Link: "Cults in our Midst"
- - -COMMENTS:- - -
"Well, for a time".....An open ended statement being a form of punishment devised by workers for anyone marrying an outsider.
In the recent years over in this corner of the world in the 2x2s, the amount of friends marrying outsiders is on the increase ~ also the numbers being divorced and remarrying are growing.
This, of course, means no speaking, praying or partaking of the emblems in fellowship meetings. ...."Well, for a time" the workers state.
In my parent's home where they have a meeting, one young lady is not allowed to speak because of marrying an outsider and soon her brother will be in the same situation because he is also marrying an outsider and has been told he is not to speak........"Well, for a time."
In this very same fellowship meeting, a few years ago, another young lady married an outsider and was forbidden to have any part in the meeting......."Well, for a time." After several months she said she felt 'pretty useless' and stopped attending meetings altogether.
Just a thought......Wonder how long it will be before we see fellowship meetings with the friends attending, coming together in fellowship each Sunday mornings/Wednesday nights with their bibles and hymn books all sitting around in silence and waiting for the meeting to finish .......which shouldn't take too long at the current rate of "non approved marriages." Actually, it is amazing, although they are not allowed to choose a hymn in the meeting, they are still allowed to sing them...at least.
However, after the meeting the silence is then broken amongst themselves.........with great conversations of current events before heading back home to face the week ahead and feeling "uplifted" having been to the fellowship meeting........."Well, for a time."
Posted on June 22, 2008
I'll say the 2x2 system makes people heartless and cold to everyone except other 2x2's.
_ _ _ _ _ _, I agree with you. My husband is dead inside,too. He was a good man who couldn't get out of 2x2 prison. I think he wanted to live a normal life but he couldn't because he only knew the 2x2 way. You said your husband admitted that he treated you like a 2x2 would. That's sad and just like my marriage.
I was treated like an outsider in my own house.......always put out of the loop with the professing parts of the family. They put pressure on my husband to be a true professing man. He felt guilty when he did things the 2x2's wouldn't like or things his professing family frowned on and they let him know he wasn't living a right kind of life.
For him, the 2x2 approval was the most important and he put the 2x2's first before his own wife and kids. He apologized to the 2x2's because of US and made excuses for US and lied about US because he saw things the way a 2x2 saw things, not the way things really were.
I think we embarassed him because we were normal.
How could a "professing man" stand to have a wife and kids who don't profess?
So we got ignored because it was easier that way.
He shut us out and lived his own life around us but not with us and we got blamed for it.
After all, a 2x2 couldn't be wrong so it had to be the other people, right?
I also think it made him kind of a 2x2 hero in a way, so maybe deep inside, he liked it. He was suffering for the truth.
He left the "friends" when he learned about the REAL beginning of the church but it was too late for him. He was too set in the 2x2 ways because, by then, they were HIS ways, too, and like your husband, he was dead inside.
His professing father died mad at him about leaving the "truth' and my husband acted like he had killed his dad with his own hands, he felt so guilty. He didn't profess again, but he never feels guilty about the things he does to his own kids and he didn't do anything to make it up to us. He forgives his parents, he forgives the "friends and workers," (they can't help it because they were all lied to!) but because we (his wife and kids) didn't give him the way of life and home he wanted when he was in the truth, we still got the same old treatment.
"You weren't there for me."
Bullshit!
Where was he for us?
I'll tell you where. He was at meeting or convention or crying to mom about his sad life without a professing wife at his side or feeling sorry for himself. It doesn't matter that the life we didn't go along with, was the 2x2 'way' that, now, he says is wrong and it doesn't matter that we stood up to the 2x2's for years and he didn't, even when they weren't very nice to him either.
He still thinks WE let HIM down, so it looks like once an outsider, always an outsider, doesn't it?
We can't measure up and we don't deserve the same second chance the 2x2's get so it's OK for us to go it alone!!!
You and I and a lot of us here are free, _ _ _ _ _, but look at what it cost us.
