|
Post by ScholarGal on Jul 10, 2014 18:07:40 GMT -5
Gee I think i have the wrong style of bike. The last skirt I cycled in I ripped. I got my skirt stuck in a moving escalator once so I can only imagine what I could achieve with some spokes and a long skirt. An escalator ate your skirt?? Ack, how scary and potentially embarrassing. For cycling, I don't think I would wear a long full skirt. Even a knee length full skirt gets tricky unless you have a good fender on the rear tire.
|
|
|
Post by withlove on Jul 21, 2014 16:48:15 GMT -5
Hello...I'm new to posting, but have been reading for awhile. Maybe I will introduce myself better in another thread. I hesitate to talk about something as trivial as dress code after the thread has taken a more serious turn and I do feel for Dennis. But thought maybe my thoughts on the dress code hadn't been expressed so here it is for what it's worth.
As a woman, I find the no pants rule to be oppressive, still. And the restrictions on hair and nails and skin. Females have a choices to make if they don't agree with the party line view of modesty...go along with it and try to avoid feeling resentment (and/or feeling hypocritical when dressing differently when F&W aren't around), or break the rules and have to deal with the repercussions. I'm an introvert who doesn't like to stir the pot, and it means a lot to me that people understand I am a sincere and dedicated Christian, and that modesty is important to me. I don't think I'm alone in this.
In my area, on Sunday morning you can't wear short hair down, with natural makeup and conservative (or classic) nail polish without confusing people. If you wore jewelry or pants or lipstick people would assume you weren't professing or on your way out. BUT. You can wear veryvery tight and/or low-cut tops and skirts, or shoes that would be more appropriate for a Vegas stripper. People might disapprove or be saddened by the second option, but might think: well, she's trying...or she doesn't understand. Whereas, with option 1, that person would be labeled a rebel who is trying to make a statement and disrupt the spirit of the meeting.
Sure, things aren't as bad as they used to be. A lot of people feel more comfortable wearing what they like outside of meetings. Fashion in the last decade has made it easier...skirts are more readily available, however hem length and sleeves and necklines remain a challenge. Doesn't mean it's all better and that we don't mind toeing the line at meetings. I do. There are mornings when pants would be helpful to skip the leg shaving and slip coordinating ritual. In winter, legs get cold. Guess what? Tights don't cut it. Leggings layered under boots work if you don't mind the boots' zippers destroying the leggings. Or you can wear long socks to protect the leggings. Of course you have to consider that the socks will stick to the skirt, so a slip is essential. The underpinnings are adding up...are we really that far removed from bloomers and corsets?
A lot of people have body shapes that are either top or bottom heavy. That makes separates important. And I believe most tops are made to go with pants, and they just don't work well with skirts. Shoes are of course another issue. I really envy men in that their wardrobe choices seem much more simple.
And another thing: what determines "sober" and should we be using that word anyway? God made glorious colors and textures in nature. We love that. Why is it wrong to dress with joy and creativity if that makes you feel energized/uplifted/etc.?
If everyone dresses a certain way then one rogue person will stand out. Why should the majority be dressing according to rules handed down from the American pilgrims (a very repressed and cruel group famous for witch trials) and not even from trends in the bible?
Joseph's colorful coat was maybe one thing his brothers were envious of. Does anyone one think the take-away from that story is that he got what he deserved for dressing too flashy? I have never ever heard the coat spoken on in meetings. Its something people like to skip over to get to the part of condemning the brothers. Sure, it's a minor detail maybe. But...how about this minor detail: Esther used whatever the king required for the women when getting ready to meet him. SO much has been made of that little verse. As if anyone knows what it was the (heathen, btw!) king required. For all we know he required elaborate Egyptian-style eyeliner and lots of gold cuffs. Or belly-baring trousers. Or Pippi Longstocking braids. No one knows. It simply tells us that she went along with what he wanted and that she was beautiful. And he liked her the best. Maybe b/c she was his type b/c she didn't add to his ideas? And she was beautiful?
