First Prev
of 10
Next Last
art

London, UK

#1 Oct 23, 2013
Are they all ambitious to be elders?
all I have ever seen them do is pass a microphone around and adjust the mic stand for the next speaker.some one said they clean the windows. and help stack the watchtower magazines.
So if its not a stepping stone to an elders position. it hardly has much to recommend it.
putting it on your CV is not going to impress anyone.
and what is the female role here,just helping out the men with what,
Remnant143999

Rio Rancho, NM

#2 Oct 23, 2013
Do ministerial servants ever become ministers? A jw female role is just to obey her husband and not to talk unless spoken to.

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#3 Oct 23, 2013
art wrote:
Are they all ambitious to be elders?
all I have ever seen them do is pass a microphone around and adjust the mic stand for the next speaker.some one said they clean the windows. and help stack the watchtower magazines.
So if its not a stepping stone to an elders position. it hardly has much to recommend it.
putting it on your CV is not going to impress anyone.
and what is the female role here,just helping out the men with what,
MS (ministerial servants) are Elders in training. Most MS will also attend a training school designed to groom them as future elders. Its an appointed position following a recommendation from the cong elders and ratified by tbe travelling overseer.

Females do not have any positions of oversight or teaching in the congregation. The most they can do is answer at the WT study or give a bible study demonstration with another sister. Amazingly, most sisters are content with this glass ceiling.

Since: Aug 09

Bedfordshire, England

#4 Oct 24, 2013
Ministerial servants do actually have a lot of responsibility. They are responsible for the accounts of the cong, the literature and magazine supplies. They will lead the field service if no elders are available. They are also used sometimes in the service meeting on the platform.
Many like a bit of responsibility as it makes them feel wanted and gain respect. However many of them do not want to take the next step to be an elder as that does involve more time and responsibility.
Mumple

Milton, PA

#5 Oct 24, 2013
Arkham Bravo wrote:
<quoted text>
MS (ministerial servants) are Elders in training. Most MS will also attend a training school designed to groom them as future elders. Its an appointed position following a recommendation from the cong elders and ratified by tbe travelling overseer.
Females do not have any positions of oversight or teaching in the congregation. The most they can do is answer at the WT study or give a bible study demonstration with another sister. Amazingly, most sisters are content with this glass ceiling.
Why do you say *amazingly*, in your reference to the sisters' compliant response to the hierarchical set up of the Witness organization? What congregational benefit could be gotten out of women being appointed to such offices? Or are you trying to stir up a little fleshly controversy?

The system existed long before anyone alive now became a part of it, male or female. Do you suggest that they should turn on the system that they accepted from the beginning? Or are you saying that since Eve was their ancestral source for DNA, that they should follow her lead in trying to usurp the authority of the males, in relation to Godly responsibility? What harm is derived by their not being appointed as future Elder-ettes? Or are imagined slights the rule of the day for you?
Sister Sodomy

Goshen, NY

#6 Oct 24, 2013
Make a big effort to get on well with some of the people that you see on a daily basis. This might be colleagues, neighbors or close friends. Maybe you could invite some of them round for a drink or a meal, or suggest that you go out together so you can get to know one another better. You might also hit on some money-making ideas connected with your job.

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#7 Oct 24, 2013
Mumple wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you say *amazingly*, in your reference to the sisters' compliant response to the hierarchical set up of the Witness organization? What congregational benefit could be gotten out of women being appointed to such offices? Or are you trying to stir up a little fleshly controversy?
The system existed long before anyone alive now became a part of it, male or female. Do you suggest that they should turn on the system that they accepted from the beginning? Or are you saying that since Eve was their ancestral source for DNA, that they should follow her lead in trying to usurp the authority of the males, in relation to Godly responsibility? What harm is derived by their not being appointed as future Elder-ettes? Or are imagined slights the rule of the day for you?
Sorry I just don't subscribe to Paul's chauvanism. I don't believe as he wrote that women should be held silent or that they are a weaker vessel. Our comfort with male dominated institutions is born out the patriarchal societies from the middle east. Many of those ideals are strictly enforced down to this day in that region.

I have been to religious services that were facilitated by women. With my JW background I was initially shocked. But as the service progressed I realized that a person's demonstration of their faith should not be hindered because of their gender.

In virtually every aspect of life we have seen male dominated institutions gradually yield to the presence of women. Entire nations that always had male leaders now have women at the helm. We have more female corporate leaders, more female politicians, and now more females taking an active role in spiritual leadership.

How about climbing out the dark ages and joining the rest of the progressive world that does not rule women out based writings from thousands of years ago!
art

London, UK

#8 Oct 24, 2013
I did see some women on the platform.
One seemed to be playing out some sort of drama about a lady in distress. Who she urged to join up with the witnesses and who is now feeling on top of the world because of it.
I could not decide if the story was true or fiction
but they all seemed to end in great happiness in a kind of Dale Carnegie glow!