So excuse my gag, R_ _ _ _, when you defend anything about the 2x2's because there is nothing you or anybody else can say that changes the way they REALLY are. Yes, I know about my anger (or is it "bitterness?") and that I need to get help.
Save it, please!!!
_ _ _ _ _
Posted on the 2x2 List on Friday, March 8, 2002
Name Withheld
WOW!!!! I read your stories and all I can say is AMEN!!!!!
My husband is depressed, that is the FRUIT he gets for growing up in the "truth."
He is confused about what 'sin' is and isn't, and who he needs to forgive, and what worship really is....the list goes on and on and on........and the fruit he has from his many faithful years in the "truth," IS DEPRESSION!!!!
He thinks he needs to go to the doctor and get some drugs. *SIGH*
What he really needs is a new vision.
I wish I could give it to him, but he can only get that from God.
So we wait.
All of our children have left the meetings, and we wait together for dad to get his new vision. He HAS left meetings, and goes to a normal church, BUT he still sees everything with his "professing glasses" on.
He is looking through a glass darkly.
Reading that _ _ _ _ _ and her hubby are dating like teenagers, is VERY encouraging!! I hope SOMEDAY, my hubby and I can build a loving relationship. Maybe when God gives him a new vision, He will also give him better hearing???
Thanks for sharing, you REALLY made my day.........today!
Posted on the 2x2 List on Saturday, March 9, 2002
Name Withheld
Just a couple of comments:
My thoughts regarding divorce/remarriage:
I understand that marriage is meant to be a covenant made before God and man so if one partner of the union breaks the covenant, then the other partner is released from the covennat and free to remarry. Perhaps the "sticky" part is in identifying what constitutes a 'break' in the covenant. Infidelity and abuse of any kind are obvious breaks. When one promises to 'love, honor, respect, care for, etc.,' then how about lack of respect, putting other interests or goals ahead of one's spouse, etc., etc. I feel very strongly that it is up to the partner to determine if their covenant of marriage has been broken - - not clergy!!!
I remember having the sister workers in our home one evening. It was time to reprint the local address sheet of professing folks.
The older sister worker asked my husband and I if we felt a parenthesis should be placed around the name of a non-professing spouse. We discussed it at length, finally agreeing (gasp, gag & choke) that perhaps having a parenthesis around one's name would get that person to start thinking about their soul's 'lost' destination.
What a contrast to the address book from the church I attended for 5+ years in which the spouse's name is included to make him/her feel welcomed and included even if they don't attend the church with their spouse!!!
All for now,
Name Withheld
Posted on January 28th, 2000
Ah, yes!!! How well I remember being within the parenthesis on the address list. And I can confirm that it did indeed make me think. It did "NOT" make me think about my "LOST" destination, though, but rather about how lame I thought the 2x2's were!!!
:-)
Name Withheld
Posted on the 2x2 List on January 28th, 2000
The head worker here spoke very directly if people are going to have unprofessing partners (we're talking boyfriend/girlfriend here) that they would not be welcome in the fellowship. On the strength of that [**brother worker**] put out a lady who was about 30. You must understand that this lady had been a "PERFECT, PERFECT" 2x2 all her life.
(Mind you, she never took a judgmental attitude with anyone.) She was one of the most sunny-natured people I have ever known. While it may have done her the favor of a lifetime, it sure exposes the system for what it is.
[**Brother worker**] and the head worker here had a passionate dislike for each other. Sad thing is with most of the old workers here they get shoved off to other parts. Kind of like 'shoot the wounded' mentality.
-Darryl 5/10/99
I'm curious to know if a current 2x2 rule which is applied in Northern Ireland is also applied elsewhere.
If a professing 2x2 is dating an outsider, the workers ban the individual from partaking of the emblems. If they deem the relationship to be not serious, they allow the individual to pray, but not to give their testimony. If the relationship continues, they then ban the individual from praying in the meeting.
I'm not sure what the current punishment is for marrying an outsider, but 8 years ago when I married, my wife believed
that she had to stop taking the emblems for 1 year.