Too wordy and opinionated for a first post. They won't all be like this, I promise.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2014 17:15:13 GMT -5
Hello...I'm new to posting, but have been reading for awhile. Maybe I will introduce myself better in another thread. I hesitate to talk about something as trivial as dress code after the thread has taken a more serious turn and I do feel for Dennis. But thought maybe my thoughts on the dress code hadn't been expressed so here it is for what it's worth. As a woman, I find the no pants rule to be oppressive, still. And the restrictions on hair and nails and skin. Females have a choices to make if they don't agree with the party line view of modesty...go along with it and try to avoid feeling resentment (and/or feeling hypocritical when dressing differently when F&W aren't around), or break the rules and have to deal with the repercussions. I'm an introvert who doesn't like to stir the pot, and it means a lot to me that people understand I am a sincere and dedicated Christian, and that modesty is important to me. I don't think I'm alone in this. In my area, on Sunday morning you can't wear short hair down, with natural makeup and conservative (or classic) nail polish without confusing people. If you wore jewelry or pants or lipstick people would assume you weren't professing or on your way out. BUT. You can wear veryvery tight and/or low-cut tops and skirts, or shoes that would be more appropriate for a Vegas stripper. People might disapprove or be saddened by the second option, but might think: well, she's trying...or she doesn't understand. Whereas, with option 1, that person would be labeled a rebel who is trying to make a statement and disrupt the spirit of the meeting. Sure, things aren't as bad as they used to be. A lot of people feel more comfortable wearing what they like outside of meetings. Fashion in the last decade has made it easier...skirts are more readily available, however hem length and sleeves and necklines remain a challenge. Doesn't mean it's all better and that we don't mind toeing the line at meetings. I do. There are mornings when pants would be helpful to skip the leg shaving and slip coordinating ritual. In winter, legs get cold. Guess what? Tights don't cut it. Leggings layered under boots work if you don't mind the boots' zippers destroying the leggings. Or you can wear long socks to protect the leggings. Of course you have to consider that the socks will stick to the skirt, so a slip is essential. The underpinnings are adding up...are we really that far removed from bloomers and corsets? A lot of people have body shapes that are either top or bottom heavy. That makes separates important. And I believe most tops are made to go with pants, and they just don't work well with skirts. Shoes are of course another issue. I really envy men in that their wardrobe choices seem much more simple. And another thing: what determines "sober" and should we be using that word anyway? God made glorious colors and textures in nature. We love that. Why is it wrong to dress with joy and creativity if that makes you feel energized/uplifted/etc.? If everyone dresses a certain way then one rogue person will stand out. Why should the majority be dressing according to rules handed down from the American pilgrims (a very repressed and cruel group famous for witch trials) and not even from trends in the bible? Joseph's colorful coat was maybe one thing his brothers were envious of. Does anyone one think the take-away from that story is that he got what he deserved for dressing too flashy? I have never ever heard the coat spoken on in meetings. Its something people like to skip over to get to the part of condemning the brothers. Sure, it's a minor detail maybe. But...how about this minor detail: Esther used whatever the king required for the women when getting ready to meet him. SO much has been made of that little verse. As if anyone knows what it was the (heathen, btw!) king required. For all we know he required elaborate Egyptian-style eyeliner and lots of gold cuffs. Or belly-baring trousers. Or Pippi Longstocking braids. No one knows. It simply tells us that she went along with what he wanted and that she was beautiful. And he liked her the best. Maybe b/c she was his type b/c she didn't add to his ideas? And she was beautiful? Too wordy and opinionated for a first post. They won't all be like this, I promise. i'll use the pornogrpahy analogy...i can't define sober for you but i know it when i see it.... there are twelve verses calling for us to be sober in the NT i think thats a pretty clear warning to be sober in what we do/say...
