Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 07/22/2019 in all areas

  1. 3 points
    It is NOT a matter of conscience ... well, it depends on how far you want to work in the organization. Here in Spain the situation is as follows: In many congregations one may serve as elder still wearing a beard, and therefore enjoy any other local privilege. But that does not work for you in the neighboring congregation. It is usual for a speaker with a beard to inform when they invite him that he is wearing a beard, in case it bothers the conscience of the brothers of the congregation where he will speak. At the circuit level, forget to have part from the platform (with beard). I know of a case that they interviewed a brother with a beard. The traveler (district) forced him to cut it if he wanted to go out in the next section. As he did not want to, they did not let him leave. I think that in some circuit brothers with beards have served as ushers and other auxiliary works, but it has not been general. In the case of another circuit they asked the traveler about which males with beards could be ushers. Answer: "When you see one of Bethel with a beard, then. Meanwhile I do not want to be the first. On a global level, have we seen a man with a beard in the broadcasting, or in the videos of the regional assemblies? Yes ... representing the role of non-believer, opposite husband or person in a bad spiritual state. Result of all the previous thing: to take beard between us is a thorny subject, problematic, if you want to have to fully serve for others. If you settle for being "rank and file" maybe they do not mess with you. If, when going to preach, people would say to me "can you wear a beard?" I will give you a short answer: yes, of course. The most extensive answer is the one I mentioned above. A well-groomed beard in Spain is not at all a sign of rebelliousness or careless dress. The King of Spain has a beard. The previous prime minister too. When preaching, it does not attract attention. Someone will say: "Videos and broadcasting are prepared taking into account the society or brotherhood of North America" To which I will reply that it is said again and again that the Governing Body intends an "international flavor" in our publications and videos, collecting scenes from everywhere, even the clothes. So, why is not it seen in the videos, or in the pictures in our magazines an elder directing the Watchtower study with a beard? Why are all seen with beards unbelievers? Why, when you progress, you see them shaving? I find that it is a minor matter whether I wear a beard or not. That's why I will not leave it, to avoid more complications than the many I have in my life. But what is not a minor issue is that we are imposed the conscience of others (2 Corinthians 1:24) “Not that we are the masters over your faith, but we are fellow workers for your joy”
  2. 2 points
    Poor old @TrueTomHarley has to try to group people together. Even though he adds 'as individuals', he still starts with a group of people all of one type. I don't know Srecko's personal information and I would not ask him, but as for me, I have a wife and a son that live 'at home' with me. They are enough company for me thanks. I do not need to surround myself at home or online with a group of people. I've just bought myself a new MP3 player with the biggest 'cans' (headphones) I could get, and I go walking along the riverside and then along the seafront all on my own. I walk past people as if they are just obstructions, I dodge round them all. People here in the UK are also fat and they get in the way, but I squeeze my slim body past them all. As for the idea that "Witnesses as a people have a much greater diversity of friends as regards race, social-economic, nationality, & educational letters, then do non-Witnesses." That is probably wishful thinking. Witnesses do not seem to actually have any friends, just brothers and sisters. A friend is someone that can be relied upon for support and help, no matter what the circumstances. Not so with the bro's and sis, who desert people at the slightest whim. The fact that the JW Org is earthwide does not make all those people your friends. That's a bit like having a million friends on Facebook, they are not real friends. Poor Tom is still living in that dream world of his, and he won't back down, which is funny as he condemned me for not backing down on things. If you treat things as typical patterns it is because you don't want to 'see' the individual. You are frightened to think of individuals having a mind and thoughts of their own, because JW's are not allowed to have a mind and thoughts of their own.
