Posts by StephaneLaliberte

10

Can JW's vote on whether the UK should leave the EU?

by Splash in

jw's are not allowed to vote for political parties etc, but what about the vote, probably during 2016, to decide if the uk should leave the eu?.

the w99 11/1 qfr on voting saysthere are clear principles set out in the bible that enable servants of god to take a proper view of this matter.

however, there appears to be no principle against the practice of voting itself...what, though, of voting in political elections?

StephaneLaliberte

I voted for the first time of my life last Monday. To be honest, I never thought the reasons provided by the JW made much sense about not voting. However, I didn’t think it was worth making a fuss about it.

How would voting make you “part of the world” opposed to say, going to work everyday and paying your taxes?
How does voting would prevent you from representing Christ and his kingdom?
Those who elect a certain official share a responsibility? Anyone who pays taxes and makes no action against a bad official shares in the responsibility!
Israel’s desire for a human leader has nothing to do with Christians… Israel had its own government while Christians do not control any governments!
Since you do not have to say who you vote for, how would that impact your preaching work?

Arguments provided by the JW for not voting is BS.

26

How was it when you were a JW as a kid?

by nevaagain in

jw
friends

whats worse than being an adult jw?

when i was a kid i always had a bad concience all the time.

i believed i would not survive armageddon for the fact that i didn't like going to service and i didnt like going to the meetings.

StephaneLaliberte

When I look back on my childhood …

I lost contact with an ant and an uncle because they were disfellowshipped.
The contact I had with my non-jw family was insufficient.
I thought everyone, except JW, were either ignorant or too proud to accept the truth.
I was not involved in any after school activities
I could not be part of a baseball or basketball team
Vacation days often meant that I was going in service for the morning.
I was not celebrating any holidays

Now, the strange thing is that when I grew up, I felt very happy. I was a very happy kid. I had good friends, good parents, never lacked food or clothing, played a lot, and had a lot of fun… I sincerely had a great childhood. Since I knew nothing better, I saw what I had as the best that I could have. That’s also what I was being told every meetings (5 hours per week)!
So, looking back now, I don’t understand how I could be happy in all this, but this doesn’t change the fact that I was!
Weird.

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.

StephaneLaliberte

the section on the talk outline is:

Concerns regarding conduct, dress and grooming.

Then, yes, it talks about the styles of clothing, but it also talks about

"effeminate characteristics", "the manifesting of effeminate traits, perhaps in one's bearing, body language, and manner of speech".

This is the section that sends everyone crazy about on this thread and you appear to be the only one who keeps bringing it back to be "just about clothing".

If we have fun with statistics, lets assume there are about 500,000 JW kids out there. This means that about 5000 of them are gay. And now, they will be told, as they grow up: We don't hate you, we just hate the way you bear yourself, your body language, your manner of speech, basically, who you are! You need to change who and what you are, otherwise, God will hate you.

Sadly, I expect some of those kids to actually kill themselves over this.

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.

StephaneLaliberte

Love UniHateExams, it is obvious that to the watchtower, Metrosexual and gay are very close, if not, the same. And of course, not all gays look gays. But this position clearly shows that the WT hate gays, not just the sexual conduct.

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.

StephaneLaliberte

I thought that the watchtower’s view on gays was that they could not have sex, as simple as that. Hence, if you would have a gay and a straight-yet-single man standing next to one another, the both of them would be equal to God.

Now, with this directive, they are actually ruling against simply looking gay!

Thinking that they went back on what they had previously published, I made a quick search in the WTLib. They wrote that they

“disapprove of homosexual conduct, not the people themselves”. - Young People Ask 1, chap. 23. p. 170

Back in the days, when I read this, I thought this meant the sexual conduct. However, with the directive from yesterday, it is clear that it is the overall conduct of the individual. In that case, I don’t see the difference between disapproving between the conduct and the people themselves!

I have nothing against you, it’s just that I hate everything about you, the way you walk, talk, dress, smell or even look at me...

They are worse than I thought they were.

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.

StephaneLaliberte

They never prevented anyone from the ministry for wearing mini skirts. They would disfellowship for "brazen conduct" someone like that before taking the right to go door to door.

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.

StephaneLaliberte

You know, they are implementing that rule, but I am sure this will have to be published in a watchtower soon.

Here is why: I once told an Elder off; he made a big deal out of something that the WT never wrote about and thus, he was running ahead of the org, being abusive towards me in the process. Then I said I was going to be entertained by what would happen once I complained to the other elders and our CO about it. He stopped pressuring me at once.

Now that this directive isn't formally published anywhere (COs will simply talk about it... its not even in a BOE letter), I would expect some resistance from the great crowd. :)

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.

StephaneLaliberte

Simon: Sorry for replying so late.. I took an afternoon nap.

This directive trivializes their ministry: Up to now, there was no official reason why someone would remain a JW and yet not be allowed to participate to the ministry. Hence, participating in the ministry was a fundamental right for which JWs fought all over the world, serving prison terms and some with their very life!

That is why I made the comparison to the pedophiles as even those never lost their right to go door to door. Yes, the ministry was a fundamental right taken away from no one!

That is, until they brought up that directive. Now, if you don’t act or dress properly, you can loose that "fundamental" right and yet, remain a JW!

You could dress like a model JW for the ministry, fit for a picture in the watchtower. And yet, they could withhold that right and say: "When we saw you at the restaurant, me and my wife, we thought you looked a little gay".

So, the ministry is not fundamental anymore. This is a big deal. Huge deal. Worthy of a lot of attention.

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.

StephaneLaliberte

Simon, you haven't addressed that I believed this was news worthy due to the fact that it trivialized their ministry, which, up until now, I thought was fundamental to being a JW. It is definitely news worthy.

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.

StephaneLaliberte

The reason I am bringing in the pedophiles topic is that I always thought that NOTHING could take away the right to share in the ministry while remaining a JW.

Up until yesterday, I believed that their ministry was a fundamental right, they acquired that right by fighting for it all over the world. Countless went to jail and many even died for that right!

You know when you want to prove a point and use extremes to prove it? Well, I would say: Not even pedophiles loose that right! Its fundamental!

Well, they changed that: It's a fundamental right, but if you look gay... than that's too much. Think about it: You could dress like the model JW for the ministry, fit for a picture in the watchtower. And yet, they could withhold that right and say: "When we saw you at the restaurant, me and my wife, we thought you looked a little gay".

So, with this in mind, my "extreme" example to prove that the ministry is fundamental no longer applies. By outlining the directives in the way that they have done, they are demonstrating that the ministry is not a fundamental right to them.