|
Post by snow on Jul 6, 2014 11:08:15 GMT -5
I think the major change isn't so much styles, but more the fact that people are less concerned with being "Worker Pleasers". The workers realize this, and as a result very seldom try to micromanage what we wear, drink, go, etc....Every once in a while something may be said from the platform, but not too often. At convention we heard that the sister workers should be the women's example in everything - including how they should look. Also, very seldom are people pulled aside and given a talking to about how they should look. Those days are fading very fast. In our area, there are some very conservative type, judgementalist (for lack of a better term). They will throw some harsh comments to only the ones that they know will take it. They wouldn't and have never said one iota to my wife (with one exception and she has asked for forgiveness waaaay too many times) as they know they have nothing to back it scripturally. The day and age has changed. No longer are we just robots - doing things because the Workers said....without question. Why this phenomenon of change, I'm not quite sure. I wore pants quite a bit to events, but then I wasn't professing anymore either. I was still required to attend though. No one really hassled me about it. I think they thought I was a lost cause anyway so why waste their time.
|
|
|
Post by ScholarGal on Jul 6, 2014 12:00:45 GMT -5
Fixit, Ellie, Clearday, what you describe is definitely more liberal than in Texas. Or perhaps my age group (40's) is not as liberal. Perhaps those in their 20's/30's do wear pants when getting together with friends of the same age? A young sister worker (early 20's)told me that she wore pants to high school, and if the workers came to the house, her mom would bring a change of clothes for her to change into in the car. By the time our daughter entered middle school, she refused to wear pants to school, period. We informed our workers about it so they wouldn't be surprised, and they didn't seem shocked or worried. Still, we took care not to offend others by letting her go in pants to friends' get-togethers (she didn't mind that at all). I've heard about teenage girls going to a kids' get-together in pants and being told they have to change into skirts. I think some groups of 40-something women in Texas are more liberal than others--pants, shorter-styled hair, makeup, etc. The girls being told to change at get-togethers has happened for years. I believe that is the preference of the hosts more than the whole church or the workers.
|
|
|
Post by ScholarGal on Jul 6, 2014 12:05:17 GMT -5
I have also missed meetings because of a lack of transport. If trousers were accepted meeting attire I would have cycled to the meeting. I could have gotten there in around 20 minutes without getting too sweaty. I haven't lived anywhere that was a reasonable cycling distance to my assigned meeting since about 1999. There are times when skirts are more comfortable than pants, and this "Penny In Yo Pants" video might be helpful for modern skirted cycling. vimeo.com/98808131
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Jul 6, 2014 12:26:19 GMT -5
I have also missed meetings because of a lack of transport. If trousers were accepted meeting attire I would have cycled to the meeting. I could have gotten there in around 20 minutes without getting too sweaty. I haven't lived anywhere that was a reasonable cycling distance to my assigned meeting since about 1999. There are times when skirts are more comfortable than pants, and this "Penny In Yo Pants" video might be helpful for modern skirted cycling. vimeo.com/98808131What a great idea!
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Jul 6, 2014 12:59:14 GMT -5
Fixit, Ellie, Clearday, what you describe is definitely more liberal than in Texas. Or perhaps my age group (40's) is not as liberal. Perhaps those in their 20's/30's do wear pants when getting together with friends of the same age? A young sister worker (early 20's)told me that she wore pants to high school, and if the workers came to the house, her mom would bring a change of clothes for her to change into in the car. By the time our daughter entered middle school, she refused to wear pants to school, period. We informed our workers about it so they wouldn't be surprised, and they didn't seem shocked or worried. Still, we took care not to offend others by letting her go in pants to friends' get-togethers (she didn't mind that at all). I've heard about teenage girls going to a kids' get-together in pants and being told they have to change into skirts. I think some groups of 40-something women in Texas are more liberal than others--pants, shorter-styled hair, makeup, etc. The girls being told to change at get-togethers has happened for years. I believe that is the preference of the hosts more than the whole church or the workers. Haven't seen pants or shorter-styled hair, possibly because shorter hair is hidden when put up in a bun. But some makeup is pretty common.
|
|
|
Post by openingact34 on Jul 6, 2014 15:02:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 6, 2014 16:58:45 GMT -5
''WHAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE APPAREL FOR GIRLS TO WEAR SKIING, HORSEBACK RIDING, JOGGING, ETC.?''