Since: Feb 07

RI

#9 Oct 24, 2013
Mumple wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you say *amazingly*, in your reference to the sisters' compliant response to the hierarchical set up of the Witness organization? What congregational benefit could be gotten out of women being appointed to such offices? Or are you trying to stir up a little fleshly controversy?
The system existed long before anyone alive now became a part of it, male or female. Do you suggest that they should turn on the system that they accepted from the beginning? Or are you saying that since Eve was their ancestral source for DNA, that they should follow her lead in trying to usurp the authority of the males, in relation to Godly responsibility? What harm is derived by their not being appointed as future Elder-ettes? Or are imagined slights the rule of the day for you?
What harm would there be to the congregation if women WERE appointed to positions of responsibiity?

Would it be SO horrible if a mature woman were able to lead a field service group in prayer rather than having to turn that responsibility over to the twelve-year-old baptized male in their midst?
Mumple

Milton, PA

#10 Oct 24, 2013
RedhorseWoman wrote:
<quoted text>
What harm would there be to the congregation if women WERE appointed to positions of responsibiity?
Would it be SO horrible if a mature woman were able to lead a field service group in prayer rather than having to turn that responsibility over to the twelve-year-old baptized male in their midst?
So you're saying that experimentation in social roles should govern congregational mechanics? To what end? I would think that if God didn't supply a male to lead a field service group, that the faithful course would be to realize that God didn't want them to go out that day.

Since: Feb 07

RI

#11 Oct 24, 2013
Mumple wrote:
<quoted text>
So you're saying that experimentation in social roles should govern congregational mechanics? To what end? I would think that if God didn't supply a male to lead a field service group, that the faithful course would be to realize that God didn't want them to go out that day.
You avoided the question. What harm would there be?

Should slavery still be practiced since it was de rigeur in Bible times?

Should nothing change?
Elder A Noll

Monticello, NY

#12 Oct 24, 2013
Sister Sodomy wrote:
Make a big effort to get on well with some of the people that you see on a daily basis. This might be colleagues, neighbors or close friends. Maybe you could invite some of them round for a drink or a meal, or suggest that you go out together so you can get to know one another better. You might also hit on some money-making ideas connected with your job.
Hi there Sister Sodomy.All my anal retentive elder friends are in full agreement with you. Keep up the good work
Mumple

Milton, PA

#13 Oct 24, 2013
RedhorseWoman wrote:
<quoted text>
You avoided the question. What harm would there be?
Should slavery still be practiced since it was de rigeur in Bible times?
Should nothing change?
The point I am making, is that there is no positive reason to do it. None at all. Saying what would it hurt is foolishness. There is not one spiritual reason to do so. there is not one intelligent reason to do so, except for the fact of women saying, in effect, we will make your life hell, if you don't.

If you wish to serve the God of the bible, then do so. If you do not, then do not. The God of the bible had examples presented of the way things were to be. He showed it in creation, he showed it in His choosing men to lead their families, the nation of Israel, His priesthood, and the fact that kings were chosen, and not queens. He sent a son to be the Messiah, not a daughter. Women were given honor, but never leadership positions, with a possible exception, in the case of Deborah, as a judge, but not a leader of Israel, in the day to day things.

Since: Feb 07

RI

#14 Oct 24, 2013
Mumple wrote:
<quoted text>
The point I am making, is that there is no positive reason to do it. None at all. Saying what would it hurt is foolishness. There is not one spiritual reason to do so. there is not one intelligent reason to do so, except for the fact of women saying, in effect, we will make your life hell, if you don't.
If you wish to serve the God of the bible, then do so. If you do not, then do not. The God of the bible had examples presented of the way things were to be. He showed it in creation, he showed it in His choosing men to lead their families, the nation of Israel, His priesthood, and the fact that kings were chosen, and not queens. He sent a son to be the Messiah, not a daughter. Women were given honor, but never leadership positions, with a possible exception, in the case of Deborah, as a judge, but not a leader of Israel, in the day to day things.
Nor is there a reason NOT to allow women to have positions of responsibility in the congregation.

It also has absolutely nothing to do with making anyone's life hell. Positions of responsibility should be available to those most capable of carrying out those responsibilities who also have the desire to embrace those responsibilities, regardless of gender.

Why should a perfectly capable, intelligent woman be shunted to the side in favor of a man simply because he sports different genitalia?