She did this voluntarily.I welcome your input on this matter.
best regards
Robert 9/97
When I was dating my wife ("outsider"), she went to Sunday meetings with me, gospel meetings with me. Never a hint from the workers that I should not participate in every way. I partook of emblems and testimony with no thought that anything should be modified. I do not know of anyone who has modified their taking part in all aspects of the Sunday service, nor do I know of anyone who has been asked to modify their taking part because of the "nonbelief" of a girlfirend/boyfriend/spouse. This has been the attitude of the workers in my experience in the Midwest US, and Western US from the 1950's through the 1990s. 9/97
If all will remember that what I write re: this subject is from my own experience and awareness of 2x2 group belief in the Pac N/W USA, and Northern Europe, AND from my birth in year 1943 to my excommunication in 1986, I will share a few things along the lines of which your post solicited information.
Growing up, I was taught to even be close friends with an "outsider" was showing a lack of understanding of why Paul asked "what communion does light have with darkness?" (2 Cor 6:14). I was unable to either make or even have
"friends" who were more than "acquaintances" because of this indoctrination resulting from pseudo-Christian judgment of others who also believed in Jesus and God.
Thus, for me to "date" an "OUTSIDER" was OUT of the question at any time while I was growing up, or in school. For me, I did some agonized looking at some pretty nice school mates throughout HS, and even on into college, and I DID develop some "temporary" friends, male and female, while I was in the Army. I actually did date a couple of the gals who's company I enjoyed.
I KNEW, however, nothing serious could be allowed to develop, and still have 2x2 approval.
From indoctrination, and observation of some who were so sentenced, I knew the 2x2 religion taught that a "standard" was to be kept. So I KNEW if ANYONE married a divorced person, or was divorced themselves and remarried,
they were forbidden any part in the meetings, though they WERE allowed to attend the meetings.
Later, Tharold Sylvester began an "enforcement" policy upon marriage to outsiders, which he obviously discovered in another place, and took a liking to for "his area of responsibility" (translate that "under HIS control!")
Then he began forbidding people to attend meetings for specific periods of time because they could NOT preserve their marriage relationships.
Also, it became policy that if fornication could be proven by pregnancy prior to marriage, both parties were forbidden any part in the meetings for a non pre-determined period of time--usually until it was lifted (if ever) by the sentencing overseeing worker.
In each such occasion some verse in the Bible would be given as basis for the decision, and was NEVER subject to appeal, UNLESS the person being judged happened to have a highly placed relative in the 2x2 ministry and/or a financially STRONG family. Exceptions were then often made.
Also, I knew many variations also occurred. How they were dealt with was always lumped into "diversities of administration". Any deviation from area to area was ALWAYS justified in such a manner.
I know of one case where a girl of 15 and a half, (going on 28) ran off and got married in a State where 15 and a half year old marriages were legal at the time, to a 21 year old....both had been going to meetings all their lives. They lived together as man and wife for a short period of time. The girl's family had wealth, AND highly placed worker/family relations. The young man's family was judged entirely "UNSUITABLE" coming from an "inferior saint" background.
The marriage was "annulled", The two were forbidden to see each other, and a number of years later both married other mates.
I know of one case from eastern Canada, where a minority man married the "white" daughter of a church Elder. Supposedly, the restrictions on finding mates inside the group made this precedent intolerable for the minority women, who appealed to workers, asking what they were going to do, if inter-racial marriages between minority men and "white" women were going to be allowed.
Since the unmarried women were "discouraged" from finding husbands from among the "heathen" outsiders, this became a big issue, and the young married couple who were obviously in love were banished from their home area. I met them at a convention in B.C. while I was in the work, and heard their entire account from them, NOT from others. I felt very sad upon hearing it, and feeling their anguish. Being only about 26 at the time, there was little I could do....or say.
