No 'Tight Pants' policy is now official - classed as 'disturbing'

by wizzstick 362 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Oubliette

  How does this new ruling change things? Those beliefs don't change.
  

  True the beliefs don't change, but the circumstances of someone either still being closeted or even openly gay, but non-sexually actively do.

  Prior to this, a homosexual man or woman could be in the congregation and exist with a more or less "don't ask, don't tell" kind of tolerance from the other congregation members. But now the elders not only have license to, but are in fact directed to actively confront such individuals about any behaviors that are perceived as "gender-blurring." This is a significant change in the practices, policies and relationships of individuals in the congregation.

  Also, this directive could add to the "witch-hunt" hit list individuals that may not even be homosexual, but who are just suspected of being so by overzealous elders.
  

  Won't anyone who is gay in the WTS always be feeling bad until it becomes unbearable and they leave?

  Probably, but so does pretty much everyone else that stays in the religion. It's well established that many more people would leave the religion if they weren't afraid of being shunned by their family and friends. This new directive targets a particular JW subgroup based solely on behaviors which prior to this would generally have been ignored. - 1 Corinthians 6:11
  

  Could forcing someone to make the decision earlier actually be better for them given there is no immediate outlook for any change in conservative christian beliefs about homosexuality

  This is possibly true, but ignores the fact that forcing someone to "wake up to TTATT" rarely works. Also, younger ones in particular might just not be emotionally or financially ready to leave the cult.

  This is one of the big problems I foresee here, it forces the issue and does so because the GB has for whatever reason decided that this is their latest cause.
  
• 

  Simon

  You really think 'manifest effeminate traits' is referring to fashion?

  Dictionary definition of fashion: a popular trend, especially in styles of dress and ornament or manners of behavior

  Some phrases they use:

  "Regarding conduct, dress and grooming"
  

  "effeminate characteristics and grooming habits"

  "hairstyle or type of dress"

  "dress and conduct ... and grooming"

  "dress in the so called metrosexual style"

  "extremes in dress and grooming"

  Yes, I think they are clearly referring to styles of dress, ornament and manners of behavior - the definition of "fashion"

  And not being heteronormative does not equal being gay.

  Duh.

  Likewise not being screaming gay (or whatever is acceptable) does not equal being heteronormative.
• 

  Simon

  The WTS can write pages of instructions when it wants to. But not this time. Which is bizarre, given their insistence over recent years to promote principles, not set hard and fast rules but rather encourage spiritual maturity to guide people.

  But this is internal instructions. I would not be surprised if the general communication via the Watchtower came out some time later. In fact, wouldn't it be strange to tell everyone publicly first and then send the specific "how to handle" instructions after the fact? They will always communicate to their middle-management first.

  I am surprised you make it sound so straight-forward Simon, when it rarely is. Remember this is not some club where the dress code is published at the door (other than being well arranged and modest). These instructions are verbal, only to the BoE and have no guidelines.

  I'm not suggesting it's easy but the choice seems rather clear-cut for those who it seems to be talking about most - those who are following a fashion.

  And while they have always talked about things like skirt lengths they have never, to my knowledge made specific measurements -(other than 'below the knee). They tend to talk about principles more than specifics with just enough to describe what people will recognize they are talking about.
• 

  Simon

  True the beliefs don't change, but the circumstances of someone either still being closeted or even openly gay, but non-sexually actively do.

  I am not sure how this would affect someone who is closeted. It would only affect those who were exhibiting "the extremes of fashion". As I've already said, I think anyone who is a closet gay in the WTS is already affected plenty.

  But now the elders not only have license to, but are in fact directed to actively confront such individuals about any behaviors that are perceived as "gender-blurring." This is a significant change in the practices, policies and relationships of individuals in the congregation.

  Also, this directive could add to the "witch-hunt" hit list individuals that may not even be homosexual, but who are just suspected of being so by overzealous elders.

  So one minute the elders run away with things and do things on their own, now you have the elders unwilling to do anything without the say-so of the WTS. Which is it? It seems like lots of "could" which sidesteps the issue that the document doesn't say any of what you describe ... so how can it be evidence of that behavior?

  This new directive targets a particular JW subgroup based solely on behaviors which prior to this would generally have been ignored

  Or maybe the letter is talking about the "new fashion trend" exactly as it describes so this behavior likely didn't exist before (at least not sufficiently to be addressed in this way).

  This is possibly true, but ignores the fact that forcing someone to "wake up to TTATT" rarely works. Also, younger ones in particular might just not be emotionally or financially ready to leave the cult.