Since: Feb 07

RI

#15 Oct 24, 2013
Mumple wrote:
<quoted text>
The point I am making, is that there is no positive reason to do it. None at all. Saying what would it hurt is foolishness. There is not one spiritual reason to do so. there is not one intelligent reason to do so, except for the fact of women saying, in effect, we will make your life hell, if you don't.
If you wish to serve the God of the bible, then do so. If you do not, then do not. The God of the bible had examples presented of the way things were to be. He showed it in creation, he showed it in His choosing men to lead their families, the nation of Israel, His priesthood, and the fact that kings were chosen, and not queens. He sent a son to be the Messiah, not a daughter. Women were given honor, but never leadership positions, with a possible exception, in the case of Deborah, as a judge, but not a leader of Israel, in the day to day things.
So, then, you DO advocate slavery? That was quite acceptable in Bible times.
Mumple

Milton, PA

#16 Oct 24, 2013
RedhorseWoman wrote:
<quoted text>
So, then, you DO advocate slavery? That was quite acceptable in Bible times.
Hysteria is a reason to not allow someone in a position of authority. Stretching my obvious meaning to the level of slavery is not a balanced response. I say if someone is to represent God, they should do it God's way. anything else is unacceptable. Only someone who values their own judgements above God's would come to those conclusions. Why would you recommend that course to those professing to worship the god of the bible?
jace

Alexandria, VA

#17 Oct 24, 2013
Arkham Bravo wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry I just don't subscribe to Paul's chauvanism. I don't believe as he wrote that women should be held silent or that they are a weaker vessel. Our comfort with male dominated institutions is born out the patriarchal societies from the middle east. Many of those ideals are strictly enforced down to this day in that region.

I have been to religious services that were facilitated by women. With my JW background I was initially shocked. But as the service progressed I realized that a person's demonstration of their faith should not be hindered because of their gender.

In virtually every aspect of life we have seen male dominated institutions gradually yield to the presence of women. Entire nations that always had male leaders now have women at the helm. We have more female corporate leaders, more female politicians, and now more females taking an active role in spiritual leadership.

How about climbing out the dark ages and joining the rest of the progressive world that does not rule women out based writings from thousands of years ago!
Question

Do you believe that all that is written in the bible is inspired by god and infallible?

Since: Feb 07

RI

#18 Oct 24, 2013
Mumple wrote:
<quoted text>
Hysteria is a reason to not allow someone in a position of authority. Stretching my obvious meaning to the level of slavery is not a balanced response. I say if someone is to represent God, they should do it God's way. anything else is unacceptable. Only someone who values their own judgements above God's would come to those conclusions. Why would you recommend that course to those professing to worship the god of the bible?
Hysteria? LOL I was stretching absolutely nothing. YOU are the one who insists that the way things were done in Bible times is the way it should be done today.

Are you claiming that women are prone to hysteria? LOL What a totally ridiculous thing to say.

Why do you feel that you can pick and choose which Biblical mores should still be practiced today and which should be discarded?

If you want to do it "God's way" then you should be willing to do EVERYTHING "God's way" even if you might be thrown in prison for doing so, correct?
jace

Alexandria, VA

#19 Oct 24, 2013
RedhorseWoman wrote:
<quoted text>What harm would there be to the congregation if women WERE appointed to positions of responsibiity?

Would it be SO horrible if a mature woman were able to lead a field service group in prayer rather than having to turn that responsibility over to the twelve-year-old baptized male in their midst?
Is that not so cool

We had a Sister who was a doctor and sure enough the 13 year old boy would lead

Lol

We were off the chain as jw
jace

Alexandria, VA

#20 Oct 24, 2013
Mumple wrote:
<quoted text>The point I am making, is that there is no positive reason to do it. None at all. Saying what would it hurt is foolishness. There is not one spiritual reason to do so. there is not one intelligent reason to do so, except for the fact of women saying, in effect, we will make your life hell, if you don't.

If you wish to serve the God of the bible, then do so. If you do not, then do not. The God of the bible had examples presented of the way things were to be. He showed it in creation, he showed it in His choosing men to lead their families, the nation of Israel, His priesthood, and the fact that kings were chosen, and not queens. He sent a son to be the Messiah, not a daughter. Women were given honor, but never leadership positions, with a possible exception, in the case of Deborah, as a judge, but not a leader of Israel, in the day to day things.
Still did not answer the question my der friend

Now I now you can

Just focus. You can do it

The poster asked a simple question

So please address the question

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 10
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Jehovah's Witness Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Refining & Cleansing--God's Way Vs Yours (Aug '13) 2 min BetheljudgmentDan... 640
A second group! 2 min Brother P 131
Are the Templars looking for the Apostle John? 12 min Son of man 7
FEWER Churches teaching 'Hellfire'! 15 min array 598
YES-Jesus WAS once known as Michael (Sep '14) 43 min BetheljudgmentDan... 3,166
Poll Are Jehovah's Witnesses the modern day Sect of ... (Jun '10) 48 min little lamb 94
Can ANY churchoid reason with me on THIS one? 54 min the Mad JW 28
Do Jehovah's witnesses believe in Jesus for sal... 1 hr Maravilla 770
Logic that baffles apostates. 2 hr little lamb 109
Candace Conti/WT Update 7 hr Covered 98
More from around the web