  3. 2 points
    This had become a kind of cliche for experiences given from the assemblies. You would always hear someone say that they were learning about the truth, but that they had a beard and didn't like to dress in a suit and tie . . . and then . . . voila! . . . one day this person will show up at the Hall, and to everyone's surprise . . . he will be clean-shaven. The audience would even clap at this point, as if it were a bigger turning point than their baptism. *** yb11 p. 117 Papua New Guinea *** The next day, I arrived at the convention clean-shaven. *** yb93 pp. 176-177 Honduras *** The next day he was clean-shaven and had short hair! He asked for a Bible study, and a brother happily complied. *** km 7/04 p. 1 par. 3 Imitate Jehovah’s Justice *** To her pleasant surprise, the next day he was clean-shaven and had short hair! He asked for a Bible study, which a brother was happy to conduct, and progressed to dedication and baptism. *** w12 4/1 p. 15 The Bible Changes Lives *** . I quit overdrinking and taking drugs. I also cut my hair, shaved off my beard, and stopped dressing only in black. *** w02 2/1 p. 27 Jehovah Taught Us Endurance and Perseverance *** As they made spiritual progress, they came to their Bible study shaved, hair neatly combed, and wearing a shirt and tie in the middle of August—one of the hottest months in Greece! I'm sure that most of us know that the above examples are only a small sampling.
  4. 2 points
    With all due respect, people should get their facts straight before they make a bold unverified statement. When a person does that quite often (without proper vetting their statements) then people will suspect EVERYTHING they say thereafter. That is why their overall credibility will and should suffer. Think about it. Just saying.
  5. 2 points
    Reminds me that the Bethel Elder who was also the head of Purchasing, at Bethel, and who worked for Dean Songer in 1979, suddenly came back from a two week vacation with a beard, very well trimmed, and short. He actually looked better with the beard, too. But everyone knew what would happen to him. For one thing, Dean Songer wore a crewcut and a thin black tie, so he always looked like one of those guys in the Houston control room during a Gemini or early Apollo flight. An article had come out at (about) the exact same time that he grew the beard, which made him seem "rebellious" to most of us, including me. Although I didn't know him, and it might have easily been a coincidence, since the article was no doubt accepted for publication at least two months earlier. The article said: *** g79 4/22 pp. 27-28 When Another’s Conscience Is Involved *** The same counsel applies when it comes to wearing beards or certain articles of clothing. In some locations people still view beards as identifying rebellious elements in society. It was too late for the next issue, but a month later, a small "Watching the World" item was included, that did not seem like a coincidence: *** g79 5/22 p. 30 Watching the World *** The U.S. Supreme Court recently let stand a District Court ruling that a supermarket chain has the right to maintain its “no beards” rule for some employees. A man who was fired for refusal to shave had brought suit. He said he has a skin disease common among black men that can result in irritation or infection when short hairs curl back into the skin. The District Court had ruled that “the grocery chain had a business purpose for the rule which overrode its slight impact on employees,” according to American Medical News. The California State Senate has ruled that, in the Senate chambers, men must wear “appropriate attire,” including coats and ties. The senator who proposed the resolution declared that “appearances are important,” and that a certain amount of dignity was expected by the public. Certainly this is also true of those who profess to represent the highest Lawmaker in the universe, Jehovah God. The newly bearded brother in question was not black, but at the time, at least one black brother (also an elder) was asking if he could grow a beard due to a serious skin condition from ingrown whiskers after a shave. It was already beginning to be allowed in congregations in the US for some black brothers, but that allowance was considered a slippery slope.
  6. 2 points
    Sometimes Lawyers wear some pretty strange clothing, depending on the Venue.
  7. 1 point
    @Jack Ryan said:How do you feel about being told that you MUST wear your badge even when out to dinner at night with your family after a convention? Never happened yet. But if it did, I would take it off.
  8. 1 point
    Ok, Ok .... just calm down, i wished to upset you ...but not so much :))))
  9. 1 point
    Sometimes when things seem at their darkest, and you see that New Light Approaching faster and faster ... it's a good idea to make sure that you are not in the middle of train tracks.
  10. 1 point
    What in the world is wrong with it? “Typical patterns” can be discerned by just keeping ones eyes opened. You don’t need “investigative journalism,” for example, to voice that Americans are, as a people, overweight. Even checking your “critical thinking” at the door, one can come up with that observation. What I have done is parallel. I also plainly said that you as an individual didn’t necessarily fit that “typical pattern.” Witnesses as a people have a much greater diversity of friends as regards race, social-economic, nationality, & educational letters, then do non-Witnesses. It doesn’t mean that there will be not found many individuals of both groups who do not fit the typical pattern. I don’t back down on this one even a bit. It is plainly true.
