Posts by konceptual99

406

Goodbye JWD/JWN (my last post)

by slimboyfat in

jw
friends

after some considerable thought i have decided that i will no longer post on this forum because i want to return to jehovah.

thank you for all the kindness and many interesting discussions over the years.

i wish you all well in the future and the decisions you make.

Mobile Hotspot - JWFACTS.COM - Assembly & Conventions

by thedepressedsoul in

here is an idea i tested.

works at both assemblies and conventions.

i have noticed at the last convention and at my last assembly that when i opened up my wifi setting, tons of hotspots came up for people tethering their tablets to their smart phones.

konceptual99

Even if they did, so what? They can't search anyone. They can't look at devices. They can't prove anything.

166

Mobile Hotspot - JWFACTS.COM - Assembly & Conventions

by thedepressedsoul in

here is an idea i tested.

works at both assemblies and conventions.

i have noticed at the last convention and at my last assembly that when i opened up my wifi setting, tons of hotspots came up for people tethering their tablets to their smart phones.

konceptual99

My ideas for hotspot names....

F*ckOffMorris
TheLightKeepsOnFlickering
IDontBeleiveItAnymore
TheFloodIsBollocks (for one session)
SoAreAdamAndEve (for the next)
AsForTheGeneration.... (for the next)
IfItWasNotForShunning (for one session)
WouldAnyOfUsBeHere (for another session)
IKnowTheTruthAboutDaTroof
GoToUniversityIfYouWant
IWantToGoHome
AreYouAnApostateToo

I tried looking for an app that changes the SSID automatically but can't find one....

362

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

by wizzstick in

in short:- tight pants is no longer just a am3 hang up (or is that a hang up on the well hung?

)- brothers who have effeminate body language are flagged up- as are sisters with 'masculine' hair styles or dress- such dress is 'disturbing to the congregation'- the above must heed the (repeated) counsel from the elders...or they get stripped of the right to share on the ministry- however...this will not be revealed (announced) to the congregation.

wow.

konceptual99

Blimey Simon - I thought I was pretty much in agreement with you on your core points

Yes, and in this scenario there is no real change - the society has always been against the latest fashion and trends or youths. All that has changed is that it's no longer mini-skirts or skirts with slits in them or long hair or beards ... now it's metro-sexual style which is today's fashion (apparently, I buy clothes from Costco ... what do I know!).

Agreed - the principle of the society being against whatever the current trend is has always been the case.

Again, local elders who enjoy and wield their power unjustly are nothing new and there is nothing in these instructions that encourages, promotes or excuses that behaviour, exactly the opposite - they are promoting the notion of patient counsel and private sanctions for people who stubbornly refuse to make the requested changes.

Agreed - local elders doing it their way is nothing new. Private counsel has also been par for the course. The instructions are always worded to err on the side of reasonableness however we all know that culturally many elders find this a very difficult line to tread.

The organisation has had decades of experience in providing instructions and direction to elders to know that elders need monkey see monkey do if they want any kind of consistency. Whoever put this together knows full well that by doing it verbally, with no warning, no written instruction and no transparent information to the congregation at large simply means that it will get implemented in a robust and agricultural way more often than not. Which is what they want.

The WTS can write pages of instructions when it wants to. But not this time. Which is bizarre, given their insistence over recent years to promote principles, not set hard and fast rules but rather encourage spiritual maturity to guide people.

There has not been such direct and specific counsel to elders on clothing or behaviour like this for years as far as I know.

I can't recall any sanction where a baptised JW is not permitted to go on the ministry for anything else, and certainly not for something like clothing.

Does it change anything about them being able to set the standards they wish? Does it change anything about them being anti-gay? Of course not.

But this does hark back to top down rule making - something which has softened over recent years.

The lack of benchmarks for what is acceptable or not acceptable, whilst not new, does reflect crude approaches to control from the past. It allows the organisation to claim they are promoting a reasonable view where only the worst of rebels are sanctioned, whilst permitting whatever implementation the local body sees fit, even if that goes beyond what might be reasonable. It's typical WTS disingenuous behaviour.

It's the same old same old but a pattern that had seemingly diminished. And I find it hard to believe that the introduction of a sanction about ministry participation can be ignored as a fundamental difference.

As with anything, if someone really wants to keep their style rather than their faith they can leave. Otherwise, like so many before them, they change to keep inline with the WTS standards on dress, grooming and behaviour.

