julio
Junior Member
Posts: 142
|
Post by julio on Nov 7, 2009 17:25:39 GMT -5
We were just told by a worker about the history of how those who have been married after a divorce are dealt with in Scotland.
He said that when the world leaders met in 1936, they decided that D&R people would be allowed to participate if their situation was from before finding this fellowship. And if they married again after professing, then they would not participate.
This worker stated that most of the world has kept with this practice. The exception was East coast USA and Canada have been merciful in extending fellowship to those folks.
BUT, he stated that Scotland decided to swing very conservative and absolutely not allow anyone in that situation to participate in meetings, regardless of when they married again (before or after finding Truth). I am hoping someone from there that knows the history in Scotland would let me know if that is their understanding, and if they are still holding this hardline policy?
Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by september on Nov 10, 2009 11:16:46 GMT -5
In Ireland the policy has been not to allow D&R people to participate, regardless of when they encountered "The Truth". There has been one curious exception: an Eastern European currently on his third outing (so I'm informed) who came from Scotland and has been allowed to continue to participate in Northern Ireland.
A former English worker who left the work, married and subsequently divorced met and married a woman form the Republic of Ireland. They are apparently permitted to participate in the meetings in England but absolutely forbidden in Ireland.
That said, I was told a number of years back that there was a woman attending the mission in England who was divorced and had a new boyfriend whom she planned to marry. The choice was put to her: either the boyfriend or your chance of salvation. I was told she was very upset and confused and so far as I know (though stand to be corrected) didn't return to the mission after that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2009 13:38:14 GMT -5
I was told she was very upset and confused and so far as I know (though stand to be corrected) didn't return to the mission after that. A very wise move if I may say so. Matt10
|
|
clarke
Junior Member
Posts: 53
|
Post by clarke on Nov 27, 2009 13:22:48 GMT -5
Does it depend, then, on the whim and fancy of the leaders? Doesn't seem like love or compassion or even common sense is involved. Did Jesus say there is not a sin so great, but God will forgive it? Or is that just a hymn writer that said that?
|
|
|
Post by Geoff on Dec 18, 2009 8:52:07 GMT -5
We were just told by a worker about the history of how those who have been married after a divorce are dealt with in Scotland. He said that when the world leaders met in 1936, they decided that D&R people would be allowed to participate if their situation was from before finding this fellowship. And if they married again after professing, then they would not participate. This worker stated that most of the world has kept with this practice. The exception was East coast USA and Canada have been merciful in extending fellowship to those folks. BUT, he stated that Scotland decided to swing very conservative and absolutely not allow anyone in that situation to participate in meetings, regardless of when they married again (before or after finding Truth). I am hoping someone from there that knows the history in Scotland would let me know if that is their understanding, and if they are still holding this hardline policy? Thank you. I know that currently there are people in just about all the combinations possible active in our fellowship. D&R, D&Rb4, D&R and 1st spouse dead. D&R and 1st spuse not dead. I've not heard of any specific pronouncements on this matter here, but as everywhere, there's loads of variety.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2009 10:06:08 GMT -5
"Active" needs to be defined, at least as far as Scotland goes. Such a word could and does describe being allowed to attend meetings, even conveying elderly friends to and from meetings, yet still being barred from participating in the meetings and emblems.
|
|
|
Post by Geoff on Dec 18, 2009 11:37:17 GMT -5
By "active" I meant fully participating, not only attending. For clarity's sake, that means speaking, praying, partaking of emblems.
I was surprised to learn of the background of some people (me being an immigrant here) in respect of B&R etc , but found that few people know the background of everyone.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2009 12:30:27 GMT -5
I would be keen to know of the background of individual cases in Scotland, but that is likely not practical. I DO know that the official line is NO marriage whatsoever after divorce. I was told that myself by one forthright worker. Any who do this are forbidden full participation. This is a matter that I have particular direct experience with in this country and I know what current workers said to me and to others close to me, as well as experiences, which back up fully what I have just stated.
However, I am aware that individual cases may be allowed, more through preferential treatment, favouritism or some other consideration, which flies against what workers told someone I know, i.e. "we have to treat eveyone alike in these circumstances."
