Questions From Readers Nov 15th 2009

by dozy 91 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  dozy

  The latest flip-flop (allbeit a minor one.)

  The "wise instruction" (as described by the society) given is that sisters now have to wear head coverings when interpreting sign language public talks.

  Differs from the previous instructions that sisters didn't need to do so.

  w02 7/15p.27 Questions From Readers

  Must Christian women wear a head covering when giving oral or sign-language translation of Bible discourses or when publicly reading the paragraphs from a Bible study aid that is being used at a congregation meeting? No. Sisters handling these duties are not presiding or teaching. Similarly, no head covering is required for sisters taking part in demonstrations, relating experiences, or handling student talks in the Theocratic Ministry School.

  w77 6/15p.28 Questions From Readers

  When a sister is interpreting for the deaf,would Paul’s counsel at 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 make it necessary for her to cover her head?

  Since the sister serving as interpreter would not be originating the thoughts expressed, she would not be teaching in the congregation so as to require a head covering. She would be just relaying information in another language, in this case the sign language.
• 

  Mary

  Um......I think you may have misread it hon....which is understandable. It's worded it kind of a strange way:

  Since the sister serving as interpreter would not be originating the thoughts expressed, she would not be teaching in the congregation so as to require a head covering.

  To avoid any confusion, they maybe should have worded it like this:

  Since the sister serving as interpreter would not be originating the thoughts expressed, she would not be teaching in the congregation and therefore, would not require a head covering.

  What a shame. I was soooo looking forward to demonstrating that as a female, I'm still only a second class citizen.
• 

  AllTimeJeff

  Mary, let sistas wear JW approved doilies on their head. Just every now and then, throw in a special sign language sign when certain JW dogma is mentioned. Like how JW's treat women with respect.....
• 

  isaacaustin

  Starting in 2010 they are going to require the 'brothers' to wear yamulkahs.
• 

  undercover

  I'm confused...

  Dozy, you quoted an 02 and a 77 QFR that says a headcovering is not required but you say the 09 QFR says it is required. Do you have the 09 quote?
• 

  gubberningbody

  The question is "Are they PROHIBITED from wearing head coverings at these times?"
• 

  sir82

  The more interesting question is, why?

  Not the boring contrived irrelevant "scriptural" reason they put in the Nov. 15 09 WT, but the real reason.

  Who on the GB got po'ed enough to call for another vote on this really rather inconsequential matter? And why was he so irked? What happened so that he felt the need to further lower the status of women by publically humiliating them? It's one thing to wear a head covering at a meeting for field service in front of a group consisting of 3 other "sisters", but quite another to have to wear one in front of 100 or 1000 or 5000 of your peers.

  And why are they wasting time worrying about head coverings? As if child abuse lawsuits, dwindling cash flow, increasing expenses, and bad publicity were minor problems.
• 

  Witness 007

  I new a older Sister who would put on a head covering when verbally abusing the Elders...true story!
• 

  blondie

  What struck me that sisters reading paragraphs at the congregation book study (when it was small groups) were said not to have to wear a headcovering. This has been a back and forth discussion among the elders in the congregations I attended. They were rather to use a brother who could barely read or the elder himself had to conduct and read at the same time. So in some groups I could read without a headcovering, in some a headcovering was required, and in others no sisters could ever read depending on the prevailing BOE or conductor opinion.

  The new thought in 2002 was that reading was not "teaching."
• 

  wobble

  The whole headcovering thing is the most frightful bollocks anyway.

  Why should what was said to some 1st centuary ladies apply literally today? (Also isn't Paul actually talking about a veil rather than just a covering ?)

  Also,if you read Pauls words in a certain way you can come away with the belief that a woman should NOT cover her head,her hair does that for her.

  Love

  Wobble