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 21, 2014 17:17:29 GMT -5
Welcome withlove. You express yourself very well. Good to see you here and I hope to hear more from you. I agree with you about the sober dress. Whatever that means. I think that all the beautiful colors should be worn if they are preferred and not considered rogue. It seems as though many of the rules of churches, take the joy out of living and stress the suffering side of religion. That is sad I believe. I think we were born to be joyful, full of life and happy expressing it in our various ways. The tapestry of humanity would be pretty dull if we all looked the same. I also think if we were allowed to be more joyful, we would love more freely. It's much easier to love others when we are in love with life I believe.
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Jul 21, 2014 17:25:34 GMT -5
Hello...I'm new to posting, but have been reading for awhile. Maybe I will introduce myself better in another thread. I hesitate to talk about something as trivial as dress code after the thread has taken a more serious turn and I do feel for Dennis. But thought maybe my thoughts on the dress code hadn't been expressed so here it is for what it's worth. As a woman, I find the no pants rule to be oppressive, still. And the restrictions on hair and nails and skin. Females have a choices to make if they don't agree with the party line view of modesty...go along with it and try to avoid feeling resentment (and/or feeling hypocritical when dressing differently when F&W aren't around), or break the rules and have to deal with the repercussions. I'm an introvert who doesn't like to stir the pot, and it means a lot to me that people understand I am a sincere and dedicated Christian, and that modesty is important to me. I don't think I'm alone in this. In my area, on Sunday morning you can't wear short hair down, with natural makeup and conservative (or classic) nail polish without confusing people. If you wore jewelry or pants or lipstick people would assume you weren't professing or on your way out. BUT. You can wear veryvery tight and/or low-cut tops and skirts, or shoes that would be more appropriate for a Vegas stripper. People might disapprove or be saddened by the second option, but might think: well, she's trying...or she doesn't understand. Whereas, with option 1, that person would be labeled a rebel who is trying to make a statement and disrupt the spirit of the meeting. Sure, things aren't as bad as they used to be. A lot of people feel more comfortable wearing what they like outside of meetings. Fashion in the last decade has made it easier...skirts are more readily available, however hem length and sleeves and necklines remain a challenge. Doesn't mean it's all better and that we don't mind toeing the line at meetings. I do. There are mornings when pants would be helpful to skip the leg shaving and slip coordinating ritual. In winter, legs get cold. Guess what? Tights don't cut it. Leggings layered under boots work if you don't mind the boots' zippers destroying the leggings. Or you can wear long socks to protect the leggings. Of course you have to consider that the socks will stick to the skirt, so a slip is essential. The underpinnings are adding up...are we really that far removed from bloomers and corsets? A lot of people have body shapes that are either top or bottom heavy. That makes separates important. And I believe most tops are made to go with pants, and they just don't work well with skirts. Shoes are of course another issue. I really envy men in that their wardrobe choices seem much more simple. And another thing: what determines "sober" and should we be using that word anyway? God made glorious colors and textures in nature. We love that. Why is it wrong to dress with joy and creativity if that makes you feel energized/uplifted/etc.? If everyone dresses a certain way then one rogue person will stand out. Why should the majority be dressing according to rules handed down from the American pilgrims (a very repressed and cruel group famous for witch trials) and not even from trends in the bible? Joseph's colorful coat was maybe one thing his brothers were envious of. Does anyone one think the take-away from that story is that he got what he deserved for dressing too flashy? I have never ever heard the coat spoken on in meetings. Its something people like to skip over to get to the part of condemning the brothers. Sure, it's a minor detail maybe. But...how about this minor detail: Esther used whatever the king required for the women when getting ready to meet him. SO much has been made of that little verse. As if anyone knows what it was the (heathen, btw!) king required. For all we know he required elaborate Egyptian-style eyeliner and lots of gold cuffs. Or belly-baring trousers. Or Pippi Longstocking braids. No one knows. It simply tells us that she went along with what he wanted and that she was beautiful. And he liked her the best. Maybe b/c she was his type b/c she didn't add to his ideas? And she was beautiful? Too wordy and opinionated for a first post. They won't all be like this, I promise. i'll use the pornogrpahy analogy...i can't define sober for you but i know it when i see it.... there are twelve verses calling for us to be sober in the NT i think thats a pretty clear warning to be sober in what we do/say... Wally, is the word sober in the original text or did King James put the word sober in when he translated the Bible for the Church of England ? You say you know sober when you see it.... can you explain what you mean ? Would it by any chance be women dressing like the sister workers ?
