Posts by Axelspeed

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.

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

Is this really for real?? When I first joined this forum some years ago I predicted in a post that I probably would not recognize the religion in 15 years. It seems I was right. My anger and resentment are now almost turning into embarrassment and pity for current JWs and embarrassment that I was ever raised in this cult. Even then, I can't see myself ever standing in front of a cart dressed like that.

Not to say that it was ever sane, but I truly do not recognize this religion anymore.

14

Part 1 Video UP Geoffrey Jacksons questioning at the Australia Commission

by Watchtower-Free in

1st half to nights video .

higher quality later.

http://youtu.be/quud_f1jr7e .

Axelspeed

Just got in and totally missed this live...really appreciate you having this up so quickly, thanks!

16

Would this be any use to the Royal Commission?

by freddo in

i believe this shows how the org.

doesn't want to be held accountable to secular legal authorities.. in the 1991 green elders handbook (used between 1991 and 2010) there is a blank page (page 143) and at one elders school we were instructed to write six expressions that "should not be used on s77 + s79 forms (df and da forms)".. 1) anything alluding to or naming one of the society's legal advisers.. 2) any mention of the legal desk.. 3) any comments referring to direction from the society.. 4) any comments mentioning anyone other than the committee itself as a possible influence in the decision reached.. 5) any comment that might suggest someone with a critical eye that the committee did not reach its decision on its own but instead somehow yielded to the influence of an outside party.. 6) any comments indicating the elders mishandled the case or committed any error in the investigation or the judicial committee process.. i have in my possession two elders handbooks with these exact words written in each in different handwriting.

.

Axelspeed

sir82: Wouldn't have been easier to just print off a piece of paper for each elder?

Lol. I remember that meeting vividly as I had just been recently appointed elder and getting the spanking brand new book. As I was writing those phrases (And they slowly repeated them word for word just as at your meeting) I remember thinking, "WTH, isn't this like ...a brand new book?? Why am I writing so much on blank pages when they could have just printed it in?? And what's with the extra wide margins?" But even as I wrote it, deep inside I knew something didn't feel right.

It's hard to believe I was ever such a sheep. Ugh!

67

My Issue: How To Step Down As A MS Without Getting Noticed

by JW_Rogue in

so that other thread was fun but now i need some help with something.

i was born in the truth most of my family is in.

although they aren't outwardly super spiritual i doubt any of them would ever leave.

Axelspeed

Not sure how long you are in the process of trying to step down, but here's my exp:

I was constantly being used, sometimes multiple parts in one night. I was also the school overseer and a bs (in every sense) conductor. I asked politely to resign, even temporarily, but was continually rebuffed, and "encouraged" to keep going. I went on for about another year, and then changed congregations with the real purpose of never serving again.

When the time came for re-appointment by the elders at the new hall, I meant to say "no", but when I opened my mouth "yes" came out. I guess because I was so used to saying yes to every assignment. The minute we left that back room I was kicking myself knowing I had defeated my whole purpose. I shortly thereafter -maybe 2 meetings later - resigned for good, stating personal reasons and needing a break. It was much easier at the new hall as there was much less of an emotional attachment to people I barely knew, and they for me. It was a little awkward (but only a little) and made my fade much much easier.