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.
I think many unconnected 3rd parties would find it perfectly reasonable and expected for a conservative christian group.
I for one couldn't give a shit about what anyone OUTSIDE the cult thinks about this. I'm concerned for people I know and care about that are INSIDE the cult and that will be adversely affected, now so even more than before.
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.
Truthexplorer, don't forget your colored socks!
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.
you describe two different scenarios playing out that seem to be partly contradicting each other:
The operative word here would be "seem."
You have misunderstood both statements.
I think you are determined to hear something different to what I have actually been trying to say.
Me and just about everyone else on this particular thread.
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.
So one minute the elders run away with things and do things on their own, now you have the elders unwilling to do anything without the say-so of the WTS.
I have no idea where this came from. I never said either of those things.
Although I have enjoyed discussing and debating with you on other subjects, it is evident that it is pointless to discuss this one with you.
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.
How does this new ruling change things? Those beliefs don't change.
True the beliefs don't change, but the circumstances of someone either still being closeted or even openly gay, but non-sexually actively do.
Prior to this, a homosexual man or woman could be in the congregation and exist with a more or less "don't ask, don't tell" kind of tolerance from the other congregation members. But now the elders not only have license to, but are in fact directed to actively confront such individuals about any behaviors that are perceived as "gender-blurring." This is a significant change in the practices, policies and relationships of individuals in the congregation.
Also, this directive could add to the "witch-hunt" hit list individuals that may not even be homosexual, but who are just suspected of being so by overzealous elders.
Won't anyone who is gay in the WTS always be feeling bad until it becomes unbearable and they leave?
Probably, but so does pretty much everyone else that stays in the religion. It's well established that many more people would leave the religion if they weren't afraid of being shunned by their family and friends. This new directive targets a particular JW subgroup based solely on behaviors which prior to this would generally have been ignored. - 1 Corinthians 6:11
Could forcing someone to make the decision earlier actually be better for them given there is no immediate outlook for any change in conservative christian beliefs about homosexuality
This is possibly true, but ignores the fact that forcing someone to "wake up to TTATT" rarely works. Also, younger ones in particular might just not be emotionally or financially ready to leave the cult.
This is one of the big problems I foresee here, it forces the issue and does so because the GB has for whatever reason decided that this is their latest cause.
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.
Is that because they are gay or because they are effeminate / metro-sexual?
Yes.
How do you define "adversely affected"?
Seriously? If I have to explain it then you wouldn't get it.
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.
If it is only convincing to people who are already convinced that JWs are a cult then how convincing is it, really?
Thanks for addressing my comments.
I have never suggested that this by itself is proof that JWs are a cult. That was never my concern with this issue.
My concerns are how it will affect those in the religion that will be targeted as a result of this new directive from the control-freaks running this cult.
I have one family member in particular that is still in that I know will be adversely affected by this.
People on the outside aren't going to care.
most everyone was very nice.
i did get a couple of we miss you soooo much and an elder that said he might drop by someday to say hello when he gets a chance....i'm already prepared for him if he should show up.. over all, it got finished and i'm going to bed..
My condolences. It's bad enough to have to deal with the loss of your mother without all of the added drama of the cult behavior.
Hang in there, you'll get through this!
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.
There are lots of things to pin on the WTS but conservative clothing?
Why do you keep insisting this issue is only about clothing and a dress code?
It is clearly NOT about just that. Indeed, it is about gender identity profiling based on several different things, dress being just one of them.
True, part of the outline addresses an individual's choice of clothing--something they could change. But the entire thrust of this document is really based on things that a person could never completely change about themselves: their basic core behaviors, mannerisms and speech.
If a person did try to change and/or suppress these things about themselves it would likely lead to serious emotional and mental disturbances.
Previously when I tried to engage you on this distinction you responded by pointing out that JWs and the Bible have always condemned homosexuality, as if that was news. It's not news. I know that. We all do.
The disturbing difference here is that this is not targeting homosexual acts, but it is targeting behaviors and personality traits that do not in and of themselves indicate or prove a person is actively engaging in sexual activity of any kind, let alone with those of the same sex.
It no longer matters if someone is a celibate homosexual, they are now in the cross-hairs of the Circuit Overseers and congregation elders simply because of the way they dress, behave as well as any mannerisms or speech that is perceived as "gender-blurring," whatever the hell that means?
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.
I think you are taking it a bit too literally.
I know you're responding to Cappytan and not me, but I think he is right on target as you can see by my response to his post.
BTW, how "literal" is the right amount? This is sounding a lot like the "how tight is too tight?" question raised earlier, illustrating one of the problems with this kind of direction from the WT leadership: it's overly vague and gives elders that are already inclined to wield their authority without any compassion or discretion even more power.
t's not intended as a checklist in that manner.
I disagree. In fact, I believe Hassan does intend it as a checklist in that manner. Note that I was able to add eight more items from Hassan's B.I.T.E. model applying it to just this topic. I've been through this list several times before and noted that virtually every item on his list can be applied to JWs.
But if you disagree, please explain how you think Hassan's model is to be applied to cults?
They are signs, not pokemon.
I have no idea what that means. Care to elucidate?