I am surprised you make it sound so straight-forward Simon, when it rarely is. Remember this is not some club where the dress code is published at the door (other than being well arranged and modest). These instructions are verbal, only to the BoE and have no guidelines. The news here is not the gnashing of teeth at fashion nor the homophobia. It's the resurrection of poorly defined instructions to groups of men who can't generally organise a piss up in a brewery on a matter that is potentially highly sensitive.

I am with you in so many ways here:

- implementing dress standards is not, in itself, the make or break defining behaviour of a cult

- on it's own it's not something that is some game changer for apostate activists or for those who are trying to work out their sexuality whilst inside the WTS

- trying to bash the WTS with this instruction as if they have tied their own noose is unrealistic.

On the other hand, I think there are aspects of these instructions that do merit being highlighted and provided as food for thought for those waking up to the reality of da troof.

To that extent, it's not a case of "move along, nothing to see here".

362

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

by wizzstick in

in short:- tight pants is no longer just a am3 hang up (or is that a hang up on the well hung?

)- brothers who have effeminate body language are flagged up- as are sisters with 'masculine' hair styles or dress- such dress is 'disturbing to the congregation'- the above must heed the (repeated) counsel from the elders...or they get stripped of the right to share on the ministry- however...this will not be revealed (announced) to the congregation.

wow.

konceptual99

This directive is unlikely to be used to start a witch hunt of gays still in living in the closet within the organisation. It makes no difference to the majority of people studying since the chances of them being openly gay and still wanting to join the Witnesses is virtually nil.

For those people, particularly born-ins, who have contented with trying to square their natural feelings with their programming that homosexuality is a sin and not to be practised there are a few scenarios:

1 - they acknowledge their feelings, come out as gay and leave the organisation

2 - they acknowledge their feelings but stick the organisation and simply try to squash their natural tendencies

3 - they kid themselves and try to live as a heterosexual witness

Basically, the cream either rises to the top and leaves or is suppressed by the individual.

I would suspect that it would only be the extreme case where someone who believes themselves to be gay stays in the organisation and fights against whatever intolerance is shown as a result of this directive.

However, I still believe there is the question of how this is implemented. Although the notes suggest that counsel and the sanction on ministry would be provided only to one continually reflecting the extremes of the spirit of the world, we all know this type of poorly qualified direction is regularly interpreted in ways that go beyond the spirit and intent of the original instruction.

Given it's inference to not just clothing but also mannerisms that could be construed as crossing the gender divide, I would not be surprised if we start to hear of cases where elders start wading into situations with their size tens, dragging their cultural knuckles on the floor behind them.

I think Simon is correct to point out that this probably makes zero material difference to the genuine homosexual but the collateral damage is not going to be there. It's going to be in the young ones who like to be well groomed and enjoy expressing themselves sartorially. It's going to be on those that like to be a little different. It's going to be amongst those that are in congregations where one or two elders rule the roost and have no liberally minded foils (and they do exist) to temper the control they wish to exercise.

In my opinion, this instruction does represent a resurgence of the sort of top down, prescriptive, rule based, unqualified, high control thinking and approach that typified times past.

Aside from the ministry sanction, maybe little is actually that different to previous commentaries on clothing etc. however there is something more insidious about the way this is presented that may be more visible to the average joe witness, especially if they are the more professional and culturally aware type that are out there.

To that end I would hope that the elders do act on this instruction and do it in a way that is ill conceived. That way, there is a chance that it may be catalyst for some to wake up.

15

Following Links to JWT

by konceptual99 in

jw
friends

just a wee warning on following links to jwtalk (jwt).

if you are a member there then it is very easy for the mods to identify if you have come in from this site.

they will then ban you.. so, if you are member here and trying to lurk there then don't click on any links to jwt, just copy and paste the link into a new browser tab..

konceptual99

I am sure there are wide awake people posting on there. Some stay under the radar, some don't.

15

Following Links to JWT

by konceptual99 in

jw
friends

just a wee warning on following links to jwtalk (jwt).

if you are a member there then it is very easy for the mods to identify if you have come in from this site.

they will then ban you.. so, if you are member here and trying to lurk there then don't click on any links to jwt, just copy and paste the link into a new browser tab..

konceptual99

Just a wee warning on following links to JWTalk (JWT). If you are a member there then it is very easy for the mods to identify if you have come in from this site. They will then ban you.

