Does that mean no more "overlapping" jackets or "invisible" pants?
just asking!
eyeuse2badub
Change to dress and grooming rules for JWs in USA soon?
by RayPublisher 43 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Oubliette
Controllers gotta control.
It's not surprising that the OP used the word "heterosexual" incorrectly. This religion is run by ignorant fools.
Anthony Morris apparently confused yoga pants with Spanx. What a maroon.
Seriously, what is their fixation with how people dress? And why is ToMo checking out the young brothers in tight pants? Maybe he shouldn't let his eyes linger ...
I'm just sayin' is all!
Let's review: It's a cult!
-
OneEyedJoe
Oh I so hope this is legit. The more they ramp up unscriptural control, the more will wake up. -
DATA-DOG
Here's a couple of things to think about:
1) The WTBTS seems to be moving towards cart witnessing more and more. If they experience more "persecution" from sexual abuse cases, they may make this shift quicker.
2) Dress code for cart witnessing may become policed.
I dont find that improbable.
DD
-
Captain Obvious
Oh I hope this is real! Not just for how they will be dressed when doing JW things but all the time! The more they tighten their grip, the more people will be freed. I think an everyday "dress code" would put my wife over the edge. -
DATA-DOG
I remember when they said," When going to dinner in our convention cities, leave your dress clothes on and wear your badge! Also, don't wear jeans and t-shirts to your hotel to check in."
LOL!!! What complete a-holes! They want you to advertise for them, for free, 24/7.
DD
-
OneFingerSalute
I'm afraid I will have to throw out the BS flag on these "changes". It ain't gonna happen, unless of course the g.b. want a full blown rebellion on their hands.
As for me, I have worn the same type of clothing since the fifties, and I see no reason to change now.
-
blondie
Can sisters wear slacks? Yes or not or both? Tight trousers on men in 1972.
*** w72 11/1 p. 671 Questions From Readers ***
● In view of what is written at Deuteronomy 22:5, is it proper for a woman to wear slacks?—U.S.A.
Deuteronomy 22:5 reads: “No garb of an able-bodied man should be put upon a woman, neither should an able-bodied man wear the mantle of a woman; for anybody doing these things is something detestable to Jehovah your God.” This text is not discussing styles of clothing. The prohibition concerns one’s putting on things specifically designed for the opposite sex.
The distinction between the sexes is of divine origin and the law set forth at Deuteronomy 22:5 served to preserve that distinction. When it comes to appearance and attire, the usual thing is for a man to want to look like a man and for a woman to look like a woman. For an Israelite to have acted contrary to this deep internal sense of what is fitting could have led to homosexuality. Thus the law at Deuteronomy 22:5 also opposed this sin.
At the time the law was given, both men and women wore robes. But there was a definite difference between the garb of men and that of women. Similarly, in some parts of the earth today both men and women wear slacks. But styles of slacks for women differ from those for men. Accordingly, the principle taught at Deuteronomy 22:5 would not rule out a woman’s wearing slacks or pants.
Moreover, Christians are not under the Mosaic law. (Rom. 6:14) Insistence on applying the letter of this law would therefore be contrary to Christian teaching. So if a woman were to put on a worn-out pair of her husband’s trousers to do a job around the house or on the farm, she would not be going against the evident purpose of the law, namely, to prevent confusion of sexual identity and sexual abuses.
The fact that Christians are not under the Mosaic law but are guided by its principles calls for them to use discernment, good judgment and to exercise their conscience. A Christian woman appreciates that whether it would be proper for her to wear slacks or pants depends upon factors other than her personal likes. She would not want to be the cause for stumbling others or bring reproach on the Christian congregation. Clothing that may not be looked on with disfavor if worn in the privacy of one’s home or at work may be objectionable if worn at Christian meetings and when publicly proclaiming God’s Word or carrying on other public activity. Attitudes, too, may differ from area to area. The Bible’s counsel is that women “adorn themselves in well-arranged dress, with modesty and soundness of mind, . . . in the way that befits women professing to reverence God, namely, through good works.”—1 Tim. 2:9 10.
*** w75 8/15 p. 500 par. 6 Do Not Let Yourself Be Ensnared by Fads and Entertainment ***
At 1 Timothy 2:9, 10, Christian women are admonished to have well-arranged dress, to adorn themselves with modesty. This principle, of course, also applies to men in the congregation. In determining whether to wear a particular style, we can ask if the clothing or grooming reflects modesty, or whether it is immodest and proves embarrassing to others. Tight trousers tend to be immodest for a man, just as short or revealing dresses can be immodest for a woman. When a sister bends over or tries to seat herself modestly on the platform, does she have difficulty because of her short dress? Do we possibly, by what we wear or by our grooming, mislead others into thinking that we have loose morals or have a proud, militant attitude?
-
Finkelstein
They want you to advertise for them, for free, 24/7.
True statement, there is more self supporting marketing that the WTS instigates and enforces more than most people are aware of .
If there is a new dress standard set by the WTS leaders you can bet Tight Pants Tony had something to do with that.
Anthony Morris is an idiot who probably will say something like and sisters should never be out in service wearing Spanx.
-
Nathan Natas
"This is not a woman's dress, it is a man's dress." - David Bowie
