Women are in subjection to their husbands and to the Elders!!!!! (page 10)

mrsjones5

Talk about one sided. Got a penis you got power.

blondie

So are you suggesting that the WTS is saying that men in the congregation are not to be in subjection to the elders in the congregation? I don't think you or they are saying that.

Women are no more or no less in subjection to the elders than men are and I don't think the WTS wants men in to the congegation to think that men are not equally in subjection to the elders. In fact married women are less in subjection to the elders because their husband's headship over them comes first even if the husband is not a JW.

I grew up in a divided household, with a JW mother and a non-JW father. I have some personal experience with the interpretation of this over the years in the WTS.

Blondie

Gill

Blondie - Not for one moment am I suggesting that. I am just saying that they are not REMINDING men that they are in subjection to the Elders. They are just REMINDING women of that.

Also JW women are also reminded that if their husband insists on them going against some kind of Watchtower rule, they must follow the Watchtower rules first and not their husbands. It's put as 'following Jehovah first' but it really means the law of the Elders/Watchtower etc. They must do this even if they get a beating for it.

Confession

Yes, Blondie, that's what I was saying. That, in a way, both men and women are supposed to be submissive to "those taking the lead." But, as Gill points out, in this article, they seem to be specifically referring to women. Why no clarifying word by them (in this article) that it applies to both?

I have to admit that, when I begin to formulate thoughts on how to show someone that the WTS' concept of "organization" does not follow the first century congregation's, I come against this scripture. (Be submissive to those taking the lead.) Then there's the scripture in which Paul instructs a congregation to "mark" someone "if they are not obedient to our word through this letter."

So in what ways are people to be "submissive" or "obedient" to religious authorities?

blondie

I guess I will have to see the whole article to see what they are trying to say. I know that they feel women find it harder to be in subjection. A paragraph here or two is not enough information. The JWs here only have the WTs through 1/15/07. I wonder how you all get them so soon outside the US?

Blondie

diamondblue1974

Significantly, however, it is not only when women marry that they come under the headship of men.
'The Bible explains that women, whether married or single, should submit to the headship of spiritually qualified men who exercise oversight int he Christian congregation.

I think the above says it all; whilst previously single women were not in subjection to anyone, this has clearly changed and it would now appear that whether married or single she is to view the elders as her head.

Or have I completely missed the point?

DB74

Gill

DB74 - I don't think you've missed the point at all. It seems that a woman must always be under the headship of one man or another.

Blondie - As long as I remember, the last forty years, we've received out mags here about two months or so ahead of time.

You're right that the whole mags need to be read but, basically, men are told to treat their wives as their own 'precious possession.' They are not to mistreat them or else their prayers will be hindered. They are to counsel them from the bible when they're not dressing 'properly'. They are to be patient with their 'precious possession' as:

'If there is a fault that needs attention, (in the wife, of course) husbands should not necessarily expect that their sincere efforts to correct it will meet with immeadiate success.' Apparantly it might take ongoing efforts to adjust a wife's attitudes.

I'm sure there is plenty in this mag that will annoy you. I promise I'm not slagging off the Wacktower society unjustly. This has to be read to be believed!

KAYTEE

Even Margaret Thatcher( Prime Minister )and a women still knew her limitations when she said at a conservative conference, that every women should have a little "willy", referring to Willy Whitelaw one of her cabinet colleagues.

KT

Gill

KAYTEE - Absolutely! I remember that one!

compound complex

Greetings and Acknowledgement of Equal Standing, Gill and Other Ladies of the Forum,

There is no question of my admiration and respect for the likes of the women who contribute so valuably here and in society [not THE SOCIETY]. In the Society, however, there are [were] some guys coming under the shadow of treachery referred to by Scully in her post of 1 January, 16:41. Therein she speaks of elders' interference in the marriage and usurpation of headship. When a poor, flawed male dub's version of running the household is construed inadequate and he is told point-blank by his mate that the elders HAVE THE FINAL SAY, well, what hope is there? And, too, Scully's point of the wife's being encouraged to report her husband and being urged to flee spiritual endangerment. It has been extremely difficult for some brothers who begged and pleaded and cried, who wanted to be good examples and loving husbands. I do not disparage the points made here. Women should be treated as equals and should be loved and respected. But when the man's efforts are belittled and then are undermined by elder influence, can you understand his despair? Marriage is difficult enough. Some former husbands, who are still very much in pain, tend to speak in the third person, but surely the perceptive ladies here get "his" meaning. Oh, by the way, BUTT OUT, ELDERS!

CoCo

Women are in subjection to their husbands and to the Elders!!!!!

Share this