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Jul 21, 2014 17:29:30 GMT -5
Welcome withlove. Great post ! As you said we only have to look at all the beautiful colours of nature.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2014 18:30:41 GMT -5
i'll use the pornogrpahy analogy...i can't define sober for you but i know it when i see it.... there are twelve verses calling for us to be sober in the NT i think thats a pretty clear warning to be sober in what we do/say... Wally, is the word sober in the original text or did King James put the word sober in when he translated the Bible for the Church of England ? You say you know sober when you see it.... can you explain what you mean ? Would it by any chance be women dressing like the sister workers ? all i can tell you is we had a worker once who knew hebrew and he said the KJV was the closest version out there... as to the sister workers dress being sober...i know that nowadays sisters wear more colorful dresses but it wasn't always like that...they did a good job in the 60-70-80's no so much in the 90-2000's
|
|
|
Post by withlove on Jul 21, 2014 18:31:45 GMT -5
Hi all and thanks for responding! It's weird how I feel like I know you a little after reading for so long but I'm a stranger to you. Have appreciated so much reading your perspectives and they have been very eye-opening and thought-provoking and helpful and confusing and necessary! Please bear with me...when I clicked the quote button it showed more than the post I meant to quote...wasn't sure how that would work. Will have to figure that out. Wally, yes, sobriety is mentioned a lot...it just seems like it doesn't match up with how people currently use or define it. For example, one thing I'm fairly confident it doesn't mean is alcohol-free, since Jesus actively made and drank wine, and he didn't limit it to a small amount at Passover. The first miracle recorded was making wine for a *human celebration*. Also it doesn't mean somber, right? Being somber might be fitting if one is at a funeral. But that isn't meant to be a life-long condition. We are meant to feel joy. Not that it's a competition, but I bet joy is mentioned way more than sober is. David danced with joy, and it doesn't seem like that was considered a sin. I do agree that there is some meaning there in the word sober. People have varying interpretations. On a personal level, that is serious to get it right between the individual and God. It's also serious and problematic when people define for other people what it means. Then it becomes needlessly oppressive. Someone mentioned the girls who felt worse about being judged by professing people than non-professing people. That can work a few ways. We've been conditioned to feel that the opinions of F&W are so important (b/c they are...we all know there are consequences), even though we say that God's opinion is the only one that matters. Someone who doesn't follow the strictest dress rules will also feel judged by other professing people and in my case, it does hurt more than if someone who doesn't go to meetings judges me. Which is messed up, probably. But there is the implication that it is a matter of righteousness and you are falling on the wrong side of it. No, this is not a matter of the conscience condemning the self. This is a matter of group-think and conditioning and peer pressure. In my opinion. I don't have all the answers and of course I struggle with these things, being taught a certain thing forever and starting to feel that that thing is conceived by humans and not God. It is a tricky thing figuring out what is the nudging of the Spirit and what is fear and guilt created by the system. One thing that helps me is asking myself...am I worrying about what God thinks of this or what XYZ will think of it? Does it feel like God is unhappy with this? To take it further, not only is God neutral or okay with a less strict dress code (or insert other issue here), but is he actually displeased with how the church is handling it? Would it be WRONG of me to continue to play along with something that is not God's rule? Is it actually hindering the gospel when people dress/act/say things that aren't biblical as a matter of doctrine? People have said that if something like skirts keep people from professing, then that is just keeping out the ones who wouldn't be real sheep. Nope! It is not anyone's job to put stumbling blocks between a person and Christ. About the cross/sacrifice issue...it doesn't feel right. I don't think Jesus carried that cross and suffered extreme agony so that I would understand that I should wear a dress. It's a mockery of him to think so. He lived and died for real and serious stuff. My sacrifice and commitment to live like him is not about pants. Jesus was a practical man who had very little patience for the superficial concerns of the Pharisees. He was serious but he knew that they took some things far too seriously and other things not seriously enough. Example: it was overly important to them that no work be done on the Sabbath but they conveniently discarded the notion of brotherly love. It came to me a few minutes ago that that line in a hymn: "Take the world, but give me Jesus" in practice turns into "Take everything outside this bubble we've created including wonderful, Godly people and things, and give me the bubble. It is so scary to type that. Ack. I'm rambling.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Jul 21, 2014 23:15:02 GMT -5