  11. 1 point
    Witness

    WHITEWASH

    Should I spell it out for you? According to you, I am ignorant, foolish and stupid; very unchristian-like. Should I call you ignorant, foolish and stupid because you cannot see that I have indeed, told you who the Destroyer is, using the scriptures to prove it? Those who are spiritual "Israel" are outlined in scripture: Gal.6:15,16: "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation. And as many as walk according to this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God." Rom 2:28,29: "For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God." Rom 4:13: "For the promise that he would be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith." Gal 3:7: "Therefore know that only those who are of faith of Abraham, are sons of Abraham." John 8:39: "Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham’s children, you would do the works of Abraham." Rom 4: 11: "And Abraham received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also" Those who are "Israel" share the faith of righteous Abraham, receiving the circumcision of the heart, by Jesus Christ. Col 2:11: "In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ". This comes upon a person, through an anointing. With that circumcision of the heart, God's laws are written upon it. Heb 8:10: "This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people." 1 Pet 2:9,10 - "But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; 10 who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy." They are the anointed priesthood. They are "Israel". 1 Pet 2:5 - "Coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious, 5 you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ." As I said and which you have successfully twisted, the Great Crowd are the anointed, "called, chosen and faithful" remnant - a segment of the total "144,000" who come out of the Tribulation, upholding Truth. If you would like to know any more (although you appear to be exceedingly confident in knowing the scriptures backwards and forward; the invitation is to all) go here: http://4womaninthewilderness.blogspot.com/2013/07/who-are-144000.html (Thank you, Librarian, for allowing me to post the link)
  12. 1 point
    This had become a kind of cliche for experiences given from the assemblies. You would always hear someone say that they were learning about the truth, but that they had a beard and didn't like to dress in a suit and tie . . . and then . . . voila! . . . one day this person will show up at the Hall, and to everyone's surprise . . . he will be clean-shaven. The audience would even clap at this point, as if it were a bigger turning point than their baptism. Wow brainwashing at its best. Um, Jesus said about cleaning the inside of the bowl or dish first. Shaving and putting on a suit and tie mean nothing, it just impresses naive people. It matter not if a person wears and open neck shirt and casual smart trousers. And it matters not if a man has a beard. And in fact it matters not if a lady wears trousers designed for ladies, because they are not men's clothing. Lots of ladies here in UK congregations now wear leggings under dresses in fact. But in the JW Org its all about dictatorship. It's not about showing God, as God sees into your heart. It's all about pleasing the Elders and the higher ups..
  13. 1 point
    @TrueTomHarley They could always do it, but they might come in for counsel and be kept from what Witnesses call “privileges”—MS, elder, pioneer, and so forth. OK, let's look at this one sentence which Tom seems to think is casually funny. Let's start with the problem of Elders withholding 'privileges' due to their personal preferences. This is not in order of importance. 1. It is not showing Christian love. 2. it is going beyond the things written, as there is NO scriptural basis for it. . 3. It is a cause for stumbling. 4. It would be restricting the Preaching of the Good News for No good reason. 5. It would be taking over the conscience of another person, dictating to them though for no good reason. 6. It would be ignoring scripture, such as the one about the straw and the rafter. And the oneat Luke 17 v 1&2 Now you may say that the Edler is acting on instructions from higher up, in which case it becomes more serious because those higher up should be more spiritually mature and able to see things with a good Christian attitude and conscience.
  14. 1 point
    Regarding tobacco : God's kingdom Rules Page 111 para 12 & 13 And Smoking banned in 1973 Regarding christmas : God's Kingdom Rules page 101 para 8 & page 102 para 9 @Anna i hope this is to your satisfaction.
  15. 1 point
    Ok be picky if you like. They allowed smoking until 1970. Well 1973 actually it seems.
  16. 1 point
    Not really. It has been a issue only for the last 30 years, 30 years? ...this is funny i think. Issue was from Judge Rutherford era who was against Russell influence on Society. After Russell dead and after he prevailed in taking Presidency, he introducing changes (good or bad .. it is for Historians to describe) One of them is - NO beard! :)) Thanks for such deep, contemplative inspection of other people spirit and soul :)))) In just two sentences you done amazing job. Investigative Journalism?
