Listener

Joined

• started 199 topics
• posted 4,930 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Listener

• 
  362

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

  by wizzstick in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Listener

  Why do you think it is unprecedented? They have taken stances on certain fashions before and have also relied on oral instructions that don't always match up with what they print in their publications before so they can avoid being held to account for things.

  In AM's rant speech he explained that an elder should (be man enough to) send a person home to get changed if they dressed inappropriately when they turned up for field service. This has now translated into disallowing persons from witnessing work altogether if dressed inappropriately. I don't recall them taking this action in the past, however, as you suggest, they may well have but because it wasn't in any publication it doesn't mean they haven't.

  I also thought it was pretty novel that AM's speech, which he specifically said was totally supported by printed publications, has translated into a new policy. The issue of dressing modestly was always there but AM was much more specific and brought up some homophobic ideas which have now been identified to include 'gender blurring characteristics' and brothers who are 'manifesting of effeminate traits, perhaps in ones bearing, body language and manner of speech'.

  It was because of a secret BOE's letter having been given to the elders in my congregation a month before my JC that didn't match up with the current procedure's in the congregation that saw me walking out the door without looking back. They weren't even prepared to show me this letter. This secrecy and hidden rules offended me greatly.

  Construction sites are a little different to normal - there is some mandated clothing.

  It is an extreme example but God's law is supposed to be above man's laws and the same principle applies.

  There are also many occupations these days where the required uniform for males and females are the same (although females can usually incorporate skirts instead of pants if they so wish). This includes pilots, nurses, firepersons, fast food employees, etc Again, the org. take no objection to this even though the distinction between male and female clothing is blurred.
  
  

  
  
• 
  362

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

  by wizzstick in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Listener

  It's amazing to see AMIII's rant being put into writing as instructions to the CO's to read out to the Elders. He has demonstrated that he wields a lot of power and any dogma that he creates will become law.

  It would appear that these instructions come from the Service Committee as opposed to the Writing Committee. AM had worked on the Service Committee since 2002. I wonder if he has caused any waves in Bethel but time will tell whether the Writing Committee jumps on board with these ideas.

  The fact that no announcement is to be made in the congregation if Elders decide not to allow a JW to witness might suggest that the writing committee aren't prepared to make this officially sanctioned policy by printing it in publications. It appears that this form of action is unprecedented and paves way for this form of punishment to be applied to all sorts of scenarios. Who knows where this could lead and the Elders aren't being told to update their Shepherding book and don't have anything in writing.

  Rather than this being a non issue these are the very types of issues that could cause disharmony and arguments between the individual GB members and also between the various committees. No doubt some are reasonable in their thinking and some aren't, to see a person's own wacky opinion being translated into law should be of great concern for those that are more level headed.

  Furthermore, if the body of elders agree that a brother or sister is blatantly and deliberately ignoring repeated council and his or her dress or grooming is disturbing to the congregation, the elders may determine that the person no longer qualifies to share in the ministry. In such rare cases no announcement would be made to the congregation.

  'and is disturbing to the congregation'. Rather than admonishing or even discouraging brothers and sisters for murmuring or making judgements against another brother or sister they are being told to act upon it. This is a mob mentality. There is no mention that the disturbed brother or sister should approach the person that is disturbing them.

  They use Deuteronomy 22:5 which talks about men dressing as women and vice versa as being unpleasing to God and another scripture about being worldly. Are they going to also apply Verse 11 which states that you are not to wear clothes of wool and linen woven together? They demonstrate that they continue to have lost the plot when they quote scriptures from laws set out under the defunct old covenant that applied to the Israelites and not modern day.