Well, of course! Isn't that the point? By restricting what women can wear, you restrict what women are allowed to do!
Restricting women is the whole point!
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Jul 6, 2014 17:08:40 GMT -5
I grew up during the 60's and 70's in the Northeast US hearing "If you can't do it in a skirt, don't do it at all." In spite of this, women and girls wore warm pants for ice skating get-togethers among the Friends. I'm not aware of the workers ever bothering anyone for it. More recently, I heard from a reliable source that last year a sister worker spoke from the platform (Milford? Altamont?) about how women should wear whatever is appropriate for the activity at hand, even if that means wearing pants (my paraphrase). Did anyone hear this in person?
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jul 6, 2014 17:56:32 GMT -5
Ten+ years ago, many professing women, young girls and children were wearing shorts to friends' get-togethers on July 4 in Oklahoma City.
My mother attended with my professing dad and saw it first hand.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 6, 2014 20:27:12 GMT -5
''WHAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE APPAREL FOR GIRLS TO WEAR SKIING, HORSEBACK RIDING, JOGGING, ETC.?''
Well, of course! Isn't that the point? By restricting what women can wear, you restrict what women are allowed to do!
Restricting women is the whole point!
However, if I'm reading the scripture right, it's man that's supposed to be denying himself. Doesn't say anything about women, so I think the churches have messed up some where.
|
|
|
Post by applesandbacon on Jul 6, 2014 22:13:37 GMT -5
I grew up during the 60's and 70's in the Northeast US hearing "If you can't do it in a skirt, don't do it at all." In spite of this, women and girls wore warm pants for ice skating get-togethers among the Friends. I'm not aware of the workers ever bothering anyone for it. More recently, I heard from a reliable source that last year a sister worker spoke from the platform (Milford? Altamont?) about how women should wear whatever is appropriate for the activity at hand, even if that means wearing pants (my paraphrase). Did anyone hear this in person? That would be cool if a sister worker said that. I was at one of those conventions and didn't hear it. I do know an older sister gave a talk in the dorms about dress. She said that as long as women's bathrooms are designated by a picture of a skirted woman, professing females are supposed to continue to wear skirts. She also said that it's up to woman and girls to dress in a way that keeps the brother workers on the straight and narrow. Maybe this talk was intended to get everyone back on track after what the other worker said?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 6, 2014 23:25:17 GMT -5
I grew up during the 60's and 70's in the Northeast US hearing "If you can't do it in a skirt, don't do it at all." In spite of this, women and girls wore warm pants for ice skating get-togethers among the Friends. I'm not aware of the workers ever bothering anyone for it. More recently, I heard from a reliable source that last year a sister worker spoke from the platform (Milford? Altamont?) about how women should wear whatever is appropriate for the activity at hand, even if that means wearing pants (my paraphrase). Did anyone hear this in person? That would be cool if a sister worker said that. I was at one of those conventions and didn't hear it. I do know an older sister gave a talk in the dorms about dress. She said that as long as women's bathrooms are designated by a picture of a skirted woman, professing females are supposed to continue to wear skirts. She also said that it's up to woman and girls to dress in a way that keeps the brother workers on the straight and narrow. Maybe this talk was intended to get everyone back on track after what the other worker said? Yes, keep the brothers back on track. You ever hear of flip-up Friday when you went to school? I even heard some old ladies talking at convention one time about not wearing pant-style pajamas to sleep in because it looked like pants. I could just imagine how those .... I better not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2014 1:17:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Jul 7, 2014 1:39:40 GMT -5
''WHAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE APPAREL FOR GIRLS TO WEAR SKIING, HORSEBACK RIDING, JOGGING, ETC.?''
Well, of course! Isn't that the point? By restricting what women can wear, you restrict what women are allowed to do!
