Questions From Readers Nov 15th 2009

The latest flip-flop (allbeit a minor one.)

The "wise instruction" (as described by the society) given is that sisters now have to wear head coverings when interpreting sign language public talks.

Differs from the previous instructions that sisters didn't need to do so.

w77 6/15p.28 Questions From Readers

When a sister is interpreting for the deaf,would Paul’s counsel at 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 make it necessary forher to cover her head?

Um......I think you may have misread it hon....which is understandable.  It's worded it kind of a strange way:

Since the sister serving as interpreter would not be originating the thoughts expressed, she would not be teaching in the congregation so as to require a head covering.

To avoid any confusion, they maybe should have worded it like this:

Since the sister serving as interpreter would not be originating the thoughts expressed, she would not be teaching in the congregation and therefore, would not require a head covering.

What a shame.  I was soooo looking forward to demonstrating that as a female, I'm still only a second class citizen.  

Mary, let sistas wear JW approved doilies on their head. Just every now and then, throw in a special sign language sign when certain JW dogma is mentioned. Like how JW's treat women with respect.....

Starting in 2010 they are going to require the 'brothers' to wear yamulkahs.

I'm confused...

Dozy, you quoted an 02 and a 77 QFR that says a headcovering is not required but you say the 09 QFR says it is required.  Do you have the 09 quote?

The question is "Are they PROHIBITED from wearing head coverings at these times?"

The more interesting question is, why?

Not the boring contrived irrelevant "scriptural" reason they put in the Nov. 15 09 WT, but the real reason.

Who on the GB got po'ed enough to call for another vote on this really rather inconsequential matter? And why was he so irked? What happened so that he felt the need to further lower the status of women by publically humiliating them? It's one thing to wear a head covering at a meeting for field service in front of a group consisting of 3 other "sisters", but quite another to have to wear one in front of 100 or 1000 or 5000 of your peers.

And why are they wasting time worrying about head coverings? As if child abuse lawsuits, dwindling cash flow, increasing expenses, and bad publicity were minor problems.

I new a older Sister who would put on a head covering when verbally abusing the Elders...true story!

What struck me that sisters reading paragraphs at the congregation book study (when it was small groups) were said not to have to wear a headcovering.  This has been a back and forth discussion among the elders in the congregations I attended.  They were rather to use a brother who could barely read or the elder himself had to conduct and read at the same time.  So in some groups I could read without a headcovering, in some a headcovering was required, and in others no sisters could ever read depending on the prevailing BOE or conductor opinion.

The new thought in 2002 was that reading was not "teaching."

The whole headcovering thing is the most frightful bollocks anyway.

Why should what was said to some 1st centuary ladies apply literally today? (Also isn't Paul actually talking about a veil rather than just a covering ?)

Also,if you read Pauls words in a certain way you can come away with the belief that a woman should NOT cover her head,her hair does that for her.

Love

Wobble

To clarify - Nov 15 2009 says a head covering is required - the previous QFRs said it wasn't.  I don't have the WT to hand to quote verbatim. (If you want to hear it , you can download it at JW.org).    

A helpful picture is included of a sister interpreting wearing a head scarf. (At least the burkah isn't compulsory yet in JW land , though I am sure some of the GB are working towards it.)

What I particularly found amusing was the reference within the article quoting how the instruction was wise. The WTS seems constantly to need to say how wise , clever & discreet & wonderful they are. On this occasion , they even did away with the false 3rd party affirmation.

Re cash flow , there is the usual November article on donating to the WTS.

I just found that article on the jw.org website.  Definitely says that a sister should wear a headcovering when signing for a brother.

Thanks Dozy...

If anyone gets a copy, could they scan it?

I'm with Sir on this one...why are they worrying about head coverings when they have so many other issues?

The only thing I can come up with is that they know they're losing control over the rank and file.  It's been noted that the obey/control factor has increased in recent times.  It's also been noted that the ranks of brothers eligible for "privileges" has decreased. 

As this trend continues, the sisters gain more prominence as they have to actually cover some of the dutiese usually assigned to brothers.  Could this be a lame attempt at reminding sisters their "place"? 

Basically the GB is saying, "Even though we're allowing you to read and carry out duties that normally go to brothers, we want you to remember that you're still in subjection and this visible sign will remind you of your place and it will tell everyone else as well."

I think it was the book Qualified to be ministers that said that the best reader should read if that was a sister she should do it because it is important that the message is understood by those in attendance. I know that many elders would not let a sister read even if they read it in the literature.

Has anyone seen the November 15, Watchtower on the internet as pdf?

My guess is that the motive behind this is to keep a new generation of women down. A lot of sisters love the glory of signing (with all respect to those that did it) and its a big thing to them.

The GB will use any and every opportunity to remind you that you are not THEM, and should thus be in subjection. Women, men, elders, MS's, pioneers, non GB annointed. Doesn't matter. You aren't a GB, you aren't anything.

Anxious to see a scan of the magazine and to read this QFR.

Probably, for us, passwordprotected and TheOldHippie will make the PDF of that WT.
We'll say them "thank you."

http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/178911/2/The-Watchtower-September-15-2009-PDF

As long as we are on the subject - what was the purpose of having somebody read out each damn paragraph after questions and answers during the Watchtower Study?

It was almost like - OK, children - you had your chance --- but NOW we will hear the words of the Society itself!

oh ya....i would love some spunky sis to stand up there with a black scarf, then pull in down as a full face burka when she starts to sign....that would be a great statement..........oompa

I'm with Sir on this one...why are they worrying about head coverings when they have so many other issues?

Undercover, I agree with you.

Perhaps this underscores the more conservative (and more cultic) movement of the Governing Body. The 2/3 vote is moving more and more in a negative way. That's what happens when a group of 9 men have absolute control of the JW religion. What's scary is that these same 9 men choose any new members of the Governing Body and the increasing conservative and cultic nature of the GB will mean men of similar disposition will be chosen.

Personally, I think this signifies an increasingly dark era for JWs.