Posts by Axelspeed

37

Which Watchtower publications did you keep?

by Schnufti in

i'm currently cleaning up our bookcase and need to decide what goes into the trash.

i'll keep the watchtower books that are not available online anymore (e.g.

the brown "reasoning" book).

Axelspeed

One I'd like to have is the Aid book (already have the Insight books). I would probably like to have that one if anyone is getting rid of it.

37

Which Watchtower publications did you keep?

by Schnufti in

i'm currently cleaning up our bookcase and need to decide what goes into the trash.

i'll keep the watchtower books that are not available online anymore (e.g.

the brown "reasoning" book).

I dumped a lot but I also held on to a lot, especially the ones I felt had some significance. They are in storage, but the ones I can recall are proclaimers, commentary on James, the pink paradise book, reasoning book, both worshippers books (to show the changes), freedom in the sons of god, salvation at hand (I think) and lots of books of that same size from that era, my old elders manual (never turned it in), the revelation book and the old Babylon the Great book, the Triumph book. There are many more but can't recall off hand because they're in storage. I got rid of the ones I felt had little significance, but may in time wish I had them back. Also got rid of lots of bound volumes. I also still have my leather black bible I had when I left...just for the occasional funeral I may go to. I also kept anything having to do with blood. I only keep them just in case someone says we never said that, especially family. Every now and then I think about dumping it all.

16

Article: Public event in Laval to honour Jehovah's Witness who died after giving birth

by AndersonsInfo in

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/dupuis-memorial-jehovahs-witness-1.3857367.

public event in laval to honour jehovah's witness who died after giving birth.

éloïse dupuis refused emergency blood transfusion, now her aunt wants civil code amended to protect others.

Axelspeed

Thanks for this Barbara, and I hope it gets some attention to be able to help others. I lost my mom years ago in this way as a very young boy a few days after she gave birth to my younger sibling. I still remember being left in the car waiting outside the hospital (in those days that was not a big deal), and within a few days seeing her body in a coffin at a funeral.

78

Half of the cong was dancing last night

by StarTrekAngel in

so went to the meeting last night.

i had not been to one since before the holiday break (3 weeks ago).

besides, it was our first meeting in the new format.

Axelspeed

I get the idea that music should be fun, but come on; this idea has been crushed by the WT for decades.

I totally agree with this. When I first listened to it, didn't like it because it is so very different than any song I would expect to hear in a Kingdom Hall. After listening to it a few times its not so bad...for a mega church somewhere:) But still, it is so different than anything I grew up with. In fact, the sound brother would have been yanked to the back room and at the very least counseled strongly had this song been heard or in any way suggested it came from Brooklyn. In the JW-world I grew up in, it would be said that this song would not "fit the dignity" of the org, and would almost be akin to a brother wearing jeans to a meeting, or a sister wearing slacks.

I find it very difficult to believe that old-timers are not having a very hard time coming to grips with all of these fast and drastic changes. Because I know and grew up with a lot of them I am a little sad for them. They are losing their religion right before their eyes.

362

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

by wizzstick in

in short:- tight pants is no longer just a am3 hang up (or is that a hang up on the well hung?

)- brothers who have effeminate body language are flagged up- as are sisters with 'masculine' hair styles or dress- such dress is 'disturbing to the congregation'- the above must heed the (repeated) counsel from the elders...or they get stripped of the right to share on the ministry- however...this will not be revealed (announced) to the congregation.

wow.

Axelspeed

The ultimate sanction - withdrawing the right to go in field service - is unprecedented as far as I (and other elders who I've asked) can tell.

Wasn't that always the case for people considered to be in "poor standing"? Maybe it varied by congregation or circuit.

Simon, below is my understanding... I am copying it from a post I made in another thread so that I don't have to re-type.

"I have never heard of this policy before in my time as a JW, and so it's a first as far as I know. You could always be a publisher, and it was often the first step on the road to baptism for a new person. You could continue on as a publisher in an unbaptized state for awhile, and just be classified as an unbaptized publisher.

However, as a baptized witness JWs were always expected to always engage in some form of publishing or have a share in the ministry every month, even if only an hour a month. Even if a person was on judicial reproof or restrictions and couldn't comment or have parts in the meetings, they could (and were expected to) always preach. This was actually many times used as a gauge of their progress to full spiritual recovery.

Only disfellowshipped persons did not qualify for the ministry, so this to me is quasi putting these persons in a similar light... almost disfellowshiped-lite, or another form of judicial punishment."

362

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

by wizzstick in

in short:- tight pants is no longer just a am3 hang up (or is that a hang up on the well hung?

)- brothers who have effeminate body language are flagged up- as are sisters with 'masculine' hair styles or dress- such dress is 'disturbing to the congregation'- the above must heed the (repeated) counsel from the elders...or they get stripped of the right to share on the ministry- however...this will not be revealed (announced) to the congregation.

wow.