.... But...how about this minor detail: Esther used whatever the king required for the women when getting ready to meet him. SO much has been made of that little verse. As if anyone knows what it was the (heathen, btw!) king required. For all we know he required elaborate Egyptian-style eyeliner and lots of gold cuffs. Or belly-baring trousers. Or Pippi Longstocking braids. No one knows. It simply tells us that she went along with what he wanted and that she was beautiful. And he liked her the best. Maybe b/c she was his type b/c she didn't add to his ideas? And she was beautiful? ... Welcome to TMB. I think it would probably be a good idea for you to read Esther 2 again. I just did. The king did not require anything of the women who sought his favor. If he chose them to be part of the selection, the "keeper of the women" did certain things for their purification. This keeper of the women made Esther his favorite and spent more time training and purifying her. Yes, she was beautiful, but she apparently also had a beautiful spirit. It's not unusual for men to be quite attracted to a woman with a beautiful spirit. When she was called to go before the king, she was allowed anything she wanted, but she asked for nothing other than what she already had. Seems she was content as well as confident.
|
|
|
Post by withlove on Jul 21, 2014 23:48:57 GMT -5
.... But...how about this minor detail: Esther used whatever the king required for the women when getting ready to meet him. SO much has been made of that little verse. As if anyone knows what it was the (heathen, btw!) king required. For all we know he required elaborate Egyptian-style eyeliner and lots of gold cuffs. Or belly-baring trousers. Or Pippi Longstocking braids. No one knows. It simply tells us that she went along with what he wanted and that she was beautiful. And he liked her the best. Maybe b/c she was his type b/c she didn't add to his ideas? And she was beautiful? ... Welcome to TMB. I think it would probably be a good idea for you to read Esther 2 again. I just did. The king did not require anything of the women who sought his favor. If he chose them to be part of the selection, the "keeper of the women" did certain things for their purification. This keeper of the women made Esther his favorite and spent more time training and purifying her. Yes, she was beautiful, but she apparently also had a beautiful spirit. It's not unusual for men to be quite attracted to a woman with a beautiful spirit. When she was called to go before the king, she was allowed anything she wanted, but she asked for nothing other than what she already had. Seems she was content as well as confident. Thanks, emy, for the welcome and the suggestion. I re-read...that part about Esther using her own things...that was for the purification time period. I had forgotten that part but was referring to the time when she was getting ready immediately before seeing the king in verse 16. The workers have often said that it was the king who had the opinion of what the women should have and that the chamberlain was just carrying out orders. That, or they didn't mention the chamberlain at all. 2:15- ...she required nothing but what Hegai the king's chamberlain, the keeper of the women, appointed. Earlier it mentions that if the women had a request for something specific they would get it. This has always been presented in meetings I have been in as proof that Esther wasn't vain or materialistic and that she was simply interested in pleasing the king, who was supposed to represent God and also husbands. Even though he wasn't a believer of that God at the time. And that we should take her as an example of how we should be: quiet servants without cosmetics. I know people who are very lucky to have low-maintenance bodies b/c of great genes. I also know people who seem to be afflicted with every annoying, time-consuming hair, skin and allergy problem that exists. The second group naturally has to spend more time taking care of those conditions, and using certain products for that. The first group can breeze through their morning ritual with nothing more than soap and shampoo and feel fine. I definitely don't know what it was that Hegai appointed for the women. Maybe it was basic cleanser. Maybe it was conditioning, sweet-smelling oil. Who knows. But I don't see how we are supposed to spiritualize the fact that Esther didn't need anything more than whatever was appointed. 2:15 and Esther obtained favour in the sight of all them that looked upon her. That seems to be talking about physical beauty to me. I am not doubting that she had a lovely spirit at all. Just that we are supposed to base our physical appearance rules on a story that *doesn't even describe physical appearance.*
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Jul 22, 2014 1:24:08 GMT -5