Restricting women is the whole point!
However, if I'm reading the scripture right, it's man that's supposed to be denying himself. Doesn't say anything about women, so I think the churches have messed up some where. It is by restricting women's clothing you restrict their ability to partake in the same activities that men can, -sports of various kinds.
Think about it, women who have to wear dresses down to their ankles can't even run without tripping on their skirts.
Going up stairs means you have to hold up your skirt with both hands. That means you don't even have your hands free.
|
|
|
Post by ellie on Jul 7, 2014 6:44:15 GMT -5
I haven't lived anywhere that was a reasonable cycling distance to my assigned meeting since about 1999. There are times when skirts are more comfortable than pants, and this "Penny In Yo Pants" video might be helpful for modern skirted cycling. vimeo.com/98808131What a great idea! 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.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2014 7:15:51 GMT -5
I have to agree with you virgo. The young women and men I know look like ordinary, modest people. Yes, they are at their most conservative at convention (for reasonable social reasons), but their day to day appearances are mostly that of wholesome young people. Clearday -- This is the most typical and amazing piece of 2x2 propaganda that exists - That 'wholesome' people can be identified by appearance. I find this mindset completely offensive to the 100s of thousands of young people, (hundreds that I know) that outside conservatism are 'wonderful, morally pure and wholesome' individuals, but choose to express their individuallity in other ways and other styles . As if 'wholesome' young people can be identified by their appearance and the rest of us should strive to copy their appearance.!!! A type example is the victorian idea that everyone with a tatoo or piercing, or with challenging or radical clothing styles is less wholesome than the 'moderate'- In my work (with the socially challenged) I have noticed far more folks willing to stand for the truth they understand regardless of the opposition or cost ... than most of 'the wholesome' by appearance within 2x2ism .. As this board gives testimony to, there is an amazing capacity for comprimised and discarded moral value amongst the most moderate ranks of the 2x2 'wholesome' in appearance. Here is a link to a pix of one of my daughters -- as you can see she has a tattoo behind her ear, a piercing in her nose, she wears her skirts, at times, far to short for my sence of dignity but she has an amazing capacity for moral value .. and will stand for them regardless the cost ------ This is the very thing that is lacking in 2x2ism -No one will stand for the truth as they know it .. (if they do they get kicked out) -- Moral disaster inspite of the organizational interest in the 2x2 version of a 'wholesome appearance' www.themasseys.net/familypix/2014-06/-viewer.asp?slide=42
|
|
|
Post by ellie on Jul 7, 2014 7:29:45 GMT -5
I think there was a turning moment when the fear factor left my wife. Somewhere around 12-14 years ago, the workers were coming to stay and I remember the look on my daughter's face (around 6 years old) when she was rushed into a skirt. (sort of a "what the.....??" look). The fuss clearly made no sense to her. The next morning, she was given a skirt to go to school in, a rather rare event. That night, I mentioned to my wife that we can't be systematically teaching our kids a form of hypocrisy and living a double life. Up until then, my wife and our daughter wore pants quite regularly so it was only the worker-presence that raised the fear and caused the behaviour change. Anyway, my wife saw immediately what we were doing and realized that it was far more important to live with integrity than to jump hoops to look good in front of the workers. As it turned out, it wasn't a problem with the workers by then anyway, just an old habit which my wife superbly abandoned. Anyway, I thought that story is a good illustration of how change is occurring, and how people can get over the old ways and habits which never made any sense to begin with. I think that the fear factor and desire to please the workers is one of the most difficult parts of change in 2x2ism.Probably. My issue was always not wanting to offend the friends, as they would be more likely to see