No 'Tight Pants' policy is now official - classed as 'disturbing'

by wizzstick 362 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Oubliette

  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?
• 

  sparrowdown

  Jehovah's Witnesses don't just have a dress policy they have a all gays are wicked and worthy of destruction policy.

  In fact now, they have a secret all people that look or act gay are unworthy to represent us policy.
• 

  Oubliette

  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?
• 

  Listener

  It's amazing to see AMIII's rant being put into writing as instructions to the CO's to read out to the Elders. He has demonstrated that he wields a lot of power and any dogma that he creates will become law.

  It would appear that these instructions come from the Service Committee as opposed to the Writing Committee. AM had worked on the Service Committee since 2002. I wonder if he has caused any waves in Bethel but time will tell whether the Writing Committee jumps on board with these ideas.

  The fact that no announcement is to be made in the congregation if Elders decide not to allow a JW to witness might suggest that the writing committee aren't prepared to make this officially sanctioned policy by printing it in publications. It appears that this form of action is unprecedented and paves way for this form of punishment to be applied to all sorts of scenarios. Who knows where this could lead and the Elders aren't being told to update their Shepherding book and don't have anything in writing.

  Rather than this being a non issue these are the very types of issues that could cause disharmony and arguments between the individual GB members and also between the various committees. No doubt some are reasonable in their thinking and some aren't, to see a person's own wacky opinion being translated into law should be of great concern for those that are more level headed.

  Furthermore, if the body of elders agree that a brother or sister is blatantly and deliberately ignoring repeated council and his or her dress or grooming is disturbing to the congregation, the elders may determine that the person no longer qualifies to share in the ministry. In such rare cases no announcement would be made to the congregation.

  'and is disturbing to the congregation'. Rather than admonishing or even discouraging brothers and sisters for murmuring or making judgements against another brother or sister they are being told to act upon it. This is a mob mentality. There is no mention that the disturbed brother or sister should approach the person that is disturbing them.

  They use Deuteronomy 22:5 which talks about men dressing as women and vice versa as being unpleasing to God and another scripture about being worldly. Are they going to also apply Verse 11 which states that you are not to wear clothes of wool and linen woven together? They demonstrate that they continue to have lost the plot when they quote scriptures from laws set out under the defunct old covenant that applied to the Israelites and not modern day.

  You just need to look at the photos they have published to see how they are dressing on their very own construction sites. They are all dressed the same. The standard attire are jeans/trousers, t-shirts, hard shoes or sneakers. Are the men dressing as women or are the women dressing as men? How is this any more acceptable to them? Just because it is practical doesn't negate the same principle being involved or ignoring the bible council that they use to justify for one situation but not another.
• 

  sparrowdown

  The WT wouldn't want evidence to get in the way of a good witch hunt.
• 

  minimus

  When you point out ALL the things Witnesses do and don't do, it is fair to conclude they are a cult. Cults tell you what you should or shouldn't look like. They really want total allegiance and uniformity. If a person doesn't understand the point of the thread, oh well. At least 99 per cent seem to easily grasp this point.
• 

  Simon

  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?

  It was "Gotta catch 'em all !" - I was referring to the "checklist mentality". I agree with the principle but I think it needs some consideration as to how the items on the list are applied. If you're not careful, you would label McDonalds and Starbucks a cult.

  Here's what I don't think you "get" what I'm saying. I'm not saying JWs are not a cult - of course they are.

  The controlling behavior is part of that. But because A + B + C + D + E = cult doesn't mean that you can spin a convincing argument that D = cult. D is just one part of the criteria and in this case, D also = lots of other groups that are not considered cults.

  I just think it's a weak argument and too much is being pinned on it to make it more than it really is. Take a step back. Read it and read it again. Be reasonable, look at it as a 3rd party would, not someone who is keen to see evidence of a cult.

  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.

  Because I read it. What the words say and what you are reading them to mean are different things. Your "clearly" is not proven IMO.

  Now, given that you can't make the case (again, IMO) .,, where are you going to make it? What's the point? Who is it supposed to convince other than us, the already convinced? So what's the point in it?

  If it is only convincing to people who are already convinced that JWs are a cult then how convincing is it, really?

  You seem to be conflating "I don't think D proves they are a cult" with "they are not a cult" or "I don't think D is part of proof that they are a cult".

  What I am saying and have tried to explain is that D, on it's own, is way way way down on the list of cult indicators because so many other non-cult groups have the same practices. It is not unexpected for any conservative christian group.

  Do I think all conservative christian groups are cults? Hell yes. But not in the sense that most other people would agree with. So I don't bother usually trying to make that argument - why try to fight a battle that is already doomed to failure? Better to spend you energy and save your powder for an actual fight you can win. or at least wound the enemy over.
• 

  Simon

  It appears that this form of action is unprecedented and paves way for this form of punishment to be applied to all sorts of scenarios. Who knows where this could lead and the Elders aren't being told to update their Shepherding book and don't have anything in writing.

  Why do you think it is unprecedented? They have taken stances on certain fashions before and have also relied on oral instructions that don't always match up with what they print in their publications before so they can avoid being held to account for things.

