainly not one myself, but I was wondering: Do you think this reasoning would ever prevail in trying to dissolve a JW marriage? Or do you think it would be sound reasoning to a fundamentalist? (Obviously even most fundamental churches don't worry about divorce and remarriage as much as crazy sects do. They don't micromanage their members' lives, but I was just wondering about your thoughts.)

Starr_Kachina

Simply stated, no. Only because you would need 2 other "witnesses" to the event and I doubt the "guilty" spouse would invite additional parties over to watch it with him/her. Unless, of course, that's how they get their kink on. LOL

But seriously, I'm pretty sure that watching porn would not stand up in a JC. That's just my honest opinion.

ilikecheese

Thanks for the answer! I had a question in regard to that. My boyfriend said he knew of someone in his congregation whose spouse was cheating on them, and the elders needed to do a stakeout outside of the alleged third party's house to completely believe this person. (Elder Turner and Hooch? ) Anyway, if the spouse could somehow convince the elders or some other person in the congregation to walk in on their husband/wife doing that, would that count?

haha I guess the trouble would be in convincing someone they wanted to see someone flogging the bishop or whatever term you use for ladies pleasuring themselves. (How come we don't have any fun phrases for that? The dudes get all the best ones. )

Chariklo

You mean they require the evidence of two witnesses to adultery before they'll accept it?

The mind boggles.

bigmac

"flogging the bishop or whatever term you use for ladies pleasuring themselves. (How come we don't have any fun phrases for that?"

i think you mean bashing the bishop--or flogging the log--whatever.

for the female equivalent --here in the uk--the phrase "bean flicking" exists,---whilst aperson pleasuring a female partner could be "stamp-licking"--or "carpet munching"

Phizzy

Ilikecheese : "The 'ole feel and squeal" "Sexercising" etc come to mind, and one for you "scraping the cheese off the Taco", I think the euphemism list is as long as for males.

The problem with the rigid interpretation of "Scriptural Divorce" by the WT is it leaves many in Limbo, unless they are prepared to be DF'd. I know of a number who divorced for what I would call valid reasons, but the WT would not, but their Ex's have not re-married or been caught at it, and they feel they are not free to have love in their life, so sad.

This controlling cult has brought about so much human misery.

ilikecheese

haha I've never heard bean flicking before. And I've definitely heard flogging the bishop for dudes. I have way too many perverted male friends who talk about stuff like that a lot.

I guess guys just tend to talk about that sort of thing more than women do, so there are a lot more fun terms for guys doing that. I've heard probably 15 at least.

ilikecheese

haha Thanks for more phrases, Phizzy.

And it is really sad that so many people don't feel they can get married again in this organization. If a marriage falls apart, people shouldn't be expected to never love again. It's kind of tragic.

NeonMadman

I think that the WTS would distinguish between actual, physical adultery and adultery "in the heart." While both would be condemned as wrong, and while some types of pornography can even be grounds for disfellowshipping, I think they would contend that if no "actual" (i.e., physical) adultery had occurred, there would be no grounds for divorce.

As far as needing two witnesses for adultery, that would only apply if the person being accused denied that he/she had committed adultery. However, remember that judicial committees will accept as proof of immorality two witnesses to the fact that the accused "stayed all night in the same house with a person of the opposite sex (or a known homosexual) under improper circumstances." (Shepherd the Flock of God, p. 129, emphasis theirs). So if two elders hide in the bushes outside a woman's house and see a man to whom she is not married enter in the evening and leave in the morning, that may be all they need, even if he was just there to repair her plumbing.

outsmartthesystem

This is an interesting topic because it shows you how arbitrary JC decisions are. Just like you can be DFd for anything that 3 elders agree upon......in the same manner.....anything can be approved or disapproved based on what 3 elders agree upon. If the 3 elders WANTED to let a person out of their marriage they can find a way.

"Scriptural divorce"

Share this