Axelspeed

The ultimate sanction - withdrawing the right to go in field service - is unprecedented as far as I (and other elders who I've asked) can tell.

I totally agree. Withdrawing the right to be a publisher is unprecedented to me and in the past has only been reserved for persons who were disfellowshipped. Witnessing is what defines the individual as a JW. This sanction is like a shadow judicial action that fits somewhere between a disfellowshipping and a marking...without even a judicial committee meeting or chance to appeal.

Also, I can't see how they can't follow this up with another letter at a later date for clarification. This is reminiscent of the confusion behind the "no oral sex" thing years ago.

362

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

by wizzstick in

in short:- tight pants is no longer just a am3 hang up (or is that a hang up on the well hung?

)- brothers who have effeminate body language are flagged up- as are sisters with 'masculine' hair styles or dress- such dress is 'disturbing to the congregation'- the above must heed the (repeated) counsel from the elders...or they get stripped of the right to share on the ministry- however...this will not be revealed (announced) to the congregation.

wow.

Axelspeed

The WTS. has always stressed uniformity in modesty regarding dress and appearance toward its members, as to appeal to the outside general public.

Kind of like a enforced and regulated dress code within a business environment.

I would normally agree with this, and do in general. In this case they kind of lose me when they start talking about "tight pants".

If they want total uniformity, then I say go full steam ahead with those blue and white uniforms recently posted for every JW, along with a visit to a WTS approved tailor for a personal fitting. This way you solve all tight pants and skirt length issues in one swoop. Not sure how you solve the overly effeminate body language of some of the brothers though.

To be fair the letter does emphasise the word extreme.

I've seen some pretty extreme effeminate body language by a few top tier, convention-talk-giving brothers in my time. If I had not known them in a JW setting and known their wife and kids....

just sayin

362

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

by wizzstick in

in short:- tight pants is no longer just a am3 hang up (or is that a hang up on the well hung?

)- brothers who have effeminate body language are flagged up- as are sisters with 'masculine' hair styles or dress- such dress is 'disturbing to the congregation'- the above must heed the (repeated) counsel from the elders...or they get stripped of the right to share on the ministry- however...this will not be revealed (announced) to the congregation.

wow.

Axelspeed

I get Simon’s point to a degree i.e. all organizations have a right to define their dress code and outline what they deem as appropriate for their organization, especially so as a religious entity.

However, we all know that this means something much more when it comes to JW control and is not just a benign directive when it comes to the culture of JWs. This is about behavior control on a disturbing level that I would go so far as to say belies a repressed and suppressed insecurity when it comes to the LBGT culture at large. Furthermore, there is nothing specific about this policy, only a nod and wink to act on what looks gay. This is very nebulous and hazy standard that will do nothing more than give license and a big stick to local elders to apply a very ambiguous standard to fit their own bents and leanings, and carry out grudges against people that may not personally like or who they perceive as not living up to their own personal standard of what manhood or womanhood means or looks like.

It is a little like the unwritten the standard I can remember from years ago that only white shirts should be worn by brothers giving talks from the platform, or that full suits and not blazers and slacks… ridiculous I know, but I do remember hearing such things when I was a kid a long time ago. Even now with the beard thing. This though smarts of something a little darker to me.

20

No longer qualifies to share in the ministry?

by StephaneLaliberte in

i heard that co's were provided with a talk outline in which people who dress and act too "gay" could eventually "no longer qualify to share in the ministry", should they not change the way they look!.

has anyone else ever heard of any other reason for which someone would be disqualified from the ministry?.

Axelspeed

I have never heard of this policy before in my time as a JW, and so it's a first as far as I know. You could always be a publisher, and it was often the first step on the road to baptism for a new person. You could continue on as a publisher in an unbaptized state for awhile, and just be classified as an unbaptized publisher.

However, as a baptized witness JWs were always expected to always engage in some form of publishing or have a share in the ministry every month, even if only an hour a month. Even if a person was on judicial reproof or restrictions and couldn't comment or have parts in the meetings, they could (and were expected to) always preach. This was actually many times used as a gauge of their progress to full spiritual recovery.

Only disfellowshipped persons did not qualify for the ministry, so this to me is quasi putting these persons in a similar light... almost disfellowshiped-lite, or another form of judicial punishment.

50

OMG JW Sea Org

by sherrie11 in

i found this picture and i just can't believe it?

.

http://www.jw-archive.org/post/130152768378/jw-booth-at-a-book-fair-in-brazil-photo-shared-by#.

Axelspeed

C'mon, can't you remember walking in public at a convention with one of those god awful "I'm in a cult" lapel cards on?

Lol, you have a point ...the lapel cards were the ultimate JW dork identifiers. Always couldn't wait to snatch them off after the assemblies and conventions, and never at restaurants after.