Posts by millie210

33

Field Service Privilege Can Be Taken Away Due to Hairstyle and Tight Pants???

by Wild_Thing in

jw
friends

millie2105 hours agohere is something i just found out this week.former belief - field service is a publishers inalienable right new belief - field service privilege can be taken away if person styles hair or wears clothing in a way that is deemed metrosexual.i was pretty much dumbfounded.. this was posted on another thread, so i decided to start a new topic about this.

i think this is amazing!

i wish this was in place when i was a kid.

millie210

oldskool
An ambiguous concept that nobody ever understood.
The letter reads like guidelines for private reproof. Nothing new

If so, then it means tight pants is a judicial matter. Reproof, private or public is judicial,requiring a committee.

And yes, that would be new.

I am not nit picking your post oldschool. I see you and me as being on the same side here.

I AM picking apart their letter and their policies and will be doing so for as long as they sit themselves up as lords and overseers over other peoples lives.

They need to be consistent within their own policies.

However ridiculous those may be, consistency is a bare minimum standard even they should be able to meet.

33

Field Service Privilege Can Be Taken Away Due to Hairstyle and Tight Pants???

by Wild_Thing in

jw
friends

millie2105 hours agohere is something i just found out this week.former belief - field service is a publishers inalienable right new belief - field service privilege can be taken away if person styles hair or wears clothing in a way that is deemed metrosexual.i was pretty much dumbfounded.. this was posted on another thread, so i decided to start a new topic about this.

i think this is amazing!

i wish this was in place when i was a kid.

millie210

oldskool

Rather than being new wouldn't this simply be defining what was already at the discretion of the local Elders already? Reproof is reproof, they always could do it for any trivial violation found inside WT literature. The mentioned letter may have some defined terms, but it could have been done in the past anyway, correct?

Clothing was always something to be regulated. A good deal of this was informal, members checking each other through gossip, which eventually could lead to reproof action

As far as I know, this stops short of reproof, Reproof can only be for a judicial reason, correct?

Maybe this is more like marking in that one regard (non judicial)

I am guessing. I dont know.

I just see this as a sticky situation, if you tell someone they cant go out in service because of their grooming then who is next?

I mean, wife beaters, drunkards, child molesters, porn addicts, gossips, and disfellowshipped people can ALL go out in service.

But not the kid in the tight pants.

Really?

171

RC 2016 Leaks & Releases

by wifibandit in

in an effort to reduce the number of posts, this year i will try to add links to this post.

now, on with the leaks & releases!

first up.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nzvwhflss4.

millie210

wifi- you do such a valuable work for all of us. Thank YOU!

33

Field Service Privilege Can Be Taken Away Due to Hairstyle and Tight Pants???

by Wild_Thing in

jw
friends

millie2105 hours agohere is something i just found out this week.former belief - field service is a publishers inalienable right new belief - field service privilege can be taken away if person styles hair or wears clothing in a way that is deemed metrosexual.i was pretty much dumbfounded.. this was posted on another thread, so i decided to start a new topic about this.

i think this is amazing!

i wish this was in place when i was a kid.

millie210

here it is Steve,

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/5749122145452032/you-wear-tight-pants-you-will-trouble

in the 10th post by JWFacts, the letter is there to read.

On page 2 of the thread wifibandit has provided a link to the actual letter.

33

Field Service Privilege Can Be Taken Away Due to Hairstyle and Tight Pants???

by Wild_Thing in

jw
friends

millie2105 hours agohere is something i just found out this week.former belief - field service is a publishers inalienable right new belief - field service privilege can be taken away if person styles hair or wears clothing in a way that is deemed metrosexual.i was pretty much dumbfounded.. this was posted on another thread, so i decided to start a new topic about this.

i think this is amazing!

i wish this was in place when i was a kid.

millie210

Hey steve!

Did you read the letter? I would appreciate your take on it.

