Governing Body update #2 March 2024
- Thread starter Ms_ladyblue
- Start date
Ana
Well-known member
Yeah, that's terrible and especially to minors that choose to get baptized under 18. It's especially cruel. It's different if he caused a crime and needed to go to jail but to get ostracized while not legally an adult yet is "worse than a person without faith", the ones that ostracize him. This is why they had to make changes on this even though I don't think it's enough. No minor should be disfellowshipped unless it was a serious crime that endangered others around him physically. Slipping up cause he messed with a girlfriend before marriage would not qualify as an endangerment to others.
robins
Well-known member
I'm not even sure why minors are allowed to get baptized in the first place. If Jesus was 'perfect' and '30', and if we are to follow his model, waiting until adulthood to make that commitment seems more aligned with biblical example.
robins
Well-known member
wow. was this in a publication or secret elder's document?
NinevehByWayOfTarshish
Well-known member
I'm seriously shocked by this one. Beards was kinda telegraphed for years in the WT, and there were a growing number of rebels like me growing them.
Not counting time was also a shock, but it made total sense because counting time was always unscriptural.
Reform on DF is very welcome, and very needed. But as with all the rest of the reforms, it's the right thing, being done for the wrong reason. It's so nakedly a knee jerk reaction to the Norway lawsuit.
The ladies wearing pants thing is actually weirdly the only thing I'm opossed to. Don't get me wrong my wife wears pants all the time, but there's something that seems important to me about distinguishing the sexes for worship. First there were always biblical distinctions for the sexes and worship, but my second gut level resistance to this is because of something I know about Ba'al worship. One of the unique features of Ba'al worship was a complete ceremonial reversal of sex specific garments and even behavior. The women would carry weapons and wear men's closed, the would act like men. The men would dress like women and even pretend to nurse children. This was basically an indulgence in completely reversing everything, a celebration of dark for light and up for down. I know it's not the same thing, but my gut level reaction is to avoid anything remotely related to Ba'al worship, Jehovah was very opposed to it.
The real reason the Org is doing this is probably just as nefarious though. I suspect that the Org is trying to get ahead of LGBT issues, esp the trans issue. In many western countries so called trans rights are starting to gain traction, and it could pose a weak point for the org. They just lost on DF in court, they don't want to get caught again. It's troubling because it further reveals just how unscrupulous they are, and it could very well be just the beginning of a trend to softening on LGBT issues.
My 4 cents,
Not counting time was also a shock, but it made total sense because counting time was always unscriptural.
Reform on DF is very welcome, and very needed. But as with all the rest of the reforms, it's the right thing, being done for the wrong reason. It's so nakedly a knee jerk reaction to the Norway lawsuit.
The ladies wearing pants thing is actually weirdly the only thing I'm opossed to. Don't get me wrong my wife wears pants all the time, but there's something that seems important to me about distinguishing the sexes for worship. First there were always biblical distinctions for the sexes and worship, but my second gut level resistance to this is because of something I know about Ba'al worship. One of the unique features of Ba'al worship was a complete ceremonial reversal of sex specific garments and even behavior. The women would carry weapons and wear men's closed, the would act like men. The men would dress like women and even pretend to nurse children. This was basically an indulgence in completely reversing everything, a celebration of dark for light and up for down. I know it's not the same thing, but my gut level reaction is to avoid anything remotely related to Ba'al worship, Jehovah was very opposed to it.
The real reason the Org is doing this is probably just as nefarious though. I suspect that the Org is trying to get ahead of LGBT issues, esp the trans issue. In many western countries so called trans rights are starting to gain traction, and it could pose a weak point for the org. They just lost on DF in court, they don't want to get caught again. It's troubling because it further reveals just how unscrupulous they are, and it could very well be just the beginning of a trend to softening on LGBT issues.
My 4 cents,
You can't deny their baptism, however, you can strongly recommend they get baptized when they are considered a legal adult.
BARNABY THE DOG.
