Srecko Sostar

It is quite possible that there are a number of men in JW congregations who wear beards. Because of this, they cannot be excluded, but they are rather "unused" for various functions within the Church. In the chronic shortage of "manpower" for "congregational positions of responsibility", it is possible that this change is aimed at this target group.
It is also possible that some who wear beards have put themselves in that position on purpose, for the reason that they do not want to be burdened with any responsibilities in the Organization.
Also, a certain number of PIMO members (physically inside, mentally outside) chose to wear a beard just to stay connected with the congregation only for free social contacts (because they are not excluded), and on the other hand, so that they cannot be held accountable because they are in the category "spiritually weak individuals".
Changes are made because the Organization is in trouble, not because God has loosened the reins of His Chariot.

Well, didn't GB tell you a long time ago: Don't think and conclude logically, because our instructions will not look/be logical.

Well, didn't GB tell you a long time ago: Don't think and conclude logically, because our instructions will not look/be logical.

It is quite possible that there are a number of men in JW congregations who wear beards. Because of this, they cannot be excluded, but they are rather "unused" for various functions within the Church. In the chronic shortage of "manpower" for "congregational positions of responsibility", it is possible that this change is aimed at this target group.
It is also possible that some who wear beards have put themselves in that position on purpose, for the reason that they do not want to be burdened with any responsibilities in the Organization.
Also, a certain number of PIMO members (physically inside, mentally outside) chose to wear a beard just to stay connected with the congregation only for free social contacts (because they are not excluded), and on the other hand, so that they cannot be held accountable because they are in the category "spiritually weak individuals".
Changes are made because the Organization is in trouble, not because God has loosened the reins of His Chariot.

I wonder if head coverings will be next....Out in service this morning I asked the car group (of six) who wants to come with me (on a study), they can't be male though because I haven't got anything to put on my head...

Have you ever come across God or an angel? It's a concept that stems from scriptural interpretation.
Does this mean that only the Watchtower has a depiction of how Christ looks like?
This is your perspective, rather than an rational one.

The answer to that is simple to give. View all illustrations in WTJWorg publications. Angels have beards. Jesus has a beard. If Jesus and the angels are the image of the invisible God, then YHVH also has a beard.
Another reason for this is that no one from the WTJWorg Art Department has ever seen the angels or Jesus before and after he ascended into heaven, yet they portray them as if they saw them wearing beards.
So, the perception of the "guardian of the doctrine" and the artist set the rule.
WTJWorg publications have Jesus without a beard in the past and Jesus with a beard after doctrine have changed.
 

That is like saying you would only listen to KKK members if they wore fitted sheets.

Could this be a matter of perception rather than a rule? Who can assert that God wore a beard, just like the angels?
 
Is it? To me, it sounds like grooming tips for a thinking person.
Do you prefer to be guided by a Hippie or a vagabond when it comes to learning about the teachings of Christ? The choice is yours to make. However, it's important to consider that genuine Jehovah's Witnesses may not heed your advice.

The GB has allowed what the Bible has never forbidden. Truly unprecedented! GB's personal arbitrariness in forbidding believers to wear beards came because of the alleged alignment with the "heavenly chariot"??
Can anyone in their right mind believe this? As if to say, "The angels have started wearing beards, or have for a while, so it is time to level the playing field for JWs on earth too". 
How a GB member explains the turnaround in doctrine? Yes, you read correctly, this is about doctrine. Like every other instruction and order published in the WTJWorg.
So we have these elements that prompted the GB meeting and its discussion:
1. frequently asked questions about beards (implying that JW men want to be like people in the world who wear beards by choice) Why is this question important to JW men, anyway?
2. doctrinal change is related to the "scene of this world is changing" (i.e. adapting to the "low" standards of this "satanic" world, which is "getting "worse" by the day, is an acceptable price for the coexistence of "believers" and "non-believers") How about firm GB claims, "We shall never change" our doctrine/rule about this and that?
3. responsible people from politics and business wear beards (i.e. the external differences between those who "serve "God" and those who "serve "Satan" are to be eliminated)They compare themselves to the people of the "worldly elements" who, they say, will be destroyed because they are "God's enemies".
The instruction manual for the new doctrine reads:
A JW person should not take a stand for or against a new doctrine. Although some JWs have faithfully followed the former prohibition against wearing beards, no one should regret this today, because it is an indicator of spiritual immaturity. And most importantly, JWs should not have their own opinion on this new issue of beards, nor should they promote anything that contradicts the new GB instructions.
We can conclude that the elders should have prevented any promotion of beards in the past. From now on, they should prevent any attempt to promote the regular shaving of the beard.
We also conclude that this is just a preparation to finally allow the sisters to wear pants whenever they want.
 God bless you all with this new ...something.
 