33

Field Service Privilege Can Be Taken Away Due to Hairstyle and Tight Pants???

by Wild_Thing in

jw
friends

millie2105 hours agohere is something i just found out this week.former belief - field service is a publishers inalienable right new belief - field service privilege can be taken away if person styles hair or wears clothing in a way that is deemed metrosexual.i was pretty much dumbfounded.. this was posted on another thread, so i decided to start a new topic about this.

i think this is amazing!

i wish this was in place when i was a kid.

millie210

steve2
This is NOT - repeat NOT - new. When has it ever been an "inalienable" right - and who ever came up with that overblown adjective to describe Witnesses having rights?

It was me Steve. I was the one who was stunned by it and wrote the post.

Thanks WildThing for being curious and wanting a discussion on what this means exactly, I am enjoying seeing the different perspectives on this.

The reason I feel this is new is the following:

Several years ago a woman who was disfellowhipped. She had been a pioneer and said she was "going out in service anyhow". The elders bristled with this effrontery and were sure they would put a stop to that!

They called the Service Desk and much to their surprise were told -

Leave. Her. Alone.

They were told that the preaching comission was directly from the scriptures as was her baptism and that her disfellowshipping restricted her from congregation activities only. So she could not check out a territory or meet with the group. She could however recieve her literature from the literature counter and go out in service on her own.

So seeing that the elders are being directed in writing to obstruct that right in people because of dress or hairstyle seems like things are going in a new direction,

People who are disfellowshipped are not re-baptized upon reinstatement. That baptism supercedes the discipline. A person being a minister was put in that same category.

98

Beards - September 2016 Watchtower

by Listener in

the issue of whether beards are acceptable or not is addressed in the september 2016 watchtower - well sort of.

it is as clear as mud as to whether they are allowed in places like australia, usa and britain.. 17. what are some factors that may affect whether a brother wears a beard?17 what about the propriety of brothers wearing a beard?

the mosaic law required men to wear a beard.

millie210

Like some of you have suggested, it would appear they are taking heavy fire on this issue.

Enough that they had to address it in their usual confusing way.

When you are a group whose sole direction is to REact rather than act...well...you have to be vague until you see which way things are blowing!

28

I'm getting disfellowshipped

by raven in

hi everyone, a bit of an update here on my continuing disaster of a situation.. (refer to my previous posts for the full story) my mom met with me yesterday for dinner, it was nice.. however, she brought up the fact that because i live with my boyfriend and how everything has gone down, i will be disfellowshipped.. i think the elders basically have enough proof of this.. due to the anonymous tipper (still have no clue who it was, i live in another town 100's of miles away from my old congregation territory), and my mom telling them.

i'm not sure when they will announce it, or if they will contact me prior.. at this point i feel so emotionally dead i don't care- on the other hand, i don't want to be disfellowshipped because i do not want to loose a relationship with my mom.

that is the whole reason i tried fading out.. .

millie210

Im sorry such distress is in your life right now raven.

would it help any if you printed out the part of Docs comment from the elders manual so your mom knows exactly that she can contact you rather than some elder just telling her what he thinks?

Also, it has been my experience that older parents are hesitant to break relations with a grown child. Perhaps it is the sense of getting older and more fragile and feeling they need their adult children?

96

New Shunning Video - RC 2016

by wifibandit in

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g20rww_-7ua.

millie210

The small comfort in this is they wouldnt have to show it if the compliance level among the sheeple was where they wanted it to be.

I see more and more people where I am that are bending the rules of shunning.

38

Please sum up the last decade in JW history

by oldskool in

jw
friends

i used to be a member of this site, but jumped off a good number of years ago (08?).

i don't have access to my old email, so i'm using a new account.. anyway, i was baptized jw in late 90's.

da'd mid 2000s.. when i left there were three meets a week plus field service.

millie210

Hi and welcome - good to have you back.

Here is something I just found out this week.

Former belief - field service is a publishers inalienable right

New belief - field service privilege can be taken away if person styles hair or wears clothing in a way that is deemed metrosexual.

I was pretty much dumbfounded.