The Next Big Thing In WT World (page 7)

ThomasMore

Leisure suits - pure polyester

Welcome Obrien! Here is a 💕 love bomb for you!

Seriously, more changes on the way as WTC wraps the organization in shiny tin foil to stem the effects of the evil internet. Last week was a stern reminder not to listen to “apostates” online. Look away!!! Nothing to see there!

Then there are things that will NOT change like proper reporting on child sex abuse - even in Australia where they were grilled by the Royal Commission a few years ago. They still tell elders not to report confirmed cases.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-01-29/jehovahs-witnesses-not-reporting-all-child-sex-abuse-to-police-/103320582?fbclid=IwAR1eI8xdjK3LTttwG9wew8HJGTqzFGXxPXt3RCTvLGL2VVcQZZ5C5lMIzgU

And the thing we all wish they would change like admitting they don’t do charitable work despite having tax exempt charitable status in the countries they deal real estate.

My personal vote is for them to OK tattoos so that Geoffrey Jackson can sport one on the broadcast. My suggestion is a big one on the forehead that says ‘667’. Underneath a line that says “We are not the antichrist”.

There are a few changes they might consider like ending shunning, but half if them won’t speak to the other half so it’s hard to make progress toward that one.

Maybe trying to have a better record on extra-marital sex affairs. They could set the bar lower to have fewer than the world as a start.

But my favorite is to stop being so timid about asking for money. I only heard it mentioned 4 times at the last meeting.

i welcome your ideas!

blondie

WTS statements about slacks/pants for woman over the years

1984

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. And according to local custom and necessity, slacks may be the desired attire in very cold climates.

1975

During cold weather she likely could arrange to be exposed to the weather for shorter periods of time, or pause more frequently to warm herself. But in frigid climates, where everyone in the community wears clothing appropriate to the weather, such as slacks, surely it is proper for Christian women to do the same.

1972

So if a woman were to put on a worn-out pair of her husband’s trousers to do a job around the house or on the farm, she would not be going against the evident purpose of the law, namely, to prevent confusion of sexual identity and sexual abuses...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

1951

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.

Reporting not Supporting

Jeffro

Rattigan350:

After Jehoiakim, there was no sovereign ruler on Jehovah's throne until the 7 times ended then Jesus takes the throne. The year number is not important. What is important is that he did it.

The ‘seven times’, of course, was a plot device in a fictional story about Nebuchadnezzar and has nothing at all to do with ‘Jehovah’s throne’. But setting that ‘minor detail’ aside, it won’t be Jesus in line for the throne. Even if he weren’t long dead, he’s not eligible. Inclusion of Jeconiah (Jehoiachin, also called Coniah) in Matthew’s genealogy disqualifies Jesus from taking the throne.

Jeremiah 22:30:

This is what the Lord says: “Record this man as if childless, a man who will not prosper in his lifetime, for none of his offspring will prosper, none will sit on the throne of David or rule anymore in Judah.”

Matthew 1:12:

After the exile to Babylon: Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel, Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel,

Let the special pleading begin. 🤣

jhine

Sorry for asking what may have been asked before. The original post mentions women ( in US at least) being ALLOWED to wear trousers.

So that means that up until now trousers for women have been officially banned ?

When l have asked why women always wear trousers the answer has been that they choose to in order to honour Jehovah. It's always denied that they can't because it's not allowed.

Jan from Tam

TonusOH

Jan, women are expected to wear skirts to meetings and for any preaching work (door-to-door, Bible studies, etc). Anywhere else, they are free to wear pants. In my experience, most sisters wore skirts or dresses to any get-togethers with other JWs.

jhine

So are there 'consequences'to wearing trousers when they shouldn't ? I am trying to get a handle on how official this expectation is . JWs like to give the impression that it's purely a personal choice , not something that's mandatory.

Jan from Tam

DesirousOfChange

There are not really any consequences to a woman wearing trousers/pants beyond not likely to be allowed in the Ministry School (which almost does not exist any longer anyway). I'm in the Midwest USA and am well acquainted with an elder whose wife only wore "pant suits" (such as is not uncommon in corporate America -- see Hillary Clinton). He told fellow elders to keep their nose out of his family's business and left it at "she has reason that are none of YOUR business". Worked for him, but he was one of the Alpha Male elders.

TonusOH

Jan: So are there 'consequences'to wearing trousers when they shouldn't ?

I don't know how it would be handled today. When I was in, I don't think I ever saw a sister go to a meeting or door-to-door wearing pants. But a sister who did so would likely have been admonished by an elder, and I suppose they would not have allowed her to go door-to-door, although I don't think they would have asked her to leave a meeting. I am pretty sure that they would have given a talk from the podium or at least a short discussion of "decorum" in a future meeting, to make clear that it was not acceptable.

scholar

Jeffro

‘scholar’ is so pitifully wrong that the best he can do to ‘refute’ the information I’ve provided is to complain that the many problems with his dogma aren’t only ‘one line of evidence’ (which is just bizarre). He can never discuss specifics because he always gets backed into a corner, so he instead makes trite remarks about ‘pretty colours’ and false claims of plagiarism. His recent desperate attempts to plead ignorance about dating systems regarding the impossible solstice is particularly amusing.

---

If what you say is true with such information showing the many problems with 607 BCE then how is it that you are unable to provide only one line of evidence that refutes 607 BCE? Surely this should be a simple task for you to do!!

scholar JW

scholar

Phizzy

Of course we have proof, incontrovertible, irrefutable proof, that the 607-1914 Doctrine of the Org. is FALSE. Undoubtedly the most unarguable is what we get from the Babylonian Astronomical Tablets, the "Heavens"do not lie, and establish beyond argument and doubt the true dates !

"Scholar" therefore tells a blatant lie in the Post above where you provide your link. He strikes me as being of the same ilk as ultra Right Wing Republicans, and Right Wing Conservatives here in the U.K, deep down they know they are uttering untruths, but that is all they have, coupled with insults.

Truth and "Scholar" are completely estranged.

--

Now that you have been enlightened by Jeffro's website with all of its incontrovertible and irrefutable proof that 607 BCE is so wrong it should be now possible as you read the various blogs on the website to simple present at least one line of evidence that disproves 607 BCE. This is my challeng for you

The Next Big Thing In WT World

Share this