all i can tell you is we had a worker once who knew hebrew and he said the KJV was the closest version out there... as to the sister workers dress being sober...i know that nowadays sisters wear more colorful dresses but it wasn't always like that...they did a good job in the 60-70-80's no so much in the 90-2000's Wally do you know how many times in my life I have heard that phrase " we had a worker once who said ..." So what was the workers opinion on the other 14 books left out of the Bible ? Or what was the workers opinion about King James translating the Bible for THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND ? Amazing really when you think the workers use a Bible that a King translated for a "worldly church" ! What is wrong with colourful dresses ? Are all flowers black ? So should the workers still be wearing hats like they did in the 70's ? In your opinion what is wrong with the way the ladies dress now ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2014 2:44:12 GMT -5
Being a linguist since the late 50's and the study of Greek since 1964. Research, good instrutors and study on two continents over the past 50 years, allow me to know while the New Testament may have been recorded in Aramaic, however the KJV was translated from Stephen's 1550 Textus Receptus.
That some worker reportedly made such a comment does not impress me in the least. Also, I have here in my library somewhere eight other Greek texts dating far earlier than Stephen's of 1550. Tishendorf, Wordsworth, Tregelles, Alsford come immediately to mind. Do not be deceived by that quoted worker's comment. The Aramaic bible if accurate would be that most like the language used in New Testament days anyway, and while related to Hebrew, certainly is not Hebrew.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2014 11:29:49 GMT -5
all i can tell you is we had a worker once who knew hebrew and he said the KJV was the closest version out there... as to the sister workers dress being sober...i know that nowadays sisters wear more colorful dresses but it wasn't always like that...they did a good job in the 60-70-80's no so much in the 90-2000's Wally do you know how many times in my life I have heard that phrase " we had a worker once who said ..." So what was the workers opinion on the other 14 books left out of the Bible ? Or what was the workers opinion about King James translating the Bible for THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND ? Amazing really when you think the workers use a Bible that a King translated for a "worldly church" ! What is wrong with colourful dresses ? Are all flowers black ? So should the workers still be wearing hats like they did in the 70's ? In your opinion what is wrong with the way the ladies dress now ? thats a matter of faith... i've heard workers say the 14 OT books left out of the bible hold nothing of value spiritually i read them a couple decades ago and would mostly agree with that statement...BTW there are even more books left out of the NT... as time goes by you see the friends and workers slipping away from the way things were done that should be a cautionary tale in and of itself... it is amazing that worldly churches have gone to great lengths to get the gospel spread we do owe them some credit for that....
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Jul 22, 2014 20:14:52 GMT -5
Wally do you know how many times in my life I have heard that phrase " we had a worker once who said ..." So what was the workers opinion on the other 14 books left out of the Bible ? Or what was the workers opinion about King James translating the Bible for THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND ? Amazing really when you think the workers use a Bible that a King translated for a "worldly church" ! What is wrong with colourful dresses ? Are all flowers black ? So should the workers still be wearing hats like they did in the 70's ? In your opinion what is wrong with the way the ladies dress now ? thats a matter of faith... i've heard workers say the 14 OT books left out of the bible hold nothing of value spiritually i read them a couple decades ago and would mostly agree with that statement...BTW there are even more books left out of the NT... as time goes by you see the friends and workers slipping away from the way things were done that should be a cautionary tale in and of itself... it is amazing that worldly churches have gone to great lengths to get the gospel spread we do owe them some credit for that.... What is a matter of faith ? Again you say "I have heard workers say" So because the workers say they hold no spiritually value that's the end of it ? Are the workers Apostles ? So do you look at The Church of England as a "wordly church ?" Again what is wrong with women wearing colourful clothes ? Where does it say in the Bible that women CANNOT wear colourful clothes?
|
|
jj
Junior Member
Posts: 95
|
Post by jj on Jul 23, 2014 10:33:59 GMT -5
I have just read through the whole thread, and I just wanted to add my two cents. Reading the snippets of sermons from the brother workers, I felt a certain amount of anger. It just screams 'cult' to me.
