Prayers of non-JWs are not heard!

Did you get that? "he could not properly represent the baptized sister in prayer"! !!!

Who decides the "properly"?  Could it be they are denying entry to Jehovah? Surely not!

Interestingly, they make allowance for the "outsiders" viewing him as being identified with the congregation....even if they don't! Is that "living a lie"? Or what?

What a sorry world for those who live by 'man's rule'! Notice that in the whole paragraph, there is not one scripture quoted, or referred to. I wonder why?

Cheers, Ozzie

Edited by - ozziepost on 4 July 2002 10:41:43

But then on the other hand, Ozziepost, JWs like to say that some householder was praying to God to know the truth and, lo and behold, a JW called that same day sent by the angels.

Don't it make you wonder?

Ok, An unbaptized male cannot represent a baptized sister in prayer to Jehovah, however, Jehovah won't hear her prayers UNLESS she covers her head, because a male is present? Did I get that right, because if I did, I certainly have a few people I want to ask this question too..

ozziepost

WT May 15 1990 pages 11-12 do state the same.  It is there at Quotes under heading Prayer.

Mark

Allow me to simplify:

An unbaptized male is not qualified to pray for a baptized female and she, on the other hand, being fully qualified to pray for herself, the householder, and the unbaptized male may not pray for the ones who are unqualified unless she covers her head in the presence of the unqualifed in order to qualify her to pray for the unqualified. 

I hope that puts the matter to rest!  Remember that if this is not right it will be corrected later on but you'd better just keep your trap shut until it is.  You hear me!  (smile)

The "light" just gets brighter and brighter!! 

Ozzie,

its always amusing that things have to be technically in order before God hears prayers.....yet when the dimwits relate experiences about how someone was going to kill themsleves and they prayed for help....then the dubs knocked at the door.....

Perhaps God has 2 standards?

I've never worn head coverings well. I look especially lousy with a napkin on my noggin. They can take their head coverings (went out of style 2000 years ago) and put um where the sun don't shine!...(inserting a little humor here).

:) :):)

Hey there Ozzie,

I always thought that was another one of those "custom" things that the WTS took to the moon. I wonder why they didn't site at least one scripture with that? hummmm. I gotta look up the scripture and read what comes before and after it now to see why. As soon as I can remember where the the scripture is. But if I am remembering correctly, the head covering thing was simply an old custom of "respect" for the head of the house, in so many words. It had nothing to do with being heard by God.

But on the other hand, if they turned on another light in the future, then the poor women might lose the last form of recognition they have. Even if it does reguire putting a doylee on the head. It's the only time inside the congergation and even out side the congergation when a women is treated "ALMOST" like a complement.

plum

Hey oz.

When I was doing the old Watchtower reading scanning thru pages and pages of material a night I learnt, after a while,to spot patterns, and, among those patterns, to note arguements that didnt have any scripture citation. Or they might have quoted scripture in support of their argument but its from the Psalms. A sure sign of something shonky!

What you call "mans reasoning"!

Edited by - refiners fire on 5 July 2002 5:19:21

The CO poked fun at the ancient Jews for making laws, laws, laws.

"You couldn't walk on tha grass on the Sabbath because you might knock off some seeds on the tips of the blades of grass and that would be threshing and threshing is not allowed on the Sabbath"

All the good folks laughed it up, yet I bet they had a twinge of conscience, thinking 'hey... that sounds like a Watchtower rule'....

Helklo Ozziepost,

excellent comments from you and all the others.

Just ...onother man made rule.

Another point: few  lines further down on the same

watchtower it is written (about a young baptized son)

the following: " She may feel that he is not yet sufficiently

capable and may choose to offer prayer herself."

Now, the WBTS Inc., did write sometime ago that

only baptized members have: "...unlimited acced to Jehovah

through the prayer...".

So capable of making a life dedication  to Jehovah God,

but "...not yet sufficiently capable..." to pray to Him???

Greetings to you all,

J.C.MacHislopp

sufficiently

>Now, the WBTS Inc., did write sometime ago that only baptized members have: "...unlimited acced to Jehovah through the prayer...".

Didn't you read the fine print from the WTBS (Watch Tower Bullshit Society)?

Disclaimer:

Jehovah will not listen to male members leading a prayer without a coat and tie, or women when there are male publishers present. This will cause a temporary disconnection.

Maybe the poor unbaptized boy should just tell the sister not to bother because he has "Sprint" now.

That might make a good commercial

No more static!

I think the text we are refeering to is found at 1 Corinthians 11:5-8.

There are two schools of thought on this passage.

One is that it's to be taken literally, and that Paul's diection is not to be taken just for his time, but for ours also.

The other school of thought, that Ozzie subscribes to, is that scripture must be read in context. So Paul's words had a temporary cultural significance. In his time, a woman taking off her head covering in public and exposing her hair was a sign of loose morals and sexual promiscuity. Paul says she might as well have her cut off or shaved off. The shaved head was a sign of disgrace.. So Paul's message was: show respect for your husband by covering your head during public worship.

Cheers, Ozzie