James Thomas Rook Jr.

I think this is the crux of the matter.
In an Engineering Office, you know when a client's project has been totally screwed up and gone over budget ... when management starts stressing the dress code of suits and ties for all employees ... as if that will impress  an over billed client that the Engineering Firm's management  are competent.
This is based on the idea that the client is SO STUPID that they will think clowns stop being clowns because they have changed costumes.
I was working on a project in Cincinnati, Ohio ... 945 people in two large four-story buildings ... when the client we were doing work for locally and all the way to China, got fed up with TRYING to be taken for a fool, and fired our firm.  
In 30 days it went from 945 people to less than 30 people, and within a year they had to close the office.
Everybody in the office knew what the problem really was ... EXCEPT MANAGEMENT.

I agree with modesty but not with the 'traditions of men'. 
The suit and tie is from the world isn't it ? So when it suits the GB to follow the world then it's ok is it ? 
If people cannot see beyond clothing then they have poor judgement. 

Oh well, as long what inwear and my wife wears is decent enough im happy with it, if others disapproves thats their problem. Lol

Yes one thing that I've always considered wrong (but who am i to judge) is that all men are supposed to dress in 'Western style fashion'. No not Wild west fashion. And at assemblies in Twickenham UK, on the last day of the assembly,  some overseas bros and sis are 'allowed' to walk around the 'arena' in their 'native costumes'. Why shouldn't people be allowed to wear the clothes they would normally wear in their own countries, as long as it's decent of course, all the time. 

I am a big fan of women's Ferengi fashions.  
But not for Ferengi women.
 
 

I OFTEN wonder, looking at that picture, if a smart artist on the Bethel staff is trying to illustrate .... and for those that are not clueless,  successfully so,  .... how totally goofy and cringeworthy some of what corporate thinking is actually like.
... someone with an outrageous sense of humor with complete impunity, slipping "inside jokes" past the totally clueless editorial staff .

The thing about fashion is that some people look better in one type of clothes than another. 
Why it works the way it does is a mystery to me, but I realize it as a valid phenomenon.
If it was up to me I would wear Levis, and a blue long sleeve dress  shirt  without a tie  EVERYWHERE, including the Meetings.
I change clothes about every three days, but  it does not appear that I do.
To those that see me everyday, it appears I never change clothes. Comfort fit Levis, dark blue long sleeve permanent press dress shirt open collar, red t-shirt, red wide "fireman's" suspenders AND a belt, and tan suede shows with no socks.
Everyday.
Exactly the same.
I KNOW it looks dorky to fashionistas, but it works for me!
If I had a LOT of money, it would be totally acceptable at the Meetings. ("Oh...he's just ECCENTRIC ...")
Underneath I have bare skin, which is very helpful in keeping my insides ... in.
Superman had the same problem ... same outfit, everyday ... day in and day out ... week after week ... year after year ...  but his shirt tail kept popping out, and when he bent over he showed his butt crack, so early in life he realized he needed to wear a cape, or sell advertising space.
I personally saw NOTHING wrong with the way anyone in this illustration was dressed.
 

It does look like the Brother in the tan suit is afraid that the Brother in the light blue shirt has just put a "KICK ME" sign on his back, or he is afraid of becoming a hand puppet.
Just remember this basic Congregational rule about proper dress ...  "If it's neat and clean, and well arranged and modest ....  hides your fat, and for Sisters, if it looks cheap and frumpy ... it's acceptable".
Years ago I was at a District Assembly at Hampton Roads Coliseum, and through my binoculars noticed the DO and key speaker had fluorescent yellow patent leather mirror finish shoes.  I do not know anywhere in the world you could even buy shoes like that ... and 50 years later, STILL don't know.
My only objection about the following picture is that the "tight pants"are  UGLY, and it appears you would need side leg zippers up to your knees to get them on and off.

.... perhaps to get your feet through the pants legs you have to temporarily remove the feet.
With the Brothers outrageous and ugly haircut and mismatched shoes, and clown socks, it is quite clear that he was DELIBERATELY dressed and groomed for the photo to be as repulsive as possible
Of course.
 

