Anna

Why even admit the case of smoking and Christmas? Nobody was asking about it. It was not necessary for either of them to be mentioned. In any case, why ban Christmas and smoking at all if it meant losing members? Regardless of what period of time. Why was it wise to wait? Was losing members no longer a worry later on? Or was something else more important than losing members? Both topics were mentioned in the chapter "Moral Refinements"

Well yes....funny....but I was being ironic when I said it 🙂

I wasn't talking about their "living in own" errors, the imperfection we all have, I was talking about error in direct revelation.

(1 Corinthians 5:12, 13) 12 "For what do I have to do with judging those outside? Do you not judge those inside,  while God judges those outside?. . . The kings of the earth will all be gathered at Armageddon. Thank you Colin, but I still do not understand what you were trying to say...

The Governing Body is not some infallible authority over us. Jesus and Jehovah do not give them direct revelations of what they should do or say. If that were the case, there would never be any error on their part. Jehovah and Jesus do not tell the GB that all Witnesses at conventions should wear their badges when out. Their direction comes from what is already in the Bible, and where there is no clear or direct Biblical support for or against, they can can make recommendations as they see fit in their opinion. However, they cannot (and should not) command anyone what to do. If they were to do that, they would be abusing their position, which is feeding the flock with spiritual food, which does not entail giving out commands based on opinion. The only justification for commanding anything is if it is a command in the Bible. The Bible does say "be obedient to those taking the lead". However, this is not an absolute. We know we would not obey anything that was contrary to the Bible. In saying "be obedient to those taking the lead", the assumption is that this would be something beneficial and reasonable and not against scripture. I would say wearing name badges while out is reasonable. It advertises the convention, it encourages questions and conversation, and it's fun to see others out and about and see they belong to us. There is nothing odd about it. Perhaps also it helps the brothers and sisters remember who they are, in case they get a little forgetful....all these things are probably the most likely reasons for this recommendation, BUT it is still an option whether one wears one or not. No one that I know of stresses about it either way. Some like to wear something more comfy than a suit and tie while at a restaurant, and some get positively worried about spilling something on their tie (my husband is one). The most obvious reason for changing into different clothes is that not everybody goes out to eat straight after the convention. Some go to their hotel to chill first. And no one chills out in their suit and tie. And to put the suit and tie back on just to go and eat out at a moderate restaurant could be a little odd. Plus it would be extra hard to get the kids back into their fancy clothes after they've spent an hour at the swimming pool..... So, no one I know of purposefully takes their name badge off, but if it so happens that they do get changed into something else, the name badge most likely doesn't go back on....

Maybe they should have taken them off 😀

Thank you. It shows me a few important things, although Russell personally thought smoking was a filthy habit, had a "dim" view of it , and didn't think it brought God any glory, he did not insist on his personal opinion, banning others from smoking. Then later in 1935 the WT called it a filthy weed and banned it in Bethel but did not try to impose this on the congregations. It was obviously still not thought of as something worthy of disfellowshipping until 1973. So, they didn't know it was totally wrong until the 70's, not the 1800's as you suggested. The same thing with Christmas.

I am not exactly understanding the point you are making in reference to what I was saying. Care to explain please?

I wonder if there are restrictions for a US President not to wear a beard. And if one day a US President does wear a beard, I wonder how this will affect US Witnesses.

I was wondering what she was pointing at

Yes probably. In the same book that said they knew Christmas was wrong but kept on celebrating it at Bethal until 1926 ish.  So, what book is that?

@derek1956 Derek, I don't think anyone is squabbling here. Jack made it clear that he no longer believes the Bible and JW organization, so listening or not listening to any instructions big or small is irrelevant to him. As for me, I had legitimate reasons for not wearing my badge twice. What I was trying to point out was that it is up to each individual whether they wear one or not, just like it will be up to each individual whether they listen to some directive in the future. We are not robots, no one is going to MAKE us do anything now, or in the future.

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.

I am truly sorry you had that experience. I can see it has damaged you. You must realize though that most Jehovah's Witnesses have not had those kind of negative experiences and are well balanced and useful members of society. Also, most of them do not discuss these "issues" on forums like this, (notice there are only a handful on here) if they discuss them at all. Neither do they spread hate for apostates. Each human being is entitled to live the kind of life they believe is right, this includes Jehovah's Witnesses. And since they believe there is a creator who has given instructions on the best possible way to live, (since he IS the creator) they want to show him gratitude, and follow his advice.

As Srecko mentions, it is a recommendation (not a MUST) Soooo.....where's the problem?