The new rules allow for people who want to keep dressing the way they’ve always done. Many JWs will choose to do so. I don’t think it should be such a problem from that point of view.
Will recent dress-code changes affect the WTS negatively?
by Wonderment 32 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
-
NotFormer
I'm somewhat surprised that slacks doesn't mean anything in the UK. Here in Australia we usually follow a lot of Britishisms and slacks have always meant women's trousers over here (at least in my lifetime). Must be one of those times we followed the American pattern.
-
DesirousOfChange
Whenever the WT changes anything, always look for the smoking gun . . .
. . . . . AND FOLLOW THE MONEY!
Nothing motivates their changes in policy like the risk of losing money!
-
careful
For SBF,
I underline how odd it is to hear Sanderson repeatedly refer to “slacks” as if we in the UK are supposed to know what he’s talking about. Personally I’d never heard the word before this.
Off the net: 'The word “slacks” did not just appear out of the blue. It comes from an old Saxon term (‘slak’) used to describe things that were not tight, such as the loose end of a rope or a sail. ‘Slak’ is exactly what menswear ‘slacks’ really are: pants that are not too tight.'
So it's a British term, at least in its etymology. More importantly, likely Sanderson, or better, his speech writer, wanted to stress that tights pants on women are out.
See the point now?
-
Vidiot
Ron W. - “…My aged family are desperately trying to find ways to convince themselves to be faithful and loyal to these new dress codes but are seriously struggling.”
slimboyfat - “The new rules allow for people who want to keep dressing the way they’ve always done. Many JWs will choose to do so. I don’t think it should be such a problem from that point of view.”
Problem is, after a lifetime hearing everything from WTHQ as marching orders, the prospect of anything being genuinely optional is hard for them to wrap their heads around. -
NotFormer
Vidiot: "Problem is, after a lifetime hearing everything from WTHQ as marching orders, the prospect of anything being genuinely optional is hard for them to wrap their heads around."
After decades in an organisation where many messages are coded to mean something other than what it would mean in plain English, eg. "conscience issue", the R&F JWs are probably trying to find the hidden code: "What are they actually commanding us to do here?"
-
Vidiot
NotFormer - “…R&F JWs are probably trying to find the hidden code: ‘What are they actually commanding us to do here?’…”
Tell them “nothing”, sit back, and watch the confusion. 😏
I’m actually reminded of when they started discussing blood fractions; specifically advising to inform your doctor of your choices …and a lot of folks did indeed try to “decode” the instructions.
One old loyalist biddy said that she still wouldn’t accept anything, only to be told “don’t tell us, tell your doctor”.
Viewing almost everything as some kind of litmus test and feeling compelled to broadcast all your personal business to everyone around you must be exhausting AF. 😵💫
-
Vidiot
One old standby in particular that the Org used for for years was the expression “we do not recommend/advise you to…” (paraphrasing, but not much).
…which was overwhelmingly understood by the R&F as “we recommend/advise you not to”…
…whereas technically (in terms of grammar), it was actually a much more neutral turn of phrase, closer to “we neither recommend nor forbid you to…”
It took me years to figure that out.
-
Vidiot
One thing that is satisfying about easing up on the dress code…
…the judgmental Karens at the Hall will have considerably less to work with.
😏