So, if you are member here and trying to lurk there then don't click on any links to JWT, just copy and paste the link into a new browser tab.

362

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

by wizzstick in

in short:- tight pants is no longer just a am3 hang up (or is that a hang up on the well hung?

)- brothers who have effeminate body language are flagged up- as are sisters with 'masculine' hair styles or dress- such dress is 'disturbing to the congregation'- the above must heed the (repeated) counsel from the elders...or they get stripped of the right to share on the ministry- however...this will not be revealed (announced) to the congregation.

wow.

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.

43

Evidence of God.

by Jaewook kim in

sugar water will show blue light over the sun.. salt water will show red light over the sun.. our body components, salt sugar water.. blue blood vein and red blood... definition of our body in his form.. this is the evidence, of our god..

konceptual99

Why have I only just seen this? Having read the thread now, I don't know what is more crazy.

The OP on this thread or the thread on JWT claiming that the Pangaea breakup was caused by the Flood.

362

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

by wizzstick in

in short:- tight pants is no longer just a am3 hang up (or is that a hang up on the well hung?

)- brothers who have effeminate body language are flagged up- as are sisters with 'masculine' hair styles or dress- such dress is 'disturbing to the congregation'- the above must heed the (repeated) counsel from the elders...or they get stripped of the right to share on the ministry- however...this will not be revealed (announced) to the congregation.

wow.

konceptual99

Only just caught up on this topic so apologies if I am repeating anything anyone else has said.

Firstly I think Simon has a point - a conservative Christian sect making some internal noise about clothing styles and blurred gender stereotypes is hardly front page news. In that context I would agree that the import of this could be overblown compared to other aspects of the Jehovah's Witnesses.

I think that the real issues with what is going on in this CO delivered "counsel" are far more insidious and less obvious. I note that they have been touched on by a few so apologies again if I am raking over old coals.

1 - CO delivery. The first problem is this is delivered by the CO to the elders. Anyone with experience of being an elder knows this is a great way to disseminate something which they would never want to be seen to be making a rule on. Elders hear the words but don't see the outline. The interpretation and implementation is left up to each BoE and rarely followed up with anything that presents clear direction for the BoE to follow. Perhaps there will be a follow up letter or even some kind of WT but right now this info will filter through the bodies globally and be implemented as they see fit with no consistency or even any guidelines on which to refer.

2 - Lack of transparency. This matter and the potential for it meaning a person is not long able to go on the ministry is completely unknown to the majority of the congregation. How will someone know? I expect individuals will be talked to and perhaps there will be a flurry of poorly delivered local needs items but there will be no possibility of reference to some publication or letter as nothing exists.

3 - Lack of analogous precedent. I can think of no other circumstance where a baptised member of the congregation is not permitted to go on the ministry. Individuals may have restrictions on answering, participation in the school and so on, but the organisation has been very careful not to prevent ones going in the ministry if they wish - it's a command from Jesus.

Fashion styles and fads come and go, the organisation does constantly remind people about not reflecting the "spirit of the world" but never has threatened some kind of sanction or disciplinary process. Now someone can be hounded, without any warning or transparent benchmark, on the basis of their style of clothing or (worse), potentially by their mannerisms.

No other behaviour by a baptised Witness carries such a sanction. Getting reproved, marrying out of the lord, being a paedophile for goodness sake - no of it prevents ones from going on the ministry. What is is about this matter that scares them so much?

4 - No benchmark. There is zero guidance on what is acceptable or unacceptable here. Is it clothing? Is it mannerisms? Is it an attitude? There are no examples of what the organisation considers to be unacceptable. Does being groomed or wearing a modern, slim fitting, tailored suit mean you are wearing the wrong clothes or a homosexual?

It promotes a stereotype that somehow all gays can be identified by the way they look. Fair enough, this is hardly surprising, but the organisation has been leaning towards principles for years now after having been burnt with silly rules. Now they are moving back to unquantifiable rules implemented in a haphazard way.

To be fair, the sanction of not be able to go in the ministry is only supposed to be used in the case of one who blatantly and deliberately ignores counsel. The problem is that there is zero way that both elders and the "victim" can know what is acceptable or not acceptable. It's down to local interpretation.

This, in itself, is not unprecedented within the organisation - but to have something that gives top down approval to being able to crack down on someone for simply being themselves, with no transparency or controls, is yet pretty glaring example of unwarranted high control tactics that should be part of the overall picture of this organisation as a cult.