In Northern Europe, a young man I knew well, and continue to love as a brother to this day, and his girlfriend, (who have been married for the 26 years since) committed fornication, provable by her pregnancy. She was NOT going to meetings, the young man was "professing", While allowed to come to meetings he was forbidden any part in the services, Only upon the sentencing workers death bed several years later, was the young man's sentence lifted.
Few of these "standards" are consistent from country to country, or even from area to area within a country, if there are different "overseers" involved. Further, if a change in overseers occurred the case might be appealed. In such cases, sometimes previous sentence was lifted, other times even harsher sentence was proclaimed.
From this first hand knowledge of mine while I was in "the work" and for these reasons, I believe 2x2 rules governing such situations to be as other 2x2 rules -- inconsistent and completely arbitrary. I believe them to be enforced equally inconsistently and arbitrarily depending upon completely "personal feelings" of the one(s) sitting in "judgment" together with social and economic considerations.
With kind regards and Christian love,
Dennis. 9/97
As Dennis has already said, the punishments are wide and varied, some receiving no punishment at all, others being harassed for years for their actions.
In my own case, I was dating an outsider for 3 years before I left the 2x2s. I was not baptized, so the emblems were not an issue. Nobody ever said anything about praying/giving testimony, though I voluntarily stopped taking part some months before I left, no longer believing what the 2x2s did. The workers tend to leave things til the eleventh hour -
protesting only when a wedding is announced in many cases.
A friend of mine (professing) was seeing a boy who had also grown up in the 2x2s, but had not professed. The couple's families both went back several generations in the way. The workers disapproved, but waited until 3 weeks before the actual wedding date to suddenly inform my friend that she could not take part in meetings anymore if the wedding went ahead. She was ordered to cancel or postpone the wedding because of the non-professing status of her husband. She refused, so her parents were ordered not to attend. They did attend, I think still hurting from when they had complied to this same order several years earlier with an older daughter under similar circumstances.
The couple, who married a few years ago now, have since decided not to attend any meetings.
Another lady I know came into the 2x2s as an adult, and after a few years was courted by and married an outsider. As far as I know, a blind eye seemed to be turned to this situation, and she is still happily attending meetings by herself with her children while her husband stays home. If any form of punishment was enforced in this case, I am not aware of it.
A relative of mine married an outsider (where the workers pulled the same trick, trying to cancel the wedding a few weeks before), and was sentenced to a punishment of one year of non-participation in the meetings, though attendance was allowed.
Robert, the "sentences" I have seen appear to be subject to the nearest worker. One thing is common - there is no court of appeal.
Love,
Elizabeth.
9/97
When I decided to marry outside, the workers came to talk to me. You know what I did. I sat there and let them talk. I knew that no matter what I would say would be wrong and they were right. It must be wonderful to be so un-flawed. My soul agonized over getting involved with someone on the outside. I felt very responsible for my boyfriends soul. It almost broke us up. I must say that the need for a companion and someone to love was great. Living alone is not all it is cracked up to be. Especially if there are a shortage of single professing men.
The straw that broke the camels back was how they viewed my boyfriend and how they talked about him. Also what they felt was the ideal husband. I was amazed by what they said and a little hot under the collar. Jesus wanted all to be saved and if this is supposedly the crux of the Truth, why didn't they stretch out their arms to him. He just didn't fit into that package of the perfect husband. I have never understood this.
Then just to top it off, I talked to a daughter of one of the Elders and she said, "Do you think that when I married that the workers or anyone else talked to me? No they didn't. I was ____________'s daughter." I thought, so it does matter who you are. I thought I left clicks behind in High School. Guess not.
There are definitely favorites and rules for them versus rules for the rest.
Praise to Jesus that we are all the same in His eyes and that we can attain the same eternal life. Every knee shall bow and every tongue confess His name. Not just some but all.
Peggy
9/97
Once upon a time, about 1982-91, Leslie White was in our home. He was putting more than a little pressure on us (for what, we did not know at the time.) In that process I asked him about young people and "professing" and "dating" as we knew of a nice young lady in our area who was dating an "outsider" although not very seriously.