  17. 1 point
    I was wondering what she was pointing at
  18. 1 point
    Glurp! And I thought the British were "conservative"! (In their views).
  19. 1 point
    If "Tight Pants" are so risque, and get certain Brothers all hot and bothered, and distracting them from their Theocratic duties, Tight Pants Tony would have an absolute stroke over THIS outfit! Perhaps there should be a Watchtower Policy Statement that Kilts have to go down to the ANKLE!, and not have Mylar pillows or spherical orb designs bouncing around on the genital area as the brother walks along. If you ask me, if you are going to wear that outfit outside of Scotland, you better damn well have a sword! Forget the Badges at the Restaurants! We have a full scale "TPT" CRISIS here! By the way... that pillow thingey in front, the Sister is pointing to with astonishment, is called a "TPT Conundrum".
  20. 1 point
    Witness

    WHITEWASH

    Now the blood shall be a sign for you on the houses where you are.And when I see the blood, I will pass over you; and the plague shall not be on you to destroy you when I strike the land of Egypt. Exod 12:13 For the Lord will pass through to strike the Egyptians; and when He sees the blood on the lintel and on the two doorposts, the Lord will pass over the door and not allow the destroyer to come into your houses to strike you. Exod 12:23 The Lord (His Spirit) passes over Israel and passes through the Egyptians. He allows Satan the Destroyer, to strike. Obviously, you desire the destroyer to be God or Jesus Christ...regardless of what the scriptures say. By faith he kept the Passover and the application of blood, so that the destroyer of the firstborn would not touch the firstborn of Israel. Heb 11:28
  21. 1 point
    @Jesus.defender Not really. We are worshippers of Jehovah God. And we do what his son Jesus had commanded us to do, to preach the good news and to make discples. We also apply what qualities that Jesus expresses. For a defender if Jesus. Last I checked Jesus doesn't attack his fellow man, let alone a random stranger.
  22. 1 point
    Is it? One could make that case. It certainly could be annoying at times. Still, not every whim in life goes your way. I never wanted a beard anyway. It did sometimes cause some trouble however, when they grew one for non-standard reasons. They could always do it, but they might come in for counsel and be kept from what Witnesses call “privileges”—MS, elder, pioneer, and so forth. Yet, isn’t this another case of the non-doers saying that the doers are doing it wrong? Witnesses are a close-knit group, organized that way for the sake of preaching the good news. They rub shoulders will people of all dispositions and backgrounds that they otherwise wouldn’t rub shoulders with. The past circuit overseer said that Jehovah has molded his people into “large, united, happy, somewhat dysfunctional family.” Idiosyncrasies will pop up in a dysfunctional family, and this was one of them. Not really. It has been a issue only for the last 30 years, which is still not nothing, but neither is it 100. In the days of beatniks and hippies, Anna’s application of verse would have been spot-on. A beard during that time, suggesting affiliation with those characters, did indeed have a high chance of stumbling new ones or unbelievers Neither of you are in any position to lecture. Both of you have put yourself in places where you have no need to get along with people—if anyone annoys you, simply write him or her out of the picture. Inevitably, you surround yourselves with people who are pretty much like yourself. I don’t know it for sure, of course, with you as individuals, but it is the typical pattern that you have probably fallen into. If I were not a Witness, my friends would almost certainly be persons just like me, with little variety. Instead, I have friends of every age, nationality, ethnicity, social class, educational and economic level. I have a whole circuitful of real people who like me, and I like them. It is not for the sake of making friends that I come online—I have more friends than I can handle. The only common feature that they have is that they are on the same page spiritually, which I regard as a good thing, not a bad thing. I am grateful to Jehovah for it, and to his organization, because it would not happen otherwise. There is a price to pay for such close interaction, however. You don’t always get your way. Sometimes you have to yield. Sometimes you yield on things that you think you really shouldn’t have to yield on, but you know that keeping the peace is better than getting your way on every thing. Nations have cultures. They all have their own unique ways of thinking, their own quirks, some of which will seem nuts to another nation. Witnesses have their own culture, too, and their own quirks. It is the price to pay for working in close proximity with many different people. I wouldn’t get too hung up on it.