me than the workers anyway. I could just picture the shock and disappointment on somebody's face and didn't want to be disrespectful toward their convictions. It was always clear that our local friends felt very strongly about the skirt issue. I wondered if i might offend any of the conservative types but then found this funny phenomenon where rather than offending people by wearing pants for the most part I made other people feel better about themselves and their daughters. I do avoid wearing trousers into some else's home who i know doesn't approve. I also have some very conservative relatives. I try not to wear pants apart from for practical purposes around their young children. I might not agree with how they dress their daughters but while they are pretty young I figure it's not my business to make it more difficult for them either.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2014 7:30:46 GMT -5
I have to agree with you virgo. The young women and men I know look like ordinary, modest people. Yes, they are at their most conservative at convention (for reasonable social reasons), but their day to day appearances are mostly that of wholesome young people. Clearday -- This is the most typical and amazing piece of 2x2 propaganda that exists - That 'wholesome' people can be identified by appearance. I find this mindset completely offensive to the 100s of thousands of young people, (hundreds that I know) that outside conservatism are 'wonderful, morally pure and wholesome' individuals, but choose to express their individuallity in other ways and other styles . As if 'wholesome' young people can be identified by their appearance and the rest of us should strive to copy their appearance.!!! A type example is the victorian idea that everyone with a tatoo or piercing, or with challenging or radical clothing styles is less wholesome than the 'moderate'- In my work (with the socially challenged) I have noticed far more folks willing to stand for the truth they understand regardless of the opposition or cost ... than most of 'the wholesome' by appearance within 2x2ism .. As this board gives testimony to, there is an amazing capacity for comprimised and discarded moral value amongst the most moderate ranks of the 2x2 'wholesome' in appearance. Unfortunately, I don't make up this stuff and it certainly has nothing to do with 2x2ism. There are actual web pages devoted to instructions on how to be a wholesome person. Society does prejudge people and it is true that "wholesome appearing" people may or may not be wholesome people. It's purely subjective. My comment that the young friends have a wholesome appearance doesn't mean that they are wholesome people. This thread is about appearance.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2014 7:39:40 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!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2014 7:51:19 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 simple 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. It's possible that young friends are hypocritical and self-righteous. For the most part, I would disagree. I generally see kids who are being natural and expressing values that are important to them. Most of them express their individuality in a wide variety of ways. I would expect also that some do fall into your description.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2014 8:23:36 GMT -5
To me one of the major backsides to the 2x2 'wholesome appearance' issue is the doctrinal justification that it has given for hypocrisy. You insisted that it isn't hypocrisy to use the dress issue to express one thing to the workers and friends, and a different image to freinds and acquaintences of 'the world'.
I remember the wild chase for my sisters to change to more suitable clothes if they came home from school, and found the workers sitting on the living room soffa. This was explained as 'just showing respect' for the workers (in reality it was an issue of group survival!!)
Hypocrisy to a 2x2 is only applicable to incosistencey in folks in other churches. If the same issue comes up for 2x2 membership then this same hypocrisy is deemed a virtue -- and praised as respect for the workers. This makes the problem not only 2x2 acceptance of hypocrisy as a good thing, but also 2x2 acceptance of dishonesty as admirable if it serves the correct organizational purposes.