We sure learned something from him that night. Leslie told us of one of the many "regional differences." (And as time passed we learned more of these "regional differences.")
He said, "Back East, we did not allow a boy or girl who was keeping company with an outsider to take part in meeting." Then he said, "But since this has not been done here in the past, I will not enforce it here in Iowa."
It was statements and situations like this that made me cringe when the oft repeated phrase of self praise was made that "we are so fortunate to be in God's way and it is the same all over the world!"
So, _____, as you observed, this was NOT a rule enforced in the Midwest (at least Iowa) but just to the east of us. God had different rules - - - - - or did He? I think not! Rather it seemed to us that the rules were made up as they went along!
How sad to have to admit to being so blind as we were. BUT, how wonderful to have the blinders off and now seeing Jesus Christ, "my Lord, my God," as our living hope for eternal life with Him.
9/97
Larry Lindemann
Many thanks for your detailed responses. In my opinion, it is useful to illuminate the differences in rules, sentences, etc.
which are applied in the "unchanging true way". Perhaps, if workers were to realise that their potentially devastating decisions in such matters will be scrutinised on a world-wide basis, they will adopt a more enlightened approach. It is interesting to note that the outsiders in such relationships are generally unaware of the threats to the partner, especially if the individual is showing interest in the meetings. Exposure of these threats as widely as possible should be encouraged.
In my own case, I was unaware that my wife felt obliged not to take the bread and wine after our marriage.
The following is a transcript of a conversation I had in November 1994 with Tommy Gamble and Bertie Anderson (Irish overseer and deputy) regarding this matter:
I asked why my wife was not given the sacraments for 1 year after her marriage, as it gave me the impression that the workers believed that my wife had 'polluted' herself by marrying me. I felt insulted by this inference.
Bertie Anderson replied that they did not approve of converts marrying individuals who were not 'in the Lord'.
I responded that I resented Bertie's judgment of me, and pointed out that Bertie knew nothing of my relationship with
the Lord or my moral standards, which I knew to be higher than many of the converts.
Bertie retracted his statement, and rephrased it to say that marriage to someone who is 'not in the fellowship' is not approved.
Robert
9/97
Yes, dating with outsiders is seen as a bad thing. But I feel the workers do have a point. Scripture clearly says that it is not a good thing for believers and unbelievers to be yoked together.
I am not making a judgment on this or saying it is a commandment (which would be against the Holy Spirit), but it is certainly a Biblical principle, and we have to consider this in light of marriage.
When David and I were dating, we were very aware of our religious differences. And we knew there could be no future for us together if our beliefs and priorities in life were not resolved. Our home and marriage would have a division before we even said "I do".
I think the workers do have an obligation as shepherds to point out that a marriage between a believer and non-believer will be a problem. In the end, yes, the decision is up to the couple, but the workers would be negligent to turn a blind eye to having their members marry unbelievers.
The main problem is that they (workers) tend to keep their silence for up to even years until a wedding is announced, and then step in to try to put a halt to things. This makes huge messes and puts very unfair pressure on the couple who had not had this discussed with them before.
Punishments are handed out instead of issues being resolved earlier in the piece. I think this is partly caused by workers being quite happy to have outsiders come along to meetings, even if they are dating one of the believers. They are happy up to the point of a marriage being announced before the outsider has "decided". The issues of believers and unbelievers being yoked is ignored until the horse has bolted, so to speak.
When David and I were seeing each other, David's father was particularly concerned from the start about what would happen in the long term if our relationship were to become "more permanent". Were we aware of the consequences of marriage where the partners have different beliefs? Were we prepared to look at this seriously for ourselves? What steps were we taking to work things out before we wanted to marry? Does a Christian have an obligation to look for a believing partner? What will happen when there are children? Which parent will have the right of way in choosing which church they will attend/with which rules they will be brought up?
I do not have the answers as to how exactly a pastor should act in these circumstances, but I think we need to be a little aware here of workers genuinely concerned about believers and unbelievers being unequally yoked. Their inconsistencies and "punishments" depending on which families are involved is a symptom of other deep-rooted problems and abuse of power.