Well-known member
I think it reasonable to deny baptism to younger people. Baptism has a meaning certainly, but one would have to have not only the understanding but the application also to that meaning, if it is to be given its proper respect and the acceptance of Jehovah. Certainly just because we baptise ourselves, it does not mean that Jehovah views it in the same way. The meaning of baptism cannot be discharged unless one is fully cognisant of its implications.
I understand the the law at the time of Christ stipulated that a priest could not be authorized before the age of thirty. If we consider the issues of development, authority and the respect of peers to wield that authority, then thirty years of age seems a very astute reasoning for all the right reasons. The bible also reasons on the maturity of elders etc (can’t recall where - someone will) - but that is more to do with dispensing the fruitage of the spirit than the understanding of it in the first place. But I’m only going on my own experience - I was only about eight months old when I was baptised.
Niobium
Well-known member
If you listen to the announcement on the update, there is no scriptural reason given as to why Sisters are allowed to choose whether they want to wear “slacks” or not. This change is prefaced by the words “ The Governing Body has decided that…” If you asked the GB why they decided to go ahead with this change, in a nutshell, what answer do you think would be given?
Proverbs 14 v 15
Well-known member
I've said this exact same thing for 37yrs..
Proverbs 14 v 15
Well-known member
I personally think the new dress code was a distraction tactic to the first part of the video, they don't want people looking too deeply into it in case they stumble upon Norway etc, and from all the stupid "look, I'm wearing trousers at the meeting" photos I've seen being put on FB and Instagram from the very first meeting, it's definitely working..
SusanB
Well-known member
Thank you for your comment. Once I stopped attending meetings, I decided not to buy any more dresses. I’ve been working since I was 14 years old and slacks is the way to go for me. But I did make an exception for the Memorial and I bought a new dress for that.
SusanB
Well-known member
But don’t forget that in Jesus’ day, men wore skirts.
Isaiah 6:1: “In the year that King Uz·ziʹah died, I saw Jehovah sitting on a lofty and elevated throne, and the skirts of his robe filled the temple.”
StillA_WorshiperOfJah
Well-known member
I agree.
I disagree. Women in the main don't wear trousers to look like men. It is usually for comfort, practicality and style. Dresses and skirts dont suit all body types, and the fact that they only approve certain styles makes it harder. Trousers have been considered unisex for decades, and the trousers we wear are designed for women not men. If I was still in, I would probably consider this change a blessing.
I visited a congregation in the Outer Hebrides, Scotland in 2018, and the sisters there were so excited that they had been given a special dispensation by the circuit overseer to wear trousers on the ministry because of the cold, rainy, windy climate.
Wide Awake
Well-known member
Look at Jahrule's post on page 62 on music with positive message please! Hilarious!This was posted by a full PIMI sister on Facebook - they still aren’t getting it!
Charming Primrose
Well-known member
I raised 4 kids the 'truth'. I wouldn't let them get baptized when they were young. I didn't agree with it.....at all (I was not raised as JW). Many of the young kids that my girls grew up with WERE getting baptized. To me, it was more for the parents.
These children are no in any position to make such an important decision so early in their life. As adults my girls have decided not to be JWs. I can't imagine what they may have gone through had they made the decision to be baptized when they were young & if they left the org.
I'm 53 & still don't know what I want to do when I grow up lol
Last edited:
BARNABY THE DOG.
Well-known member
I hope that they would answer that skirts used to be worn by men and women used to wear trousers, of a kind, but what we recognise today as trousers - commonly known as “pants” in America or pantaloon in India. Certainly when I spent time in Africa, I wore a Jalaba. However, given the fear that the GB live under in defining modesty, I expect they would say the brethren should wear a three piece suit and bow tie, and the sisters a full length hooped skirt and bussel, along with a parasol - unless they live in Hawaii, where they would order them to wear an Aloha resulting in severe eye strain during meetings and the obvious need for sunglasses.