|
|
|
Post by mdm on Jul 7, 2014 8:43:00 GMT -5
That would be cool if a sister worker said that. I was at one of those conventions and didn't hear it. I do know an older sister gave a talk in the dorms about dress. She said that as long as women's bathrooms are designated by a picture of a skirted woman, professing females are supposed to continue to wear skirts. She also said that it's up to woman and girls to dress in a way that keeps the brother workers on the straight and narrow.Maybe this talk was intended to get everyone back on track after what the other worker said? I find the underlined part revolting. BW's are surely not feeble-minded creatures that have to be "kept on the straight and narrow" by making sure there is nothing to tempt them. Surely they have personal conviction and the help of the Holy Spirit to guide and strengthen??? Besides, if someone doesn't have the gift of celibacy, they should follow Paul's advice and get married, not blame their problems on women and how they dress. A senior worker recently commented jokingly to our friends that he has trouble keeping his eyes off of women's legs (revealed by short skirts) and that they will drive him crazy. I don't see a married man joking like this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2014 9:35:49 GMT -5
That would be cool if a sister worker said that. I was at one of those conventions and didn't hear it. I do know an older sister gave a talk in the dorms about dress. She said that as long as women's bathrooms are designated by a picture of a skirted woman, professing females are supposed to continue to wear skirts. She also said that it's up to woman and girls to dress in a way that keeps the brother workers on the straight and narrow.Maybe this talk was intended to get everyone back on track after what the other worker said? I find the underlined part revolting. BW's are surely not feeble-minded creatures that have to be "kept on the straight and narrow" by making sure there is nothing to tempt them. Surely they have personal conviction and the help of the Holy Spirit to guide and strengthen??? Besides, if someone doesn't have the gift of celibacy, they should follow Paul's advice and get married, not blame their problems on women and how they dress. A senior worker recently commented jokingly to our friends that he has trouble keeping his eyes off of women's legs (revealed by short skirts) and that they will drive him crazy. I don't see a married man joking like this. I find that mindset revolting as well --- How do these same workers deal with the vast majority of 'worldly' people that they meet in the course of a day? Is everything with visible legs regarded as a simple sex object then?? Doesn't sound to good for the workers moral values if that was the case. Remember that unseeming fantacy is built on what you can't see - but choose to imagine-
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2014 10:18:21 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!! As I mentioned, wholesomeness is subjective so a "judgement" isn't possible, it's only what people read into the meaning of appearances and varies between times and cultures. In the 2104 and in our culture, "Before" would be generally viewed as extreme appearance. "After" would be generally viewed as wholesome appearance. In 1914, the view might have been the opposite. In Saudi Arabia, both would probably be considered extreme and unwholesome. Either way, outward appearances don't speak to the whole person and I think most people understand that. Just because someone looks wholesome, ie healthy and balanced, it doesn't guarantee that they are, hence the impossibility of a judgement.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 7, 2014 11:28:08 GMT -5
However, if I'm reading the scripture right, it's man that's supposed to be denying himself. Doesn't say anything about women, so I think the churches have messed up some where. It is by restricting women's clothing you restrict their ability to partake in the same activities that men can, -sports of various kinds.
Think about it, women who have to wear dresses down to their ankles can't even run without tripping on their skirts.
Going up stairs means you have to hold up your skirt with both hands. That means you don't even have your hands free.
Oh I know, believe me. It is done to restrict women's activities. I was more commenting on the workers quoting scriptures about denying things for the kingdom and it clearly says in the scripture 'he' not 'she' that needs to be denying things. So I am quite sure the churches are messed up because it's not women who should be denying things to themselves it's men! Don't see much of that though...
|
|
|
Post by applesandbacon on Jul 7, 2014 11:31:03 GMT -5
That would be cool if a sister worker said that. I was at one of those conventions and didn't hear it. I do know an older sister gave a talk in the dorms about dress. She said that as long as women's bathrooms are designated by a picture of a skirted woman, professing females are supposed to continue to wear skirts. She also said that it's up to woman and girls to dress in a way that keeps the brother workers on the straight and narrow.Maybe this talk was intended to get everyone back on track after what the other worker said? I find the underlined part revolting. BW's are surely not feeble-minded creatures that have to be "kept on the straight and narrow" by making sure there is nothing to tempt them. Surely they have personal conviction and the help of the Holy Spirit to guide and strengthen??? Besides, if someone doesn't have the gift of celibacy, they should follow Paul's advice and get married, not blame their problems on women and how they dress. A senior worker recently commented jokingly to our friends that he has trouble keeping his eyes off of women's legs (revealed by short skirts) and that they will drive him crazy. I don't see a married man joking like this. Absolutely. I find it revolting too. I wasn't actually present for the talk, but the points listed above were quoted to me at least 3 times by three different women after the fact. The last one got an earful about victim blaming and rape culture. I also mentioned that brother workers of all ages tend to have their own computers and bedrooms. They can and do look at a lot more than cleavage and short skirts. Given recent CSA events, I find it distasteful that a sister worker would promote the "what was she wearing?" attitude in regards to a worker's immorality or criminal behavior. To me, that's what the talk was all about. That was the take away message for the women I spoke with.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 7, 2014 11:33:19 GMT -5