  23. 1 point
    Space Merchant

    THE TRINITY

    Anytime, but that being said, you still need to voice your claims, and every single time you avoid and run from the very things you said. Ok let's see what you have to say. And I am a debater, not a judge of a debate, for what I link are tell tale signs of a losing debater, and only the loser. And I love debates, be it in them or watching, I mentioned this before... In a debate, even those on the winning side can spit a few insults, unfortunately I am not on the losing end. I suggest you look into some debates, a notable debater being Ben Shapiro, Br. Myatt, Masur, etc. The irony is in a debate, one can see who actually wins by means of 2 points: [1] Contextualizing what it means to meet your burden of proof, i.e. arguing in favor of a framing device that acts as an evaluative mechanism for proving the truth or falsity of the resolution or topic statement. [2] Proving that the topic itself meets that contextualization, i.e. that it meets the criteria you've set up for proving the resolution true. I even told you from the very beginning, even a seasoned debater can be unpredictable and can insult their challenger, but evidently not to the extreme, for me, I merely played on your Biblical Intelligence, for even the Bible speaks of stupid persons concerning what is true and what is false, what is wise and what is unwise, etc. Therefore, you can be called as such if you are making absurd claims that are not even Biblical. That being said you missed 3 points that fits you perfectly lol: #3: False equivalence aka comparing a counter-argument with something abhorrent #4: Tu quoque or “What about-ism” - straying away from the topic and saying “look at this”, “but what about that”; a diversionary tactic. #5: Appeal to motive - implying that the opponent seeks to gain something due to their stand on the issue You fit all 3 of such while being on the losing end, so much you cannot speak a single thing without using JWs to help you out. More so, you stated I am using articles, I am using Interfaith Dialogue (I got quite the laugh out of this one granted the source linked by me proved you wrong), etc, with no evidence to claim, therefore, if a debater can call you ignorant, or stupid, or silly, etc. Then what they are saying is true. You also show anger and frustration granted that A - you voted down someone who was speaking to me and only me and B - you had copied and paste your idiot filled claims elsewhere. The fact you willfully shot down a spectator/onlooker shows you have lost from the get go. That being said, the article is indeed correct, when a person loses a debate, such points showed by them by their words etc. And to this day, we still never found out your claim about donkeys preaching the Christ, the most sillies thing I had ever heard. This one is a nice one, also you do not even know what Deux [Deus] Ex Machina even is, which makes it all the more amusing to see you struggle in this debate. So I ask you this question: Can you point out and quote ANY of my fallacies regarding our debate? As a bonus, I want you to quote the so called "interfaith dialogue" I am speaking. as well as the "article" claim made by you. This I got to see, especially with my history of fighting the interfaith, I want to see from an ignorant person, you, of this so called claim you speak of. Let's have at it Srecko. I can quote some of your fallacies, here they are: NOTE: Before we start, let me tell you what a fallacy is. A fallacy is a mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound argument. It also means a failure in reasoning which renders an argument invalid or faulty reasoning; misleading or unsound argument. Then show us this evidence regarding the Donkey and the stones preaching the gospel truth, Screko. You said according to the Bible, so surely to you, you may have something to say rather than run away from the very words that you said. I an assure you, even this claim of yours sounds very stupid when read out loud. So show us your evidence that a Snake was preaching some sort of gospel, Srecko, otherwise unfounded claims such as this shows us, no, it exposes you to be nothing more than an ignorant lair concerning the Bible of which you lack. The word gospel as defined: [1] the age concerning Christ, the kingdom of God, and salvation. [2] one of the first four New Testament books telling of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ [3] an interpretation of the Christian message As we can see, the snake has never preached about the Christ let alone speak of the good news gospel, more so, the snake was not spreading a Christian message and or a doctrine. The truth of the matter, according to the Bible, according to the book of Genesis (Torah) is that Satan had used the snake to deceive the first woman, Eve, resulting in her and Adam's disobedience. You said I suggested whatever it is you are referring to, this so called simplified edition article editions you speak of when all that I said comes merely from an ESV Bible, and my 2 minor sources being Wikipedia, and an English Dictionary (evidence of this is on page 2-4 of regarding our debate), and nothing more. Can you quote anything from me in this debate that