  I don't think outside influence trying to wake people up to the truth often works but this kind of thing where the WTS does the waking up very often the trigger for people to leave.

  I don't know that anyone is ever really "emotionally ready" to leave - it's always going to be difficult. And financially? Aren't people better off without the burden of meetings, limits to education and career, request for donations and being put on to volunteer their time and energy for free?
• 

  Oubliette

  So one minute the elders run away with things and do things on their own, now you have the elders unwilling to do anything without the say-so of the WTS.

  I have no idea where this came from. I never said either of those things.

  Although I have enjoyed discussing and debating with you on other subjects, it is evident that it is pointless to discuss this one with you.
  
• 

  Simon

  If you can say that people can be restricted from field service because of the way they dress

  If you read the document, it doesn't actually say that.

  Although the dress would be the trigger it seems like the "blatant and deliberately ignoring repeated counsel and having dress and grooming disturbing to the congregation" would be the reason. That sounds to me as though it needs some amount of rebellion for it to kick in.

  That part to me seems to be about the brand image when they are witnessing coupled with them not wanting people seeming to stand up to the elders with nothing done about it.
• 

  ListlessWitness

  I really can't be arsed to put forward an intelligent line of reasoning (blame rum, besides many have tried and been ignored or quotes cherrypicked) but for the love of...whatever...Simon...you clearly don't give a shit about this issue so can't you do everyone a favour and stfu? I don’t comment much, but you have even managed to get on my miniscule mammaries with your refusal to recognise what the issue is. Peace out and let people who DO care have their say unhindered. Or not. Your forum. Whatevs.
• 

  DATA-DOG

  Let's see what happens. I don't see most Eldubs wanting to tackle this issue at all. Also, it would be rare for a dub to dress in the extreme manner described in the letter.

  I do know a hairstylist who had a sweet one-sided undercut. She looked great and I told her so. She was so happy to express herself. Then an Elder started telling people she wasn't doing well "in the truth" because of her hair style. So there are some assholes who start rumors based on appearances.

  I predict that Eldubs will start searching for signs and styles that could possibly, just maybe, be possible first steps toward possibly beginning to ponder the chance of eventually dressing in an extreme manner. That's what happens with "code red" type directives with room for interpretation.

  Dont forget...It's a cult!!! This is about control and profiling. Otherwise, this information from God would be on the 144,000 Club, and the official Website under the FAQ section. It's not, and I doubt you will ever see it in a magazine.

  DD
• 

  Simon

  I have no idea where this came from. I never said either of those things.

  In that post (and I think in others before it) you describe two different scenarios playing out that seem to be partly contradicting each other:

  First, the idea that the elders are now being instructed to go on a witch-hunt (instruction I can't find but others are eager to read into it)

  Second, that the elders could just go on a witch-hunt of their own making beyond what is in that document.

  I think you are arguing for the elders going on their own witch-hunt (which is quite possible) to bolster the idea that this would be inspired by the document but that would be a different issue entirely. I am saying that if you read the document and focus on what it actually says then it doesn't support that without lots of "could"s thrown in.

  They could do anything for any reason ... which surely makes any document not directing them to do that rather mute.

  For instance, if they send instructions round to say "skirts have to be at least knee length" and some elders in some congregation decides that means "all must be ankle length" then how convincing would it be to try and use that knee-length instruction document to prove the WTS was an ankle-length skirt-wearing cult?

  Although I have enjoyed discussing and debating with you on other subjects, it is evident that it is pointless to discuss this one with you.

  Likewise, I think you are determined to hear something different to what I have actually been trying to say.

  Peace out and let people who DO care have their say unhindered

  Not sure how anyone voicing their opinion on a matter prevents other people from voicing theirs. The idea of a discussion is to share viewpoints and opinions. I am simply saying what my thoughts are and trying to explain why.

  you clearly don't give a shit about this issue so can't you do everyone a favour and stfu

  If I didn't care about the issue, I wouldn't voice an opinion on it. I think it's important and important to get right otherwise you just hand the WTS ammunition to discredit many other (some more important) issues.

  I also think arguments are often refined and strengthened by a little fire, far more than everyone simply cheering. If we're going to make a case for something then thrashing out the arguments for and against is valuable and highlights possible weaknesses or objections that others may come up with. Better to have answers prepared in advance, no?
• 

  Oubliette

  you describe two different scenarios playing out that seem to be partly contradicting each other:

  The operative word here would be "seem."

  You have misunderstood both statements.

  I think you are determined to hear something different to what I have actually been trying to say.

  Me and just about everyone else on this particular thread.