  This is a mob mentality. There is no mention that the disturbed brother or sister should approach the person that is disturbing them.

  I see this as embracing the "offended" mentality that is becoming more and more prevalent. People, and especially religious people it seems, become experts at taking offense and using it to get their way. They no doubt want to encourage a certain amount of "group think" but I can see their motivation being to not allow people who are obviously challenging their rules and guidelines to get away with it. Wearing things you are not supposed to is a common manifestation or rebellion so they may be concerned that others start to view such ones as "getting away with it".

  They use Deuteronomy 22:5 which talks about men dressing as women and vice versa as being unpleasing to God and another scripture about being worldly. Are they going to also apply Verse 11 which states that you are not to wear clothes of wool and linen woven together? They demonstrate that they continue to have lost the plot when they quote scriptures from laws set out under the defunct old covenant that applied to the Israelites and not modern day.

  Christians in general and JW's in particular are well used to the pick-n-mix approach to scriptural interpretation and argument. It's why it's difficult to counter their arguments with bible verses even though those verses turn what they are saying on they head. They don't view the bible as a contiguous book to be read in context, but rather a bunch of convenient snippets to be rearranged into whatever order they need to suit the argument at hand. JWs have been conditioned to accept the quoting of scripture like this and I would hazard a guess that +99% never bother to even open their bible to check any of the scripture references.

  You just need to look at the photos they have published to see how they are dressing on their very own construction sites. They are all dressed the same

  Construction sites are a little different to normal - there is some mandated clothing.

  Overall though, the focus they have now is on branding and consistency / conformity to the "smart wholesome image" to promote their brand.

  Dressing up like some dandy highwayman doesn't align with their new image.

  (sorry, I couldn't resist adding an Adam Ant reference after Cofty's "Dandies"comment)
• 

  Listener

  Why do you think it is unprecedented? They have taken stances on certain fashions before and have also relied on oral instructions that don't always match up with what they print in their publications before so they can avoid being held to account for things.

  In AM's rant speech he explained that an elder should (be man enough to) send a person home to get changed if they dressed inappropriately when they turned up for field service. This has now translated into disallowing persons from witnessing work altogether if dressed inappropriately. I don't recall them taking this action in the past, however, as you suggest, they may well have but because it wasn't in any publication it doesn't mean they haven't.

  I also thought it was pretty novel that AM's speech, which he specifically said was totally supported by printed publications, has translated into a new policy. The issue of dressing modestly was always there but AM was much more specific and brought up some homophobic ideas which have now been identified to include 'gender blurring characteristics' and brothers who are 'manifesting of effeminate traits, perhaps in ones bearing, body language and manner of speech'.

  It was because of a secret BOE's letter having been given to the elders in my congregation a month before my JC that didn't match up with the current procedure's in the congregation that saw me walking out the door without looking back. They weren't even prepared to show me this letter. This secrecy and hidden rules offended me greatly.

  Construction sites are a little different to normal - there is some mandated clothing.

  It is an extreme example but God's law is supposed to be above man's laws and the same principle applies.

  There are also many occupations these days where the required uniform for males and females are the same (although females can usually incorporate skirts instead of pants if they so wish). This includes pilots, nurses, firepersons, fast food employees, etc Again, the org. take no objection to this even though the distinction between male and female clothing is blurred.
  
  

  
  
• 

  konceptual99

  It's not unprecedented for the WTS to allow unwritten rules to be perpetuated through an internal cultural osmosis. Beards is a classic example. They have had to officially quell some of these such as the infamous white shirts for public speakers and disfellowshipped people having to sit at the back for example.

  The fact that they have certain expectations for dress whilst engaging in "spiritual" activities is also hardly new and not exactly cultish or abnormal behaviour when taken in isolation.

  I do think, however, that this particular counsel and, most specifically, the sanction for repeated failure to listen to the elders is something unprecedented. I've never heard of anything else that would preclude someone from being able to share in the ministry, especially given no other internal sanctions apply, such as typical restrictions on answering, giving talks and the like.

  Participation in the ministry is something that is a requirement for those wanting to be baptised. It's considered a command from Jesus and therefore as good as a personal instruction to each baptised Witness.

  The lack of transparency or clear guidelines to elders is a concern as it leaves them free to implement things anyway they see fit. I know a number of elders who will be rubbing their hands in glee at this.

  Having looked a little more at the typical information on the history of the term "metrosexual" I think I can see why the WTS has picked up on this. A simple google search brings back lots of results that show a relationship to homosexuality. My personal opinion is that this is very blurred now with the passage of time however I think the WTS see a directly link between the cultural foundation of the term and it's evolution into the modern sartorial and groomed styling that is very common today.

  I think it is this that they refer to when the CO's outline says "Since this sort of dress and conduct is popular in the world, some may not be aware of the improper message that their dress and grooming sends to others".

  I will be very interested to see how this develops over the coming weeks. Will there be lots more talks on dress and grooming? Year ago, when the fashion was for baggy suits there was a talk about it at the CA. It just washed over most of the heads of the young people.

  We have CO visit imminently. We also have a CA very soon as well. I am going to wear skinny trousers to the CA and on the Sunday after the elders have met with the CO and see if there is anything said directly.