by highdose 9 Replies latest jw friends
???? When i was in i wouldn't have obeyed that. But i'm sure they could find some scripture and twist it enough to back them up.
Seriously would there be a mass revolt? Or more frightening would we see sisters in head to toe in black shroud on the FS, telling people that the GB told them to wear it out of loving concern or some such nonsense?
Poll please?
The thing with WTS mind-control is that it has to be subtle and slow to gain control. One of the not-so-bad points about being a JW was that you could blend in quite a bit when you were not in full field recruiting mode. Even there, the uniform didn't stand out as whacky, just dressed up. They slowly brought about their demand to stay dressed up and wear the badges during summer conventions while at restaurants, but most JW's only obey that to some degree if they eat out where suits and dresses are fairly common. If they take the kids to fast food, they still change (mostly).
"Sisters" wear whatever the hell they want to wear to work or to shopping. Asking them to not wear slacks to the Kingdom Hall or out in recruiting work was plenty enough to ask of them. Asking them to wear something at all times when out and about would take them decades to implement and it seems pretty bizarre. Here's the only way it might come about: first, they insist that they wear head covering to all the meetings and recruiting, saying how it would more fully allow them to participate in them when the Bible said that a woman should not teach in the congregation. They would say it shows more respect. Only if they were able to do that successfully, would they attempt to get the women to wear a head covering "at all times." Then at least ten years later, they would push for a more Muslim style of dress only at the meetings. Perhaps, if they gave up field recruiting, they could push for it at all times. (Sooner or later, they might give up door-to-door recruiting.)
But I cannot imagine the ladies that gladly decide they don't need to blend in with the population and gladly do this. Muslims achieved this by never letting go of outdated control.
Black Sheep, they look like Ninjas! Scary.
I think the sisters would have to (grudgingly) agree to do this as they believe the FDS is directed by God. If God says wear them, then you have no other choice. I also think some would decide not to attend anymore.
As with any and all 'new light', there are those that wake up and those that conform.
The WTS would have to be more subtle, first of all they would require that the “sisters” look more like Exclusive Brethren women.
Agreed, the only way to pull it off would be incrementally.
Step one. They now, after decades of NOT requiring it, require sisters who interpret at meetings/assemblies to wear a head covering.
Step two. They could require all sisters to wear a head covering while preaching.
Step three comes once step two is ingrained. Head coverings all the time.
This would have to take years to implement completely.
That said, most people in the borg don't mind rules until they are affected personally. The only ones who gripe about the prayer-hugging rule are those who embrace during prayer, while those who never did don't see the big deal. Same here. The sisters already accustomed to wearing a hat or scarf on their head will have no problem wearing it on additional occasions. Those who don't, will have a harder time.
SLACKSWTS COUNSEL OF THE PAST
1951
*** w51 10/1 pp. 607-608 Questions From Readers ***
When Deuteronomy 22:5 says that a woman should not wear a man’s clothes, does it mean that women should not wear slacks?—J. P., Pennsylvania.Deuteronomy 22:5 (Da) reads: "There shall not be a man’s apparel on a woman, neither shall a man put on a woman’s clothing; for whoever doeth so is an abomination to Jehovah thy God." This text certainly was not recorded with the thought in mind of preventing modern women from wearing slacks. Men did not wear slacks or trousers when this was recorded, but what we would view as dresses today. In parts of the Orient, in fact, the men wore dresslike robes and the women wore pajamalike trousers of varying styles. So the wearing of slacks or even work pants, such as around a farm, is not forbidden by this text and is an individual matter. The women can use good judgment as to time and place and what is accepted as proper in the section where they reside. In some sections where winters are severe many women wear trousers or ski suits or some similar garment that covers and protects their legs. Such is not Scripturally wrong.
At Deuteronomy 22:5 the Bible is not dealing with fashions or fretting over styles, but apparently it is here forbidding persons of one sex from wearing the clothing of the opposite sex for purposes of deceit, to appear of the opposite sex, to hide the true facts. Men should not try to deceitfully dress like women to hide the fact that they are men, nor should women try to dress in men’s clothes to hide the fact that they are women. Being more specific, the Bible seems to be striking a blow against the sin of sodomy. It was a disgrace for a woman’s hair to be shorn like a man’s, and it was a dishonor for a man’s hair to be allowed to grow long like a woman’s. (1 Cor. 11:6, 14) The woman was not to appear masculine by having short hair like a man’s or by wearing clothes like a man’s. It might suggest to others that she was available for unnatural sex uses. Likewise the man. If he wore long hair like a woman’s or garbed himself in women’s clothes he would certainly appear effeminate and open to propositions from men for unnatural sex use. So it is this deeper meaning with sodomy in view, and not a mere switching of clothes in itself, that brings this practice under prohibition and makes it deserve the severe judgment: "Whoever doeth so is an abomination to Jehovah thy God.
1972
*** w72 11/1 p. 672 Questions From Readers ***The fact that Christians are not under the Mosaic law but are guided by its principles calls for them to use discernment, good judgment and to exercise their conscience. A Christian woman appreciates that whether it would be proper for her to wear slacks or pants depends upon factors other than her personal likes. She would not want to be the cause for stumbling others or bring reproach on the Christian congregation. Clothing that may not be looked on with disfavor if worn in the privacy of one’s home or at work may be objectionable if worn at Christian meetings and when publicly proclaiming God’s Word or carrying on other public activity. Attitudes, too, may differ from area to area
1984
*** w84 7/15 pp. 24-25 Deuteronomy Exhorts Us to Serve Jehovah With Heartfelt Joy ***22:5—In view of this prohibition, is it proper for a woman to wear slacks?
male and a woman like a female. For an Israelite to act contrary to this internal sense of propriety could have led to homosexuality. Although both men and women then wore robelike garments, there was a difference between the garb of males and that of females. Similarly, in some parts of the earth today, both men and women wear slacks, though the styles differ for each sex. The principle in this text would not rule out a Christian woman’s wearing slacks sometimes, as when working around the house or on a farm.