  You just need to look at the photos they have published to see how they are dressing on their very own construction sites. They are all dressed the same. The standard attire are jeans/trousers, t-shirts, hard shoes or sneakers. Are the men dressing as women or are the women dressing as men? How is this any more acceptable to them? Just because it is practical doesn't negate the same principle being involved or ignoring the bible council that they use to justify for one situation but not another.
• 
  46

  Just read this on JW Talk......

  by WHATSGOINGON in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  just saw this on the public area of jwtalk (i am not a member).

  here is the link.. http://jwtalk.net/forums/topic/23523-privvy-news/.

  such a shame - i do feel for these ones - i just don't know what to say.... wgo.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Listener

  Where is the unity among these followers? The message has been blurred. Some understand that no one knows the day or hour and others think the higher ups have special knowledge. That is how the organization wants it, it makes the sheep hungry for anything they can provide to them.
• 
  362

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

  by wizzstick in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Listener

  Oubliette, I agree, this is not just about clothes and goes way beyond that on many levels. The opening post gives a fairly limited view.

  Could I suggest that you start a new thread and begin with the actual course outline that is being delivered by CO's to elders?
• 
  22

  after 2 years, getting the courage to read COC. but is is still really relevant?

  by nowwhat? in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  if so why?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Listener

  It answered one of the most important questions I found hard to answer - where else can we go? Ray answered this question in complete detail, using the bible to support it with.

  It made it evident as never before that I could have a clear conscience and appreciation that my worship of God was acceptable wiping away an indoctrinated belief that leaving the organization meant I had left God.

  On a spiritual level it is invaluable and time does not diminish it's truth.
• 
  16

  Great Evening....

  by Lee Elder in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  ...with dick and helen kelly.

  got to meet joe and barbara anderson and their friend joy on their whirlwind u.s. tour.

  wonderful conversation and opportunity to reminisce about our wts experiences and our plans for the future.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Listener

  Lee Elder
  Got to hear the story behind the story and how Angus came to be so knowledgeable about JWs. What a messed up bunch they are in Australia.

  I would love to hear this story.
• 
  35

  Hey! Wanted to say Hi!

  by Miss Worldly in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  hey!

  i've been hanging around her for a while.

  this is the third attempt at my 'hello'.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Listener

  Hi Miss Worldly, I love your username. Feel free to ask any questions and thanks for letting us know you are here.
• 
  63

  AUSTRALIA – Artemis Legal launches inquiry into group and class action lawsuits against Jehovah’s Witnesses

  by jwleaks in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  jehovah's witnesses - group action lawyers fighting for justice | artemis legal .

  artemis legal | watchtower claims.

  13 october 2015 .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Listener

  Sorry Simon, in my above comment, I didn't mean to suggest that you asked umbertoecho's to share it, she seems to think that you did. There's already enough misunderstanding's on this thread.

  One thing is clear, those involved in the Royal Commission are doing a lot to help victims.
• 
  30

  Who would you like to hear of leaving the Jehovah's Witnesses ?

  by wozza in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i'll start off with this one:.

  some years ago when i was formulating my exit, i employed for some time an ms brother from another congregation.. i'd had a couple of young "worldly" lads work for me but they proved unreliable as they used drugs or alchohol and consequently would'nt arrive at work and such like.. so when i was was contacted by this brother and spoke to him and heard he'd worked at the australian bethel for some time on construction and wanted an opportunity to learn the trade of bricklaying ,i thought ,"great someone to finally trust and be reliable".

  he was in his 40's at the time and he worked like a trojan ,was honest ,really likeable and interesting ,could play the classical guitar beautifully ,had a beautiful family.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Listener

  I love to hear of whole families leaving together, unfortunately it's pretty rare.
• 
  63

  AUSTRALIA – Artemis Legal launches inquiry into group and class action lawsuits against Jehovah’s Witnesses

  by jwleaks in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  jehovah's witnesses - group action lawyers fighting for justice | artemis legal .

  artemis legal | watchtower claims.

  13 october 2015 .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Listener

  I am absolutely amazed that there is some secret list of legal reps that the Commission recommend. Maybe it's a list that the RC provides to certain individuals where they can select from legal reps that the Commission is prepared to meet the cost of rather than having the individual pay.

  That is fine umbertocho if you don't want to share it but there's no harm in asking.