I had suggested simplified edition articles as you claim? If not, you must make Satan very proud to add words to someone's mouth. As a man of God, I do not add nor do I take from God's Word, and had been very vocal of Deut. 4:2. That being said, show me, Srecko Sostar your claim. Let's see it, show me any of my quotes in this debate that shows "Interfaith Dialogue" when from the get-go I am only using the Bible. That being said, we can see earlier you tried to steer into the direction of the WT and JWs in order to not be focused on solely a Bible discussion, for you had been exposed for the simple fact that without JWs in your dialogue, you have nothing - and it shows. If you cannot answer what you yourself had said, well, that link only proves to everyone here that you not just started a debate, but you lost it by not in mere defeat, but throwing yourself into your own ruin and peril of depravity, so much so you resort to a copy/paste shenanigans elsewhere by means of your own fumes. That being said, address the questions posed in light orange. Check mate
  24. 1 point
    @TrueTomHarley The only reason you think of me as being unhinged is so that it makes you feel easier about my comments. To use the excuse that you think someone has a mental problem, just because they tell the truth and you don't like it, well that's pretty poor Tom. But if it makes your life easier then ok go for it. JW Insider. Now is he still a JW ? I think so. Hence if he brings up a situation he does not want it to look too serious for the JW Org. 'that he regards is quite rare' does not mean it actually is 'quite rare' it just means that is his opinion. PUT NOT YOUR TRUST IN EARTHLING MAN. As for the CSA thing. In my opinion it is easier for me to relate to such things that others have suffered as i have suffered similar things. It's not about me Tom, it's about ALL THOSE THAT HAVE SUFFERED CSA AND OTHER ABUSES IN THE JW ORG.. But as I've said before most people just see it as collateral damage... The comments i see as funny are funny to me. The reason most are funny is because they are only a person's opinion, and in most cases are nowhere near true. So you see i have a sense of humour. i don't always moan about comments i laugh at some. As for Srecko, i think he does fantastically well with his English as it is not his first language. And maybe he has a similar sense of humour to me. I have a comment on my FB page somewhere and it says 'The first thing you have to know about me is that i am not you'. Do you get the sense of that comment Tom ? Stop judging me because i am not you. I do not think like you, act like you or even want to be like you Tom.
  25. 1 point
    That's an easy one. I did not wear mine two out of the three days. And guess what happened? Absolutely nothing! I think you are a little misguided there Jack. Do you really think that some elder is going to hunt someone down for not wearing a badge? If you really think that, then you have been damaged more than I thought. I am sorry and wish I could help.
  26. 1 point
    JOHN BUTLER

    who is referred to here?

    In the Armed forces in UK and USA there are rules WRITTEN DOWN for soldiers to follow strictly. Yet it has been proved that in many cases those soldiers did not follow the rules. It is also the same in the JW Org. However in the JW Org, it would seem as if the elders are told not to follow the rules that are written down. The GB believe they have the right to tell lies and they call it spiritual warfare. So what is the point of them writing down rules which they know they will deliberately break. The point is, for people like BtK and Space Merchant to point to the written rules and say 'Look i told you so'. How blind are those people ? Anyone can write rules, but it does not mean anyone will live by them.
  27. 1 point
    @Anna Quote "it was not what the elders said, but it was what the Bible said." Yes love that. But it has never said in the Bible that men have to wear a suit and tie. Imagine Jesus getting to the sea shore and saying to those fishermen ' Guys I would have let you be my followers but you are not wearing a suit and tie' And back with the beards thing too. ' You guys have beards, you cannot follow me and preach'. . And I'm sure there are a few more such things. I was even told by an old brother, an Elder in fact, that years before paisley ties were forbidden. In my last congregation if an Elder 'told me off' for anything, i would say show me three scriptures to back up what you are saying. It came from the idea that the Org use to teach repetition for emphasis... Quote, The funny thing is, they blame the org.. Maybe it's because Elders make the worst parents sometimes. (even involved in CSA) And other Elders will not take notice of a child if said child is the child of an Elder. So the child cannot get help from anyone. By the way, I'm glad you had a good childhood. Mine was horrible, with a wicked mother committing adultery and her 'boyfriend' nearly drowning my dad in the family pond. My dad suffered with TB (and had one of his lungs collapsed so my brother tells me). Then the children's home episode. Dad died aged 49 when i was around 20. So of course my outlook is 'slightly' different to yours.