As a woman, the anguish I felt over something as trivial as an unofficial 'dress code' was terrible. All the time I was thinking, what will they think of this skirt? Is it too long? Too short? Is this hair clip too blingy? Are my sleeves too short? Should my shoes be covered in? What will the workers think of this outfit, since they probably have been told I've offered for the work? Is my hair 'worker-ish' enough? Getting ready for the meeting was a nightmare!
I remember the shame I felt once when I was at a potluck tea and my insanely slippery hair would not stay up! I felt sure everyone was staring at me.
To put this into context, I am not from a professing family, but the area in Australia where I was was terribly conservative. When I moved to the city it was a shock to see some that wore makeup, shorter skirts, dyed hair etc. I very very rarely saw professing women in pants either.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2014 11:49:50 GMT -5
The added unnecessary bondage we placed upon you ladies has always brought sorrow to me. I am very sorry you have had to endure it and for many of you many decades. And for all if us for no other reason than "fitting in." No rules, huh? Yeah, right! The older I get, the less I am impressed by young men's rules! And those were just poorly educated young men, making up rules as they went along, and then "sticking to them" to satisfy the ego, and their conviction of "being right." Surely nothing new nor old in being like that?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2014 13:33:01 GMT -5
thats a matter of faith... i've heard workers say the 14 OT books left out of the bible hold nothing of value spiritually i read them a couple decades ago and would mostly agree with that statement...BTW there are even more books left out of the NT... as time goes by you see the friends and workers slipping away from the way things were done that should be a cautionary tale in and of itself... it is amazing that worldly churches have gone to great lengths to get the gospel spread we do owe them some credit for that.... What is a matter of faith ? Again you say "I have heard workers say" So because the workers say they hold no spiritually value that's the end of it ? Are the workers Apostles ? So do you look at The Church of England as a "wordly church ?" Again what is wrong with women wearing colourful clothes ? Where does it say in the Bible that women CANNOT wear colourful clothes? matter of faith? listening to what the workers have to say is a matter of faith... no if you read my post i told you i went and read them anyway and agree with thier statement... some say they are some say they aren't...even if they are not apostles they are appointed to lead us in the right direction(yes there are some that don't)... it doesn't use the world colorful it does say this...1Ti_2:9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2014 13:42:37 GMT -5
Costly apparel? Friend, have you priced the cost of most women worker's apparel? My late wife could never afford to wear such "costly apparel" except in our most affluent days! Why enforce a couple of items and not them all?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 23, 2014 16:58:54 GMT -5
Why should women dress with shamefacedness? that a left over from the EVE thing?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2014 18:19:28 GMT -5
Why should women dress with shamefacedness? that a left over from the EVE thing? probably....
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 23, 2014 18:22:17 GMT -5
Why should women dress with shamefacedness? that a left over from the EVE thing? probably.... Do you agree with it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2014 18:28:35 GMT -5
not entirely you might be surprised that i don't agree with paul on a few things...
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 23, 2014 18:40:59 GMT -5
not entirely you might be surprised that i don't agree with paul on a few things... Yes, I don't agree with Paul on a few things either. Thank you Wally.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 23, 2014 22:22:12 GMT -5
Costly apparel? Friend, have you priced the cost of most women worker's apparel? My late wife could never afford to wear such "costly apparel" except in our most affluent days! Why enforce a couple of items and not them all? Ah! "costly apparel!"
My "costly apparel" comes from Goodwill. Not only that but I wait until the the color of the week makes the clothes 1/2 price so most cost about $2 apiece or less.