I have to agree with you virgo. The young women and men I know look like ordinary, modest people. Yes, they are at their most conservative at convention (for reasonable social reasons), but their day to day appearances are mostly that of wholesome young people. Clearday -- This is the most typical and amazing piece of 2x2 propaganda that exists - That 'wholesome' people can be identified by appearance. I find this mindset completely offensive to the 100s of thousands of young people, (hundreds that I know) that outside conservatism are 'wonderful, morally pure and wholesome' individuals, but choose to express their individuallity in other ways and other styles . As if 'wholesome' young people can be identified by their appearance and the rest of us should strive to copy their appearance.!!! A type example is the victorian idea that everyone with a tatoo or piercing, or with challenging or radical clothing styles is less wholesome than the 'moderate'- In my work (with the socially challenged) I have noticed far more folks willing to stand for the truth they understand regardless of the opposition or cost ... than most of 'the wholesome' by appearance within 2x2ism .. As this board gives testimony to, there is an amazing capacity for comprimised and discarded moral value amongst the most moderate ranks of the 2x2 'wholesome' in appearance. Here is a link to a pix of one of my daughters -- as you can see she has a tattoo behind her ear, a piercing in her nose, she wears her skirts, at times, far to short for my sence of dignity but she has an amazing capacity for moral value .. and will stand for them regardless the cost ------ This is the very thing that is lacking in 2x2ism -No one will stand for the truth as they know it .. (if they do they get kicked out) -- Moral disaster inspite of the organizational interest in the 2x2 version of a 'wholesome appearance' www.themasseys.net/familypix/2014-06/-viewer.asp?slide=42Totally agree with this Edgar. We judge person's based on how they look, dress etc. Makes us wrong more times than not about the person though. I was judged by the way I dressed, but I was not sexually active as a teen and I know some of the friends were. Yet they were deemed more pure and morally right than me because I dressed like the world. Really? Just to be clear, I'm not saying they weren't just as good or better than me, but it was the hypocrisy of the friends thinking they were 'purer' just by the way they 'appeared'.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 7, 2014 11:47:27 GMT -5
That would be cool if a sister worker said that. I was at one of those conventions and didn't hear it. I do know an older sister gave a talk in the dorms about dress. She said that as long as women's bathrooms are designated by a picture of a skirted woman, professing females are supposed to continue to wear skirts. She also said that it's up to woman and girls to dress in a way that keeps the brother workers on the straight and narrow.Maybe this talk was intended to get everyone back on track after what the other worker said? I find the underlined part revolting. BW's are surely not feeble-minded creatures that have to be "kept on the straight and narrow" by making sure there is nothing to tempt them. Surely they have personal conviction and the help of the Holy Spirit to guide and strengthen??? Besides, if someone doesn't have the gift of celibacy, they should follow Paul's advice and get married, not blame their problems on women and how they dress. A senior worker recently commented jokingly to our friends that he has trouble keeping his eyes off of women's legs (revealed by short skirts) and that they will drive him crazy. I don't see a married man joking like this. Sexual repression with it's basis in religion is interesting. I have read many reports of men who are in the justice system that have raped and killed women and their background was a family that taught stringent rules and information on sexuality. They get such a warped and perverted view on sexuality that they feel guilty about even their thoughts if they are filled with attraction to a woman. Enjoying looking at the body of the sex that attracts you is not wrong. In the general society just because a man likes the looks of a woman, it doesn't mean that they will need to follow through on that. The male workers shouldn't be any different. However, keeping them celibate is a crazy idea and I can see how it would be hard for them. Human nature is perverse in that we want what we can't have. It makes no sense to me that priests and workers can't marry and have a normal life and still be just as 'spiritually pure' as someone that is celibate. One more stupid rule Paul decided upon that has caused no end of grief. I am glad he did allow them to get married at a 'last resort' if they were so weak. How many try to uphold that standard and feel that getting married would be a show of weakness and unrighteousness? Control over sexual urges is a whole different thing from sexual repression. One is normal the other leads to some very horrific activities.
|
|