Wednesday, June 20, 2012

Watchtower Ruins a Wedding

___

Ray and Violet Rasmussen were Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Spring of 1968 Violet confessed adultery to Ray and he forgave her.

Spring of 1969 Ray learned Violet had not confessed all her adultery. Ray divorced Violet.

Fall of 1969 Ray marries Pauline, also one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Spring of 1970 the Watchtower organization wrote a letter to Ray and Pauline’s congregation informing that Ray was not scripturally free to marry. Ray and Pauline were disfellowshipped for immorality and their lives were turned upside down as a result.[1]

Why did this happen?

At the time Watchtower held an unpublished policy that forgiveness of an act of confessed adultery was forgiveness for all adultery ever committed whether known or unknown to the innocent partner.[2]

Then comes 1981

The March 1, 1981 issue of The Watchtower published a policy effectively stating forgiveness of adultery was for known instances rather than known and unknown.[2]

So, as it turned out, Ray and Pauline were never immoral and had had their lives turned upside down over nothing more than the whim of the Watchtower religion's leaders.

Marvin Shilmer
______________
References

1. Watchtower Shunning – Deadly by Design

2. The existence of this policy was made apparent years later under pressure from an attorney representing Ray and Pauline who wrote the Watchtower organization and asked. Following is Watchtower's response to the attorney:

(click image to enlarge)


3. “But when the innocent mate brings himself or herself to the point emotionally where he or she can have sexual relations with the adulterous mate, it is to be assumed that the innocent mate extends unqualified forgiveness, and will not use the known unfaithfulness as a basis for getting a Scriptural divorce permitting remarriage.”—The Watchtower, March 1, 1981, p. 31.

___

14 comments:

Ryan Kent said...

If you notice, it says "according to policy," NOT "according to scripture."
Yet current policies are regarded with scriptural reference, even in legal matters. This is an awful practice that, if played right, could be demonstrated against the Society if this couple wanted reinstatement.

They acknowledge it's policy instead of Scripture that got the couple disfellowshipped. But it's only violation of scripture that can disfellowship.

Anonymous said...

if people stopped having adultery this wouldn't be an issue.

Anonymous said...

Yet another ridiculous act of Pharisaical legalism by a controlling organization that NEVER, EVER admits it is wrong.

The leaders of the WT clearly do not care about how they mess with other people's lives. And their mindless drones are insipid in their constant defending the indefinsible. For example, the comment by Anonymous above saying, "if people stopped having adultery this wouldn't be an issue."

While that is true, it completely ignores the facts. First, this "policy" of the WT was unscriptural; second, it was later changed; third, it messed up the life of the person that did NOT commit the adultery.

What a brainless, unthinking comment. WT Apologists will always defend the WT no matter how nonsensical their policies and teaching are. Then when they change they'll defend those changed teachings too.

Anonymous said...

Marvin.... When are you going to have a blog about "claiming your freedom"... The most bizarre, unheard of policy ever.

OPUS said...

Raymond Franz narrated similar cases in which absurd unscriptural policies were applied by the Goberning Body. I think that a solution to be applied in order to avoid future problems could be to create the following Watchtower policy: "Every Jehovah's Witness must read the two books of Raymond Franz every day".

Anonymous said...

the watchtower society they dont know the meaning of the word "apologise"

Anonymous said...

Would or did did the WTS write a letter to Ray and Pauline to apologize telling them they would be reinstated unconditionally if they will return?

Anonymous said...

Such emotional drivel.
These sad people will probably find fault with "why the chicken crossed the road".
Look hard enough and you will find fault with every thing in life, such as ... why people tie their shoelaces the way they do; why we use a spoon to eat our vege's. etc.

Get real. Talk to the real people. Talk to Jehovahs Witnesses when they knock on your door, not the Internet spooks.
Talk to them in person.
Talk to them in real.
Talk to them.
I do ... and they make real sense.

BSK said...

Formerly I would have attempted to justify my Witness beliefs on the assumption that the Governing Body were sincerely trying to follow the Scriptures. Yet it becomes sadly obvious that the Watchtower is all about the Watchtower and not about the Bible and certainly not about Jesus Christ. Over-emphasising Jehovah at the cost of "listen to him" that is Christ leaves the Witnesses back in the Jewish system of justice, which we see Jesus condemning and moving far away from. LOVE is missing. Those who have appeared before a Judicial Committee are always struck by the cold, heartless way of dealing with someone who, before entering the elders room, was viewed as a loving brother.

Anonymous said...

I would like to praise your spot on response. Why Marvin not engage with JW in person rather on the net? Most people will read on the net and conclude the way you want them to conclude... I still believe what the bible says, that towards the end the world will rudely ruled by the lucifer and his demons using people like you Marvin. All your blog is about JW mistakes, what about other religions??? You know very well that you being paid by them just to de-rail JW people. I'm not a JW don't mistake me but the wrong foundations other religions are based on left me wonder if you so claim to be helping people, then wh are you turning a blind eye on Hindu, Budasism and many other religion. I'm not sure whether you are thinking outside the box or inside the box! My advice to you is; take the box(Watchtower) away and think freely since you are not open-minded. How about you write a blog about the secret society(Satanism), surely your website you know that it will disappear in a minute since you are being funded by them. I know Jay-Z hates JW. I'm not shaken by all the things you wrote

Anonymous said...

Marvin said:
"The March 1, 1981 issue of The Watchtower published a policy effectively stating forgiveness of adultery was for known instances rather than known and unknown."

The 1981 WT said:
"...it is to be assumed that the innocent mate extends unqualified forgiveness...."

What do you think "UNQUALIFIED" forgiveness means?! You are blabbering about something that you obviously don't even understand, Marvin!

Try to roll over and go back to sleep.

Marvin Shilmer said...

Anonymous writes:

“What do you think "UNQUALIFIED" forgiveness means?”

According to the March 1, 1981 Watchtower the unqualified forgiveness is of the “known unfaithfulness”.

Marvin Shilmer

Anonymous said...

You need to read it again, Marvin:

3. “But when the innocent mate brings himself or herself to the point emotionally where he or she can have sexual relations with the adulterous mate, it is to be assumed that the innocent mate extends unqualified forgiveness....”

You seem Marvin, "unqualified" forgiveness means that the innocent mate forgives ALL past instances of adultery, which would include cases that were unknown also.

As I said before, Marvin, it's obvious that you don't understand what you are reading. I hope that you do now.

Don't take me wrong, there is plenty of things legitimately wrong with the Watchtower Society, and until they get all such doctrinal errors taken care of they will continue to be no better off than what Christendom is, being that an error is an error no matter who is committing the error.

Marvin Shilmer said...

Anonymous writes:

“You seem Marvin, "unqualified" forgiveness means that the innocent mate forgives ALL past instances of adultery, which would include cases that were unknown also.”

I suggest you do a better job of reading the material at issue (i.e., The Watchtower article of March 1, 1981, p. 31)

Forgiveness is, in this case, speaking of sins that are known. The article concludes with this statement:

“But once marriage intimacies are resumed, the Christian congregation must be consistent as the couple must be consistent, in viewing the past known “fornication” as no longer being a basis for dissolving the marriage.”

Hence Watchtower policy is that resumption of sexual intimacy is a line demarcating that past “known” fornication (adultery) is no longer a basis for dissolving the marriage bond. Please note this policy leaves a Witness free to chose dissolution of the marriage (divorce) on the scriptural ground of adultery if past adultery comes to light that was unknown at the time of forgiveness.

Marvin Shilmer