For that I can get very nice, even big name brands( although that doesn't decide the choice) like Cold Water Creek.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 23, 2014 22:27:28 GMT -5
I have just read through the whole thread, and I just wanted to add my two cents. Reading the snippets of sermons from the brother workers, I felt a certain amount of anger. It just screams 'cult' to me. As a woman, the anguish I felt over something as trivial as an unofficial 'dress code' was terrible. All the time I was thinking, what will they think of this skirt? Is it too long? Too short? Is this hair clip too blingy? Are my sleeves too short? Should my shoes be covered in? What will the workers think of this outfit, since they probably have been told I've offered for the work? Is my hair 'worker-ish' enough? Getting ready for the meeting was a nightmare! I remember the shame I felt once when I was at a potluck tea and my insanely slippery hair would not stay up! I felt sure everyone was staring at me. To put this into context, I am not from a professing family, but the area in Australia where I was was terribly conservative. When I moved to the city it was a shock to see some that wore makeup, shorter skirts, dyed hair etc. I very very rarely saw professing women in pants either. I know how you felt! I couldn't a room full of people, even professing people, without finding the closest seat & propping down in order to not be seen.
It was years before I could enter a room of people & take my time to find a seat that I really wanted.
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Jul 23, 2014 23:06:17 GMT -5
What is a matter of faith ? Again you say "I have heard workers say" So because the workers say they hold no spiritually value that's the end of it ? Are the workers Apostles ? So do you look at The Church of England as a "wordly church ?" Again what is wrong with women wearing colourful clothes ? Where does it say in the Bible that women CANNOT wear colourful clothes? matter of faith? listening to what the workers have to say is a matter of faith... no if you read my post i told you i went and read them anyway and agree with thier statement... some say they are some say they aren't...even if they are not apostles they are appointed to lead us in the right direction(yes there are some that don't)... it doesn't use the world colorful it does say this...1Ti_2:9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; Who appointed the workers to lead us in any direction ? They are human the same as us ! Do you look at the Church of England as a worldly church ? So in your opinion what is wrong with the way women dress today compared to the 70's ?
|
|
tom
Junior Member
Posts: 82
|
Post by tom on Jul 24, 2014 6:55:42 GMT -5
Clearday wholesome appearance is very very clearly a rubber issue ... When I see the 2x2 appearence ... it DOES NOT ring 'wholesome' to me. It rings hypocrisy and self-righteousness. I also know that this is not true for everyone 'with the appearance' but the appearance in itself doesn't not ring 'wholesome' for the vast majority of people in our society at least -- and I know that even in Canada it rings somewhat false amongst many people - but it does raise eyebrows. I wouldn't have a problem with it if it was an attempt to express individuality but I know it is just a cheaper attempt to express conformity with 2x2 doctrine. I know that it is a taught and enforced 'appearance' that although membership claim is their own wish, most exes leave it behind quite quickly. Here is a link to a before and after pix of my wife. Do a 'wholesome' judgement on this!! Edgar- how can you say that when you see 2 x 2's that look like your wife did that you see 'hypocrisy and self-righteousness'. You must be speaking about the way you felt and thought when you were a 2 x 2 because there is no way you can make that statement about others. Just because your wife had long hair doesn't mean to say she had to 'present it' the way she did. That was a personal choice. If you were hypocritical and self righteous then you were doing it for all the wrong reasons.Please don't assume that the way you thought and and your motives for doing what you did while you were part of the church is the way everyone else thinks and acts.
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Jul 24, 2014 9:38:23 GMT -5
not entirely you might be surprised that i don't agree with paul on a few things... If you can chose not to agree with everything that is written in the Bible, can you chose not to agree with everything the workers may say? I'm asking because you say that "listening to what the workers have to say is a matter of faith." And not even all the workers agree on everything, so why should one listen to them without judging for themselves also? Since this thread is about clothes, a worker we talked to before we met any other friends told us that when we get to the US we'll see that women in the fellowship wear skirts only. He told us that it is just a tradition and that it will pass with time.
|
|