Listen to @Gone Away, Shwiiiiiiii. He has a handle on reality 

Bahahahaha, Nice deflection. I think you are dodging the topic because you know what I said is true, you just can't accept it. 

Are you both serious? Really? 
You mean to tell me that you cannot see the similarities between passing the plate and requesting money? Had this come from the Catholic church encouraging their members to fork over some money, you two would be going over some dialog in your minds of how jws are so much better because the jws don't do that. The fact of the matter is ALL churches do it. They all do it for the same exact reasons stated here and elsewhere, to cover expenses. Do some spend it frivolously and are wasteful? Sure. Is any one group innocent in their dealings with the peoples money 100% of the time, probably not. Are there some who try to use the money responsibly? No doubt. But to look down your nose at another group while ignoring your own actions is the perfect definition of hypocrisy.    

I OFTEN wonder, looking at that picture, if a smart artist on the Bethel staff is trying to illustrate .... and for those that are not clueless,  successfully so,  .... how totally goofy and cringeworthy some of what corporate thinking is actually like.
... someone with an outrageous sense of humor with complete impunity, slipping "inside jokes" past the totally clueless editorial staff .

I agreed i dont see anything wrong with it either, i dont agree that we all need to look like that guy in the middle such an old fushion suit and looks, im sure they have better things to write about.
 

@Jay Witness  The brains of adult men are about 10% larger in total size than the brains of women. Because men generally have a larger stature and more muscle mass than women, their brains require more neurons to control the body.

I don't know how feasible that would be legally and without encroaching on the 1st amendment. If somebody was baptized as a minor and disfellowshipped as an adult, couldn't it be argued that, as an adult, that person ratified their earlier contract by willingly submitting to congregation rules, consenting to have data held on them (e.g. report slips), accepting privileges, etc?

@Ann O'Maly Unfortunately you are digging into motive that cannot possibly be known from the information provided. You present an unproven and emotive claim as fact, and then draw conclusions based on that assumption. You also appear to be fuelling the fire of controversy with a statement about dedication/commitment to an Organisation
To  assert such an assessment of motive on the basis of a video that describes briefly an interaction between two persons unknown (to me) about an incident not witnessed (by me) is a step too far (for me). 
All I see (from the videos you cite) is a father exercising his parental right to withhold an maturity related privilege. I cannot accept your extrapolation of motive and strategy without actually speaking to the parties involved and assessing the event, the motives, the understanding, the outcomes etc,  What you are doing reminds me of Ahasuerus wrongly interpreting the intentions of Haman at Esther 7:8.
Obviously, bribing or coercing minors to dedicate themselves to Jehovah to obtain a drivers permit is unacceptable. It is also stupid, as it would render void that dedication anyway. On that basis alone, your interpretation of Anthony Morris's intention in relating this matter seems to me (on face value at least) highly implausible.

That's because the discussion wasn't about a minor prioritizing working toward dedication over seeking a driving permit. The discussion was about a JW father withholding his child's driving permit to coerce him into getting baptized on the basis that, if he wasn't ready to handle a car, he wasn't ready to make a lifelong dedication/commitment to the Sovereign of the Universe and the Org that claims it exclusively represents Him.
I agree that Anthony Morris III and the father in my scenario are comparing apples and oranges when trying to equate the responsibility that comes with dedication and baptism (or marriage) to that of having a drivers permit ... which makes using that kind of coercive tactic with one's children all the more distasteful - my point all along.
 
 

Just noticed I never got back on your post.
I think coercion and blackmail are too extreme as terms for what is going on in your hypothetical scenario. But I do see a father using his authority unwisely, unfairly, and unkindly. Unfairly particularly, because the level of maturity indicated by the son's sensible attitude to the seriousness of the marriage commitment has no relevance to his qualifying for permission to obtain a driver's permit.
As for the scenario's validity to the discussion on a minor prioritising working toward dedication over seeking a driving permit or vice-versa, I see absolutely no relevance at all. As previously stated: 
 

Eoin, dragging you back to the point here: if you overheard the kind of conversation between a father and son as I posted above, would you not conclude that the father was trying to coerce or blackmail his child into marriage? If not, why not?