I recall an elderly couple, the husband of which was D&R. They were not allowed to participate in meetings until his former wife died. Strange that. The death of his former wife wiped away his "sin," or exonerated him from guilt. I think they may even have went on to have a meeting in their home but I'm not sure.
However, as it turned out, the man had actually been D&R "twice." He had married as a young man and after a brief marriage had got divorced. It seems the original marriage was not known about, was overlooked, or perhaps the original wife had also died?
|
|
|
Post by anderson on Dec 18, 2009 13:50:29 GMT -5
Hmmm Makes you wonder if anything else they tell you is true, doesn't it?
When are sins forgiven then and which ones, if some sins are not going to be forgiven, or are the sins forgiven to a certain degree but not fully enough to warrant participation in the very cleansing that is offered in partaking of the emblems???
Where does full and free forgiveness kick in then? Who still believes in that?
|
|
|
Post by september on Dec 21, 2009 18:31:30 GMT -5
I know that currently there are people in just about all the combinations possible active in our fellowship. D&R, D&Rb4, D&R and 1st spouse dead. D&R and 1st spuse not dead. I've not heard of any specific pronouncements on this matter here, but as everywhere, there's loads of variety. No variety in Ireland with the sole exception of the rather curious Eastern European chap mentioned before. D&R is not acceptable. There are three men in Ireland whose wives left them within five years of marriage who are destined to remain single to their dying day, so long as they choose to remain in the fellowship. Tough? Maybe but they accept that's the way it is in Ireland.
|
|
|
Post by Geoff on Dec 23, 2009 6:41:44 GMT -5
Is it claimed that we are wrong in not promoting remarriage after divorce?
|
|
|
Post by september on Dec 23, 2009 7:17:15 GMT -5
No, not at all. I'm just saying that these men accept that is the way things are and so far as anyone knows, they have remained single and celibate since their wives left them. Presumably they have a conviction that D&R is not Biblical otherwise I should imagine remaining single and celibate just to still the tongues of the gossips would be difficult. Or maybe they have had enough of women and are simply glad to be shot of them?!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2009 12:09:24 GMT -5
The workers do not (or formerly did not) promote marriage period. Marriage, which Paul said is honourable in all things, was projected as someone choosing second best to going in the work. In many cases there was disappointment when a professing boy and girl got married. It was two potential candidates lost to the work.
Marrying after a divorce is not something to be promoted. Neither is is something to be condemned. It is something which requires understanding and mercy. There is not one of us righteous in God's eyes, no not one. In the light of Christ everyone of us is solely reliant upon God's mercy. This is the major factor ommited by those who vehemently oppose marriage following a divorce.
God will show his mercy to whom he will. It transcends all his laws. God will show mercy to those who show mercy. Worth taking note of. There are workers whose deeds have been much worse than someone who has undergone divorce who decides to remarry, yet their peers showed their own brand of mercy by sweeping things under the carpet and merely shifting them to another field or country.
|
|
|
Post by Geoff on Dec 23, 2009 16:03:19 GMT -5
"There is not one of us righteous in God's eyes, no not one."
No-one could disagree with this, but surely that doesn't cause us to accept ALL wrong as acceptable, and someone else's issue to deal with? As an issue we should not form an opinion on, as a matter to ignore as we ourselves are not worthy to judge? If that were so we'd live in total anarchy?
Our own uncleanness cannot make us blind to uncleanness or there would be no standards for life.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2009 17:21:14 GMT -5
I was of the opinion that we were discussing the controversial subject of marrying after a divorce which in most countries in the world is a legal and NOT wrong. "Thou Shalt Not Divorce," never mind "Thou Shalt Not Re-marry after Divorce" is not even covered by the ten commandments.
Again I state, whatever the circumstances in these events, they are a cause for understanding and mercy, much moreso than instances of persons breaking any of the ten commandments. Let those who have never been guilty of breaking any of the ten commandments be the first to judge those in D&R circumstances.
There are many in divorce or D&R circumstances who have been virtual innocent victims.
I have faith in this, that God's mercy covers any circumstance where he sees fit. I do not hold with the view that every occasion of D&R is automatically wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Geoff on Dec 24, 2009 2:56:24 GMT -5
"I do not hold with the view that every occasion of D&R is automatically wrong. "
I also hold this view. And I fellowship with some of them.
