Letter From Society Say Going To a JW/Non-JW Wedding Has Consequences!

by minimus 43 Replies latest jw friends

  • blondie

    I did see this question posted on a more scholarly ex-JW DB, Channel C. If they get something to post here, I will do so.

    I will try to ask around here w/o jeopardizing my "fader" status.


  • shamus
    Now whether you choose to believe that or not is up to you.

    Exactly my point. I don't believe it. I've been wrong lots in the past, but I can't believe that the society would do something like this. If they do, then they are going to alienate even more people from it's ranks.

    I know if I was still in, even if I was in the same mindset thinking that 'it's the truth', I would be completely floored by this 'new light', or rule, or whatever the hell they call it nowadays.

    I can't see them 'demoting' someone for going to a worldly wedding. That is just nonsense, IMO. They need pioneers, they need MS's, they need elders. Why they would look for more ways to alienate these ones is quite beyond me.

  • minimus

    Shamus, do you ever read what people on this board say as to how the Society and the elders alienated them because of their rules or opinions? If you read what these posters have said, you might believe the Society will create rules to alienate their members. They "mark" people. They publicly reprove them. They disfellowship and shun people----all for stupid rules. Read the history of the Society and know that they are willing to lose MOST of their adherents if they choose to do so. They did it in the 30's. Do you know that it is a disfellowshipping offense to talk with a person that's been df'd even if it was your best friend? That's a stupid rule, especially when in the early 70's they lightened up on talking to a df'd one. THEY DON'T CARE!!!

  • shamus

    Yes, as a matter of fact I do read the experiences here, Minimus. But I don't have to just read them, because I was an active participant in all of the aformentioned activities. Not only did I participate, but I used to wholeheartedly agree with 'the rules' when it came to disfellowshipping, talking to my family with one arm out to keep them back and me away. Why? To keep me 'away' from the 'bad influence'.

    I can't fathom this. You're talking about hearsay, and you're the only person who has said this on this entire board of ex-witnesses. I think that I am a thinking homo-sapien at times... some times... and as I said. I can't see the society doing this.

    If they have placed these new rules down, then do people who get married, although witnesses, who use a JP going to have these same irrational rules applied to them? I THINK NOT. Nobody would show up at the wedding!

    I can't see it being true despite three different sources. Those are the only three that I've heard of in the entire JW network, including thousands of posters here, and all my friends that are still 'in'.

    I'll wait until official word comes out. Like I say, if this is true, then they are just going the way of the dinosaur.

  • minimus

    Channel C, which Blondie mentions has "Seeker" asking the same question. Evidently, I'm not the only one to hear of this. And btw, I'm not "Seeker". Check it out!

  • Athanasius

    If this information is contained in an official letter from the Society to the body of elders, then perhaps a liberal elder will make a copy of it and post it so that all can see. However, when I was an elder it wasn't uncommon for Circuit Overseers to misinterpret the meaning of the Society's encyclicals. Later, after much damage was done, a clarification would arrive from the service department indicating that there must have been a misunderstanding of the original instructions.

  • Rabbit

    I can say this from 1st hand experience: I remarried last year to a non-JW, I am inactive, but, not DF/DA (yet). About 1/2 of my family is JW, with elders, missionaries, pioneers, pawns, etc. NOT ONE JW person attended our wedding, gave presents, or congratulations...nothing.

    I was also told, this was only because...I "was becoming un-evenly yoked with an unbeliever and should stop touching the un-clean 'thing'." This truly hurt my wife and I. There was a big arguement about it, they were expecting I might get DF over this, so they started shunning us even before our civil marriage (practice makes perfect ya' know...)

    The Elders among my relatives never said a word to me, they speak thru their wives. Even if the Society is not "official" about this, we all know about the "un-written rules" they work well for them.

    Shamus, what you said about this tact being 'destructive' is true and it will ring the bell that signals their demise. My non-jw relatives and friends that were there, were all asking "Where are your sisters, cousins, aunts and children?" You could see the hatred of this religion well up inside of them, when they realized the "why"...

    Oh, yeah...the WTS days are numbered. They alienate their own everyday with this asinine shunning...it's the only way they know how to keep them 'in the box'.

  • DaCheech

    I was told by the C.O. at the meeting he has with Elders and MS when he comes over for his visit

    "If you go to a celebration/get together/wedding/dinner/etc..... and there is a disfellowshipped person

    in the midst, you must leave or risk your consequences".

    There is much more said by the direct orders, than printed on paper!

    Tell me something, which loyal dub would risk their position for what they

    might feel themselves? position including pioneering means the world to them

  • minimus

    Here's more-----In the other congregation that had the letter read, they followed it up with a talk. Evidently, a JW and his not yet JW fiance were supposed to be getting married in October. Many JWs were going. After the letter and talk, it was decided they would put their wedding on hold until both are JWs.

  • Soledad

    Whether it's true or not, I wouldn't put something like this past the JWs. Its sounds so typical of them.

    These people aren't able to decide on what kind of TOILET PAPER to use unless there was a local needs talk on the subject.

Share this