I do not meant offend ANYONE here, (Honest!), but is easy for all of us to be offended at times when we want to ignore certain Biblical principles and think what we are doing is right. In some instances blaming workers for their interference/bad handling is a justification for only accusing them while ignoring the substance of what they said.
Please don't throw me in the briar bush!
Love,
Elizabeth Coleman
9/97
You stated, "I think we need to be a little aware here of workers genuinely concerned about believers and unbelievers being unequally yoked."
The base question is what/who is a "believer" and who/what is an "unbeliever?" It has been my experience that a "believer" in the 2x2 fellowship is one who "believes" in the system of 2 and 2 ministry, meetings in the home and conventions and special meetings as a way of salvation. The 2 and 2 fellowship is one in which the "believers" have faith and trust in that system.
The workers are concerned about a professing person being unequally yoked with an unprofessing person. They are concerned with someone who is *not* a "believer" in their system marrying someone who *is* a believer in their system. This makes all the difference in this discussion.
I'll try another statement. I think the basic attempt of the workers in such matters is to keep the maximum number "in" and keep the numbers up. This is not to impugn their integrity. I feel that many have wrongly believed that their "way" was the thing to believe in for salvation. Their sincerity does not make it right.
9/97
Larry L
A large number of people from my current congregation have married partners from a variety of other denominations (Baptist, Anglican, Presbyterian). We do not have a problem with this, it is Jesus as Saviour that matters! The couple then decide which church they will choose for their place of worship, that is THEIR decision, and theirs alone. Some have gone with their partner to their church, some have brought their partner here.
The big difference is of course, is that Christians from different denominations recognise other Christians who have their faith wholly in Christ, and are not dependent on "ONE TRUE WAY".
9/97 Elizabeth
I have never actually SEEN anyone in the group be told not to take part because of dating an outsider, though I believe there is at least one person on the list who has said they were basically excommunicated over just such an "offense." I DO know, however, that my sister was VERY concerned that such "discipline" might take place with her kids. She was bracing herself for it and trying to figure out what her response would be. She believed it was a real threat because she had apparently heard many stories of such a thing happening in their area in recent times... this was Ohio in the mid-
80's. (Both of her girls did date and marry "outsiders"... there was never any "visit" or "discipline" administered.)
[I agree with Elizabeth, that the Bible DOES say a Christian should NOT be unequally yoked with an unbeliever. I also agree with Larry, that that scripture refers to believers in JESUS CHRIST, not believers in a METHOD/SYSTEM. Part of the problem, though, is... that scripture is never taught in the group, as far as I can remember.
Has anyone else ever heard it preached?? So... along comes this problem "minutes" before a wedding (or sometimes even AFTER the wedding) with only a vague idea and no specific teaching prior to that time.]
Connie J
9/97
As far as dating outsiders goes, I personally don't have a lot of experience with this. I've known of many others who did & situations that came up as a result. What I found was that pressure would be put on the person who was professing to stop dating this other person, so the one who wasn't professing would generally be pressured into professing. The motive wasn't what it should have been but apparently the workers weren't too concerned about that.
Most of these cases I'm thinking about were people who went to mtg. but in the case of someone dating an outsider I've seen the person who did profess, stop when pressure was put on them.
Joetta 9/97
The policy in New South Wales is an automatic 12 month ban on a person speaking/taking emblems in meetings if they
marry an "outsider". This has been challenged by a number in recent years and in some cases the workers have backed
down. I know of two cases where the father of the women involved challenged the workers and they admitted there was no scriptural backing but it was their policy. However, the workers have indicated here on a number of occasions that they don't necessarily need scriptural backing for taking a particular stance.
I've no doubt problems can result, but the problem I have with the worker's policy is their automatic assumption that
anyone not in our fellowship is not a Christian.
