Posts by Listener

18

things you dont hear: Protest against Jehovah's Witnesses event in central Israel turns violent

by goingthruthemotions in

it funny how the cult will imbelish on somethings and others they just sweep under the rug and you never hear anything about it again.

i was just doing some searches on the internet and stumbled on this.

i had heard that the dub's were trying to get people to go to israel and then you never hear anything after that.

Listener

Event was originally cancelled due to opposition from anti-assimilation group
Hundreds of protesters turned up to demonstrate outside a Jehovah's Witnesses seminar being held in a municipal building in a city in the center of Israel Saturday.
Despite police presence, the demonstration against the event became violent, Israeli daily Ha'aretz reported.
The protesters were angry that after a series of protests and petitions, a court ruled that the Jehovah's Witnesses event could finally take place in the city of Ra'anana, north of Tel Aviv.
The event was originally scheduled for a couple of weeks ago but after the anti-assimilation organization Yad L'Achim group found out that the seminar was set to take place in a municipality building, representatives contacted city officials who called off the event.
However, the Lod District court ruled that the municipality's objection infringed on the right to freedom of religion and ritual.
According to the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the municipality broke an agreement on the use of the sports center due to discrimination.
On the other side, the municipality said that there was “real fear” the Jehovah’s Witnesses sought to convince children and teenagers to convert from Judaism.
According to Ha'artez, demonstrators prayed and sang loudly in groups, as the Jehovah’s Witnesses participants entered the building.
Some of the protesters jeered at the event-goers and tried to convince them not to go in while others simply quietly, according to the report.
“Any Jew who leaves Judaism becomes a Jew-killer!” one man shouted, accordingHa'artez.

It's hard to know how hyped up the report is. They state that there was violence but do not detail what occurred.Isn't this what the organization wanted?

They knew there was trouble brewing because of the events surrounding the cancelling of the original event but went ahead demanding their rights through the courts. They were prepared to put men, women and children in danger, even calling in more scapegoats from overseas. At best they may have thought that swelling their numbers for the assembly would prove safer than having a smaller number or maybe they thought that having more Westerners/tourists would mean they had better police protection.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

if so why?

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

jw
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.

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

jw
friends

hey!

i've been hanging around her for a while.

this is the third attempt at my 'hello'.

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

jw
friends

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

artemis legal | watchtower claims.

13 october 2015 .

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

jw
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.

Listener

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