"There are many in divorce or D&R circumstances who have been virtual innocent victims."
and there have been many who were actual innocent victims. And I have fellowship with some of them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 24, 2009 5:10:31 GMT -5
I'm glad you hold these views Geoff. I also fellowship with innocent victims and having worn the moccasins myself I must admit it is not only something that I have great understanding and mercy for, but also I am very sensitive towards the issue. The trouble is, the workers do not have the experience of these type of circumstances and can be as cold as stone.
|
|
|
Post by anderson on Dec 26, 2009 18:04:52 GMT -5
Who is in charge in Scotland?
|
|
|
Post by ronhall on Dec 30, 2009 19:05:25 GMT -5
Who is in charge in Scotland? God?
|
|
|
Post by scotswoman on Dec 31, 2009 5:13:58 GMT -5
Bobby Kerr is in charge, I believe
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2009 5:17:45 GMT -5
That was the case the last I heard Scotswoman.
|
|
|
Post by scotswoman on Dec 31, 2009 7:12:15 GMT -5
Bobby Kerr and Evan McKay had my parents' funerals
|
|
|
Post by smithson on Dec 31, 2009 10:33:03 GMT -5
The right or wrongs can be understood and covered by mercy and compassion as Jesus expects. What is beyond belief is the disparity from place to place. Why is not mercy and compassion not a universal concept when applied to D&R?? If you robbed a bank could you expect forgiveness? If you disregarded the Love your neighbour commandment, or Honor your parents, why is an error of judgment, often committed in late teens, to be held against you for life unless someone dies? ?
|
|
Claire
Senior Member
Posts: 489
|
Post by Claire on Dec 31, 2009 14:43:47 GMT -5
The right or wrongs can be understood and covered by mercy and compassion as Jesus expects. What is beyond belief is the disparity from place to place. Why is not mercy and compassion not a universal concept when applied to D&R?? If you robbed a bank could you expect forgiveness? If you disregarded the Love your neighbour commandment, or Honor your parents, why is an error of judgment, often committed in late teens, to be held against you for life unless someone dies? ? A universal concept? That would (imo) require the workers in certain areas to say "we were wrong". Let me know if that happens and I'll have my camera trained to catch pink heavy creatures with four legs and curly tails flying through the sky. Doesn't seem the best idea to let a group of people develop who are unable / unwilling to say "we were wrong".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2009 15:20:04 GMT -5
Workers do admit they sometimes get things wrong, but we have to accept they were right nevertheless. It is not for them to right their wrongs because they are right even when they are wrong.
What is wrong is to regard them as being wrong when they are wrong because it is only right to regard them as still being right when they are wrong, which negates them having to right their wrongs because they are right when they are wrong which makes us wrong to regard them as being wrong when they are wrong.
|
|
Claire
Senior Member
Posts: 489
|
Post by Claire on Dec 31, 2009 15:27:13 GMT -5
thanks ram, i needed that ;D
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Dec 31, 2009 17:48:39 GMT -5
Workers do admit they sometimes get things wrong, but we have to accept they were right nevertheless. It is not for them to right their wrongs because they are right even when they are wrong. What is wrong is to regard them as being wrong when they are wrong because it is only right to regard them as still being right when they are wrong, which negates them having to right their wrongs because they are right when they are wrong which makes us wrong to regard them as being wrong when they are wrong. Wow! This was all so confusing - but now it's crystal clear. Thanks for clearing this up, ram.
|
|
|
Post by Geoff on Jan 1, 2010 9:58:27 GMT -5
"Workers do admit they sometimes get things wrong, but we have to accept they were right nevertheless. It is not for them to right their wrongs because they are right even when they are wrong.
What is wrong is to regard them as being wrong when they are wrong because it is only right to regard them as still being right when they are wrong, which negates them having to right their wrongs because they are right when they are wrong which makes us wrong to regard them as being wrong when they are wrong. "
Quite right (unless I'm wrong?)
But don't let all this imply that workers who are wrong never admit to being wrong, and correcting that wrong. It has happened.
|
|