I can see that. 
You agree that getting married has lesser gravity in the great universal scheme of things than baptism, right?
What if you overheard this conversation between a father and his mid-teen son?
"But dad, while I like the girl and we're friendly, I do not feel ready to make a lifelong commitment to her. I'm too young to get married."
"Oh yeah? Not ready? Well let's hold off on your driver's license, hey?"
"What? Dad? You're kidding, right? I'm 16. I'm ready to drive a car!"
"No, son. You're ready to handle a car but not ready for marriage, huh? You explain that to the girl's family." 
"What the hell, dad?"
Is the father being reasonable with his son?
Isn't the father using some form of coercion or blackmail to induce his son to get married?
If this isn't a form of coercion or blackmail, what is it?

How are the two in any way equivalent? 
AMIII threatened to hold off on granting one of his sons a drivers licence when he turned 16 when his son said he didn't feel ready for baptism. That was blackmail.

Well, let's say it was enough of an issue among the JW ranks to warrant it being officially addressed.
Both. That's why teen marriages are discouraged among JWs as well as generally in western society.
Do you think JWs would post negative comments about their photographed theocratic activities on a JW board? 
Indeed it is for those with a conscience and those who are forced by circumstance to maintain the facade until they are in a position to escape. The stress can, at times, be so intense that it even leads a young one to consider (or actually commit) suicide.
Absolutely. I think other religions' negative attitudes toward JWs is partly due to the perception that JWs are a high control group that distances its members from the wider community (unless it's to evangelize). Additionally, any religious belief system that views itself as the only true path to God is going to react badly if a family member defects to another religion. But as the Awake! once said:
"No one should be forced to worship in a way that he finds unacceptable or be made to choose between his beliefs and his family." - http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102009251
This also holds true for those wishing to leave the JW religion, and yet this is the agonizing choice many young JWs are faced with.
Be my guest. https://youtu.be/dEJ9BGDpHOw?t=3h57m28s
 
It makes no difference to his suggestion that parents blackmail their child into baptism by withholding permission for him/her to get a driving permit.
He said it before in a previous talk: https://youtu.be/AKVMFGfh0uc?t=58s. Apparently he used this tactic on one of his own sons.
 

A view of many who are JWs too. I guess that is why the GB has responded by promoting child baptisms* and addressing the misgivings parents and their children have. See http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2011441 - box on p. 6, 'Should My Child Put Off Baptism?'
Of course they don't. Just as a teen who gets married does not plan for their marriage to fail. But [bleep] happens.
Do you think they would post photos on a JW board of themselves looking miserable? Lol.
Maybe so. There are also lots of young people who wear a painted-on smile when at the meetings and in service but are secretly unhappy with the so-called 'best life ever.' They often end up on ex-jw forums relating how trapped and scared they feel, and asking for advice on how to leave without getting kicked out or losing their family and friends. I've seen countless examples during my online life.
--------
* Even advocating blackmailing them into baptism. See excerpt: Anthony Morris III, Sunday final talk, 2015 Convention - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MreJ8tLYIso -
 

