Blind Boy Grunt

Looks like you can't help running this photo once again expressing your feelings AGAINST the Branch & FDS for producing these amazing videos and encouraging us to use them.

Once the organization says do our ministry in a certain way, then we do it. If personal preferences entered into it, some would still be using phonographs.

The chariot's on the move. Better get on board.

We save children in RICH countries with cartoons as well. Do you have a point or are you prejudiced against the poor?

Maybe you'd be happier if publishers just carried a stick and drew a picture in the dirt for all the poor kids.

Actually "studying the Bible" with your kids in 1979 mostly involved fighting to get everybody to sit down and be still and read Bible verses in small print they didn't understand and could not picture in their minds.

Evidently you missed the point about Noah doing "just so" and the FDS feeding us if you have issues with current teaching methods.

Guess you missed the cover of the Sept 2016 WT. The Faithful & Discreet Slave says this is how we present the Truth to young ones.

Time to retire your phonograph and testimony cards and start moving forward with the chariot.

On ‎10‎/‎23‎/‎2016 at 7:58 PM, The Librarian said:

How is this an appropriate way to teach the world's poorest children to read, write and learn about the Bible?

It is appropriate because he Faithful & Discreet Slave, entrusted with feeding us has produced these teaching aids and instructed us to use them.

There is a fine line between "cantankerous" and out right apostasy with this line of questioning. Obviously you haven't been to Bolivia lately, because now many of these "poorest children" have cell phones and cheap Chinese-made tablets are readily available.

Your post is extremely insulting to the many thousands of "need-greaters" who have left home and family to serve in foreign lands. I've never seen any Witnesses posing as a "high tech rich person" wandering the earth to show cartoons. So how about just sticking to posting the photos and keep your old cantankerous, out-dated and erroneous opinions to yourself. 

On 10/24/2016 at 6:46 PM, The Librarian said:

"The suit jacket she is wearing (obviously made for a woman) would have been denounced as a woman dressing in men's clothes years ago."

You're wrong- a jacket like that would never be "denounced as a woman dressing in men's clothes". Check out Katherine Hepburn in the '40s. Sisters have been wearing feminine cut jackets like that for decades.

"Have our standards changed?"

No. She's all covered up. The outfit is modest. 

"This brings up many questions about fashion standards and whether all JW's should sport an official uniform or not?"

It brings up ZERO questions. We dress appropriately for the situation. Always have, always will.

"Would Jesus have wanted his apostles to be dressed in a uniform?"

To conform with the Mosaic law, they all had to wear fringed garments with a blue thread. Some might call that a "uniform".

"Some might think I am being too picky talking about such issues. However I was raised with very strict JW dress guidelines so I am used to always questioning the appropriateness of apparel."

Actually some might think there are more important issues in the world than evaluating sisters wearing modest clothing. Business attire in a business environment. As far as the "strict JW dress guidelines", the prairie dresses went out in the 1800's. Sisters (and brothers) have ALWAYS worn the same attire that well-dressed, conservative non-believers wear. Check out the old photos. They're dressed the same as anyone else in that era.