Srecko Sostar

WTJWorg has made a public statement with very clear meaning regarding the mental capacity of children. They made a general statement that covers all children.
As  supposed proof that their claim is justified and correct, they used one biblical verse.
In what context is Paul's statement from this biblical quote applicable? 
Its 13th chapter deals with the spiritual and religious aspects of one's understanding of God's dealings with men. He talks about knowledge and love and faith. Paul is not talking about CSA. Nor is there any indication that he was alluding to the CSA.
WTJWorg used it in the context of a life situation that can affect the youngest members of a family and society in general.
Why do you think that this is the only application that this Bible passage can cover? Don't JWs teach that the Bible is the Word of God that helps people in ALL circumstances of life?
I dismiss your criticism as baseless. I am horrified by your ability and desire to try to selectively apply what WTJWorg baselessly uses only for their current needs of religious domination over people. This shows that you are a successful "student" of your spiritual "teachers".

…. and is it “flagrant misconduct” to analyze what someone has stated publically?
Explain THAT!

What part did he distort?
It looks like STRAIGHT QUOTES from Watchtower publications.
Again …. what part did he distort?

Most everything is “beyond you” George, because you are hung up on your agenda, when the thread is about the appropriateness of JW customs, traditions, and POLICIES OF BAPTISMS.
Why don’t you start your OWN thread, and see what kind of response you get?
See how many people respond to your diversionary agenda defending the indefensible.
—————————————————-—-
 
 

…. since neither Srecko Sostar nor I made any such assertion …. not even CLOSE … there is no need to refute your false premise(s).
 

Srecko Sostar’s premise was ONLY about baptisms at a very young age. 
As usual, BTK et al, your train has jumped the tracks and headed off as wreckage into the woods. 
Your agenda is interfering with your comprehension and attention span.
”WDS - The Sword That Cuts Both Ways”.

…. It would help if things that were quoted verbatim were inside quotation marks   “___”. 
It should not be a capital offense if this basic rule is disregarded ….
…. if it’s a first time.

I look at it more that brothers are gentlemen and perform that task as a service to others including sisters. Like opening doors etc. 

Oh my, how would elders verify if a sister got a tramp stamp

When I was 15 I received a blood transfusion. My congregation soft shunned me because they literaly were afraid I might have received the blood of a satan worshiper or ax murderer.

This is the jw mindset.....since women can't grow beards, they are gonna stop shaving their legs and armpits.

Related to the beard issue is the issue of tattoos on the body. The Law of Moses forbade the Jews from tattooing. But, JWs do not care about the Mosaic Law to such an extent that its rules would guide them through today's life. JWs today tend to adapt the Bible's permissions and prohibitions to fit their circumstances.
Although I am not a supporter of tattoos, it will be a new experience to observe how GB will regulate this segment of the free will of its members, when it becomes so current that it captures GB's attention.

It is to be assumed that members do not need to question their elders for every dispute or ambiguity, because then the elders go to Bethel and Bethel to HQ for answers.
On the other hand, people in positions of power, and ultimately GB, should stop with the idea that they are "guardians of doctrine" for banal things like beards.
Consequently, everyone in the JW organization bears responsibility for the immaturity that prevails among the believers.
I have nothing against neatness.
This fact shows the senselessness of striving for rules and religious doctrines and instructions presented by GB. 

Related to the beard issue is the issue of tattoos on the body. The Law of Moses forbade the Jews from tattooing. But, JWs do not care about the Mosaic Law to such an extent that its rules would guide them through today's life. JWs today tend to adapt the Bible's permissions and prohibitions to fit their circumstances.
Although I am not a supporter of tattoos, it will be a new experience to observe how GB will regulate this segment of the free will of its members, when it becomes so current that it captures GB's attention.

The GB has with prayerful consideration decided that the admonition that a woman’s head be covered when preaching or praying needs modification.

This seems to be relevant only to people who are spiritually immature and believe they are above God's laws. I don't think former witnesses have the authority to dictate God's commands for this point to be considered by true witnesses.
If you can demonstrate that the rule suggested by the GB was truly exclusive to them and not a mere attempt to prioritize appearance on a global scale, then your perspective will become coherent.

Yes, but they have to hold it at arm's length straight out, with the other arm bent and hand on hip, and the head covering has to be a large Mexican Sombrero, with tassels.

The Society has been resistant to using digital visual aids and videos as part of their public teaching. When did you first see an audio-visual presentation routinely used as part of conventions, assemblies and weekly meetings? Only in the past few years, right?
Don't you remember that there was a time when speakers could use slides and cine film as part of their public talks (maybe before your time)? They were a highlight, a change from the humdrum. Then the Society discouraged them. 
For so long, while businesses, schools and churches had long been fitted out with IT equipment, using it as an everyday teaching tool, the Society lagged behind, preferring to stick with the old lecture/platform demo format. Several years ago, a tech-savvy JW friend of mine suggested that the convention technicians made use of the big screens at the arena. The technology was all there, why not make the talks more interesting and memorable by adding PowerPoints and other visuals? He was told off for, what was considered, a worldly view.
I wouldn't, as it does actually come from the Society. It's copyrighted to them and has its own literature code - dgb-E Us.
Should the Jews still continue wearing long robes with a blue thread 2nd millennium BC style to avoid being fashioned after the modern system of things? 
Which decade or century of fashion do you think appropriate for today's JW woman? Or which country's present day fashion (that of Islamic countries, perhaps)? 
Really, if there is nothing scripturally wrong with western women wearing pants, and they are acceptable even as conservative business and formal wear, the Org. is 'going beyond the things written.' And it is the Org. that is setting the standard here. The r&f JWs follow the leadership's direction whether it is explicit or implicit (e.g. the Bethel Dress brochure).
That's because it's frowned on! Go out to the workplace office, into the street, and women in pants are commonplace.
By the way, it is also common etiquette to dress appropriately for the setting. You don't see women routinely dressed as Dorothy, a munchkin, or even the Wicked Witch of the West when they are going about their everyday lives, so your example is a straw man (or woman).

Many JW women would disagree. Pants are often more practical and can even be more modest than skirts. They are accepted as appropriate smart-wear for women in the business world. There are no scriptural grounds against them, and I guess it's just another one of those antiquated attitudes where the JW community needs to catch up with late 20th/early 21st century. It may happen - you never know. Look how the Org has embraced digital visual aids and videos as part of their public teaching after resisting them for so many years. 

And yet, in this Western culture, where women routinely wear pants in formal, informal and business settings, KH culture still frowns upon JW women wearing them to meetings and in service. Why?

It is to be assumed that members do not need to question their elders for every dispute or ambiguity, because then the elders go to Bethel and Bethel to HQ for answers.
On the other hand, people in positions of power, and ultimately GB, should stop with the idea that they are "guardians of doctrine" for banal things like beards.
Consequently, everyone in the JW organization bears responsibility for the immaturity that prevails among the believers.
I have nothing against neatness.
This fact shows the senselessness of striving for rules and religious doctrines and instructions presented by GB. 

HahaHAHha!
It looks like the Dilbert cartoon was spot on!
Perhaps George88, you could explain the following photo which has been used in previous publications, where non-person Anthony (tight pants Tony) Morrison is shown at the GB table (really great photo, by the way…. lighting, composition, posing etc. ….) which is in the February 2024 Watchtower but a NEW Governing Body Member has been photoshopped in where the nuanced theme throughout is that the entire Brotherhood has the collective memory of a goldfish.