  28. 1 point
    There is a quite a difference between a suggestion and a directive. Was the direction given as a suggestion? So delegates were free not to wear it? What would happen if one of them chose NOT to wear it?
  29. 1 point
    @Anna You got me! Really it's because I have issues stemming from decades of mind control from the JW's.... So I am not a good example. Other people should save themselves and future generations from this radioactive titanic religious cult if they don't want their children discussing whether they are allowed to wear beards in 50 years from now. I would rather they study science, medicine or technology and actually do something to help mankind rather than spread hate toward apostates who don't agree with their version / translation of some 5,000 year old camel riding desert sands God's words to an extinct people.
  30. 1 point
    Hey critical thinker, why are you on here?
  31. 1 point
    The usual treatment of the subject follows the idea that it was just a natural part of the mid-to-late 19th century style for men. *** g00 1/22 p. 24 A Close Shave *** In ancient Greek society, beards were normally worn by all except the nobility, who were often clean-shaven. In Rome the habit of shaving seems to have started in the second century B.C.E., and for several centuries thereafter, a daily shave remained the custom. With the fall of the Roman Empire, however, the beard once again prevailed, doing so for 1,000 years until the second half of the 17th century, when shaving became the vogue. The clean-shaven look continued through the 18th century. But then, by the mid-to-late 19th century, the pendulum began to swing the other way. Hence, photographs of C. T. Russell, the first president of the Watch Tower Society, and fellow Christian W. E. Van Amburgh show both men wearing stylish, well-trimmed beards that were dignified and appropriate for their time. In the early part of the 20th century, however, shaving enjoyed a resurgence of popularity that has endured in most countries to our day. But here's is what those who were there at the time remembered about Russell and Rutherford. We already know that a cult had developed around Russell, and it included persons wanting to dress like him and look like him: *** jv chap. 6 p. 65 A Time of Testing (1914-1918) *** Others, on account of their deep respect for Brother Russell, seemed more concerned with trying to copy his qualities and develop a sort of cult around him. This example is A H MacMillan telling about Rutherford's ideas in 1918/1919, wanting to crush all this worship of Russell, when MacMillan still did not believe he could do it. (From Faith on the March, 1957, p.106. Further excerpts are included from later chapters.) . . . . . . , , , . . . I threw in a few more excerpts than I needed to, because it gives the correct idea that the primary way to push the Russellites out was to get them used to more humble and mundane types of preaching, similar to the way that colporteurs had been distributing the books from door to door, rather than only preaching as elders who would dress up in long black frock coats and beards and imitate the manners of C.T.Russell. *** yb74 pp. 97-98 Part 1—Germany *** But more equipment was needed. For that reason Brother Balzereit asked Brother Rutherford for permission to buy a rotary press. Brother Rutherford saw the necessity and agreed, but on one condition. He had noticed that over the years Brother Balzereit had grown a beard very similar to the one that had been worn by Brother Russell. His example soon caught on, for there were others who also wanted to look like Brother Russell. This could give rise to a tendency toward creature worship, and Brother Rutherford wanted to prevent this. So during his next visit, within hearing of all the Bible House family, he told Brother Balzereit that he could buy the rotary press but only on the condition that he shave off his beard. Brother Balzereit sadly agreed and afterward went to the barber. *** yb75 p. 148 Part 2—United States of America *** He says: “Modification of viewpoints respecting scriptures and matters of procedure seemed to be constant during these years. For example, it was in 1927. . . For that matter, the year before, during the London, England, convention of May 25-31, 1926, Brother Rutherford spoke from the platform while attired in a business suit, instead of the formal black frock coat that had long been worn by public speakers among Jehovah’s Christian witnesses. Another change in viewpoint involved the “cross and crown” symbol [popularized under Russell's presidency].




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.