9/97
All of my siblings dated outsiders and although my parents weren't too keen on it I don't remember it being absolutely forbidden. Don't remember ever discussing the subject with a worker but I wasn't the only teen doing it. (Can remember
several who brought non-professing 'dates' to gospel meetings and I did it myself once and remember no fall-out. One or two of those kids eventually professed).
Though my three older siblings all dated outside they all eventually married 2x2's.
Two of those three marriages ended in divorce and put all involved through hell.
I don't remember my parents objecting when I dated outsiders but I didn't date much. Also my father was not professing (though his mother did) so they really couldn't have said much. Dating outsiders probably helped me exit, because it meant I had friends and supporters and felt comfortable in 'the world.’
Incidentally the non-professing girls I dated were no less upstanding than the professing girls I dated and they were MUCH less concerned about the fact that I was relatively penniless. Even when I was still quite actively professing it was a lot easier for me to get non-professing dates.
Take care,
Bob McPhail
As a teenager, some 20 years ago, we called outsiders 'forbidden fruit', as were people who attended meeting but weren't professing. Believe me, dates who were acceptable in KY back then were slim pickins!! I did date a couple of guys from school who weren't professing.
Mom wasn't crazy about it, but she allowed it. I only dated one guy who professed. When I did get married it was to someone who was/is an outsider.
9/97 Mona
I couldn't help but respond to your post. We had first-hand experience at how New England treats the issue of dating outsiders. Personally, when I was that age, that would have been the worst sin imaginable. I never really felt that way, but my parents would have had a nervous breakdown had I tried it! Back when we lived in *********** a young officer began coming to gospel meetings. (A former girlfriend of his from ******** who was professing told the workers about him, and they invited him.) The nearest fellowship meeting to the base in ****** where **** was stationed was in our home. We had young guys coming and going all the time, and so "adopted" **** as well. He came to every gospel meeting he possibly could, even when he was exhausted after a 24-hour duty. Came to many Sunday morning meetings, too, whenever his schedule would allow him. He was a lot of fun, and all the young ones in our meeting thought the world of him. Meanwhile, he and *******, then 17, began to be VERY good friends. He waited until she was 18, then began officially dating her.
After they had been dating a few months, **** (the head worker in *****) spoke to us and to ****** about it. She said that if they ever got "serious," and **** was still not professing, that ****** would be asked to not take part. I would call this a threat now, although at the time I didn't think of it that way. The very thought of ****** being asked not to take part was too awful to think about, and I assured myself this would never happen - that ***** was not likely to get "serious" for a long time. (He was a confirmed bachelor - 28 years old.) Well, not quite a year later, **** took us all by surprise (himself included, I think!) and asked ******* to marry him!
Remembering the worker's earlier threat, ****** couldn't bear the thought of being TOLD not to take part (which was probably how your wife felt, too), so she also voluntarily stopped - which devastated not only her fiancee (who she had never told about the threat), but the rest of our meeting, as well. She always had a very helpful testimony, and we had a lot of young folks in our meeting. She told them the reason, of course, and they tried to accept it, but couldn't really understand WHY, especially since **** had shown such an interest in the meetings. This caused a lot of pain to all involved. We as her parents tried to help folks understand - when we didn't really, ourselves.Thank God for deliverance from such ridiculous bigotry! As far as the emblems are concerned, nothing was said about them, so ****** continued to take them. A year after their wedding, she was told by the overseer that she could begin taking part again. Apparently, her time of "penance" was over!This seems to be the procedure on the east coast. Obviously, from the posts, other areas treat this situation differently. We knew that at the time, too, which made it all the harder to accept. In some areas, nothing is done or said. In fact, one young man from Texas told me if that had happened to his sister, his brother-in-law wouldn't be professing today.
Strange way to operate, especially when you'd think they would want to lure **** in, not turn him away! Which is precisely what happened. He told ****** (his wife by this time) later than he had been on the verge of professing, but that just turned him off.
9/97
Well, as with most of the topics we’ve discussed on the List there is such a variety of opinions and experiences. I wonder if this could be because of ‘interpretation!’
Kind of hard to interpret unwritten rules!
9/97 Sandi
