Field Service Privilege Can Be Taken Away Due to Hairstyle and Tight Pants???

by Wild_Thing 33 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  oldskool

  If the written directive expressly states that clothing styles worn in non-Witnessing activities can be the basis for refusing brothers and sisters in otherwise good standing from engaging in field service when they ARE dressed appropriately, then yes, this is new.

  Rather than being new wouldn't this simply be defining what was already at the discretion of the local Elders already? Reproof is reproof, they always could do it for any trivial violation found inside WT literature. The mentioned letter may have some defined terms, but it could have been done in the past anyway, correct?

  Clothing was always something to be regulated. A good deal of this was informal, members checking each other through gossip, which eventually could lead to reproof action.
• 

  millie210

  here it is Steve,

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/5749122145452032/you-wear-tight-pants-you-will-trouble
  

  
  

  in the 10th post by JWFacts, the letter is there to read.

  On page 2 of the thread wifibandit has provided a link to the actual letter.
• 

  millie210

  oldskool

  Rather than being new wouldn't this simply be defining what was already at the discretion of the local Elders already? Reproof is reproof, they always could do it for any trivial violation found inside WT literature. The mentioned letter may have some defined terms, but it could have been done in the past anyway, correct?
  

  Clothing was always something to be regulated. A good deal of this was informal, members checking each other through gossip, which eventually could lead to reproof action

  As far as I know, this stops short of reproof, Reproof can only be for a judicial reason, correct?

  Maybe this is more like marking in that one regard (non judicial)

  I am guessing. I dont know.

  I just see this as a sticky situation, if you tell someone they cant go out in service because of their grooming then who is next?

  I mean, wife beaters, drunkards, child molesters, porn addicts, gossips, and disfellowshipped people can ALL go out in service.

  But not the kid in the tight pants.

  Really?
• 

  oldskool

  Maybe this is more like marking in that one regard (non judicial)

  An ambiguous concept that nobody ever understood.

  The letter reads like guidelines for private reproof. Nothing new.
• 

  millie210

  oldskool
  

  An ambiguous concept that nobody ever understood.
  The letter reads like guidelines for private reproof. Nothing new

  If so, then it means tight pants is a judicial matter. Reproof, private or public is judicial,requiring a committee.

  And yes, that would be new.

  I am not nit picking your post oldschool. I see you and me as being on the same side here.

  I AM picking apart their letter and their policies and will be doing so for as long as they sit themselves up as lords and overseers over other peoples lives.
  

  They need to be consistent within their own policies.

  However ridiculous those may be, consistency is a bare minimum standard even they should be able to meet. 

  
  
• 

  oldskool

  My take on the letter is that continued dabbling with "gender blurring" fashion trends can eventually result in a form of private reproof.

  They are saying "if your appearance doesn't match what's between your legs we don't want you going door to door". Gender blurring, to use the letter's terminology, has emerged in fashion on and off for many years, but at least from my perspective it is bigger now than it ever has been. No big surprise it's being singled out. It's also a hot button political issue, they don't want representatives to appear to be on the "wrong" side of it.

  I think what gets to me regarding fashion is how mixed the WTS is on fashion in general. You get the sense that they truly want conservative dress, but are hesitant to demand it, probably for fear their membership will appear like a regimented cult.

  Another issue is that JW faith provides few avenues for personal expression, and too much push against personal fashion may actually constitute something the r&f won't tolerate, at least in western countries. So the Watchtower rides this middle ground, always strongly requesting conservative dress but not demanding it.

  To put it another way, what is holding the WTS back from instituting a dress code? Why don't they just pull the trigger? 
• 

  steve2

  Thanks Millie. I'll go to it now.
• 

  Quarterback

  Would a Donald Trump Comb over disqualify me?
• 

  TMS

  Brother Prince Rogers Nelson may be rolling over in his grave.
• 

  No Apologies

  Haven't there been at least a couple court cases where they have argued that a witness out in field service is engaging in a completely personal activity not directed by them or under their supervision? I think it was a case where a Bethelite was driving and got in an accident while out in service.

  If they can forbid someone from going in field service, then that seems to contradict the above argument. They sure like to have it both ways.

  No Apologies