I am making a comparison. 
-If secular law puts restrictions in place to protect minors from making unalterable decisions, 
-If dedication to God and baptism as a JW is the most weighty decision and vow a person can make - even more serious than getting married or signing up for a mortgage, 
-If the consequences from changing one's mind, contravening a scriptural law or doing something that the org disapproves of can result in the child being an outcast and shunned by extended JW family and friends, 
-Then the ethics of baptizing JW children is highly questionable. 
I understand that other religions baptize their young but, as you noted, the meaning of baptism, allowed ages and church discipline varies widely. The main concern is what happens to a baptized child member if he sins.
E.g. the LDS church baptizes children of 8 years old and they also excommunicate minors, unfortunately. In contrast with both the JWs and the LDS church, while the Catholic church baptizes infants (and later confirmation is permitted from about age 7), there is no excommunication for minors. This is the Church's position on a minor committing one of the worst sins a Catholic can make:
Objectively, procuring an abortion remains an intrinsically evil act and a very serious sin.  Yet with regards to subjective guilt as well as canonical penalties, these are reduced if an excusing or diminishing factor presents itself.
In the case of this seventeen-year old girl, the most obvious diminishing factor is that of age. The Church doesn’t feel that a minor should be subjected to severe canonical penalties.  Thus canon 1324, §1, 4° states: “The perpetrator of a violation is not exempted from penalty, but the penalty prescribed in the law or precept must be diminished, or a penance substituted in its place, if the offense was committed by: […] a minor who has completed the sixteenth year of age.”  In other words, someone between the ages of sixteen and eighteen who procures an abortion can’t be excommunicated, either for abortion or for any other offense, but rather some lesser penalty or a penance must be substituted in its place.  For anybody under the age of eighteen is exempt from latae sententiae penalties, and in keeping with canon 1323, 1°, anybody under the age of sixteen is exempt from any canonical penalty whatsoever.
http://www.catholic-legate.com/articles/canon_law_101.html
 

On the other thread on 4/28/2016 at 9:50 AM, Eoin Joyce said: "For me, there is a wider issue here around baptism of minors."
---------
I replied with:
Absolutely. Particularly in the JW faith, a baptism is a lifelong contract - not only with God, but with a religious organization. With contract law, generally speaking, a minor can void a contract without legal repercussions.
http://contracts.uslegal.com/contract-by-a-minor/
There are also protections in law to prevent those lacking capacity to enter into long-term binding contracts, e.g. being able to marry. JWs have likened baptism to a kind of marriage and being far more important than the day of one's wedding. If dedication and baptism have this level of gravity, does a 12 year old, say, have the capacity and maturity to make so binding and irrevocable a commitment as this? The minor cannot void this contract without serious and traumatizing repercussions. Is that fair?
Another consideration is that when one is disfellowshipped, the relationship with a religious organization is broken. The relationship with extended family and friends is a separate thing, no? 
To illustrate:
Andre works at his local Walmart. His whole family shop there all the time and have done so for years. One day Sophia, his niece, is caught shoplifting. She's been going through a bad patch but this is her first offence. Nevertheless, Walmart press charges and she gets convicted of a misdemeanor. Walmart also bans her from the store for a year. For Sophia this is a wake-up call. She has grown up a lot and been acting responsibly. She shops at Target now.
Andre and his family stop all contact with Sophia. They don't respond to her emails and texts other than that one time when they reminded her she is banned from Walmart and has a misdemeanor conviction so they are not supposed to communicate with her. When Andre and his wife had their wedding anniversary, they invited the whole family round to celebrate - except Sophia. Andre even invited some of Sophia's long-time friends. When Sophia asked why she wasn't invited, they said that, until the Walmart ban is lifted and she regularly shops there again, they cannot in good conscience associate with her.
Have Sophia's family and friends acted reasonably?
Then we got sidetracked on semantics.
 
 

This same thing happened with ancient civilizations that lasted billions of years on the Earth, before the dinosaurs, and as the entire civilization was subducted below the shifting tectonic plates, their waste products like this, many miles thick, under heat and pressure, became the oil that we use today to power OUR civilization.
...just kidding about that (squints and rubs hands together "Or AM I?.....)
 It looks like this pile of floating trash is ALREADY becoming an island of organic plant life of some kind, which of course will become habitats for all kinds of marine animal life.
Put a pile of trash like this in your back yard and wait a year, and it will be full of leaves, grass, worms, bugs, spiders,  and may even attract a few frogs or two.
Look carefully at the photos ....
This is an unsubstantiated goofy, tree-hugger opinion ONLY.
It's embarrassing to even read, and even more embarrassing that people BELIEVE it.
This may look like trash to the folks who wrote this article, but to marine critters it's shade, a place to eat and live, or a place for  baby fish to hide, just like you see in the grass you buy for a  a home aquarium, so they will not be eaten by bigger fish.