 

George88; You OBVIOUSLY did not recognize that Stephen Lett gave as the reason  for the  change is that THE WORLD APPROVED.
Watch the Video.
Three times.

Read carefully the following. Print it out if you have to .
What it is being admitting to is that the GB had been terribly WRONG since the time of Judge Rutherford, and persecuted the Brotherhood and exiled them and chastised them publicly and privately since then.
How many thousands, or tens of thousands of Brothers have been chased away AND had their lives ruined because they could not tolerate this irrational tyranny?

I just found the remark about keeping up with Jehovah's chariot a little strange, and not quite sure what was meant by that.
"All of us need to remember that the earthly part of Jehovah's organization is always striving to reflect the heavenly part-to keep up with it, as it were. Remember how fast the chariot in Ezekiel's vision moved? Like flashes of lightning! (Ezek. 1:14) Any who seek to run ahead of that chariot, trying to force change prematurely,.."
It is obvious that the no wearing beards policy was never from Jehovah in the first place,, obviously not as he created men with the DNA to grow one. 
But somehow we have now compared this new decision  to the issue of circumcision in the 1st Century. Jehovah also created men with foreskins, but he was also the one to give the law about circumcision. But he never gave a law about needing to be clean shaven. That was a purely a man made law. So how was that trying to keep up with Jehovah's chariot and striving to reflect the heavenly part? Are they saying they failed in this regard? I think I would have probably left that part out....

Obviously because he was 6'5!

https://www.jw.org/en/library/videos/#en/mediaitems/StudioFeatured/docid-702023024_1_VIDEO

Of course, for 40 years and more I believed that Cain married a sister, because I never thought of it that there could be another explanation that made a lot more sense.
At the time he was exiled, besides Adam and Eve he was the only direct created man on earth … “Homo Theocraticus” if you will … and since there is hard fossil evidence … hundreds of tons of hard fossil evidence from all over the world of “homo sapien” civilizations that predate Eden … enough that Cain was afraid of being killed WHEREVER HE ROAMED, there is no need to assume incest with his imaginary “sisters” who did not yet exist.

WTJWorg is not government!
 
A marriage between Tamara and Amnon would be incest by today's moral standards. In the culture of the Jews of that time, it would have been normal. Rape is another part of the story of Tamara and Amnon, so I don't know how you came to the conclusion that it is something I approve of. Rape as a crime has nothing to do with whether people are related or not. You are strange when you draw wrong conclusions about my comments.
The problem that arises from the fact that the Bible is silent is a problem that is not mine. I have the right to my interpretation, regardless of whether my opinion is wrong or right or something else. The positive side is that I do not impose my point of view on anyone, and on other side, GB implements its interpretations as a dogma that you JWs are obliged to obey.
 

What to Know
Prosecute is most often used to refer to bringing legal action against someone else, and is related to the Latin word for "pursue." It is often confused with persecute which means "to harass, torment, or punish, especially for one's beliefs." If you find yourself frequently one the wrong side of prosecution, you might end up feeling persecuted.

…. kinda makes you wonder if Santa Clause and Jesus got into a fist fight … who would the children root for?

Well, in order to get the straight story and an accurate explanation of what is going on, simply go to the JW. org website and read the current news about this.
Let’s ALL of us curious about this do that, and get this explained and cleared up immediately!

This is what happens when a thread gets worn out. Everyone starts mucking about, with no more meaningful contributions to add. It's a sign.
Tacos anyone?

I wouldn't presume they did or didn't. According to the biblical presentation everyone after the flood was a descendant of one family, all of whom knew the story. It's fairly safe to say everything around that event was passed along one way or another. (Think: Melchizedek "priest of the Most High God")
Also, we have the testimony of God inside Mosaic Law. He had no reason to specifically stipulate the selling of carcasses dead of natural cause to descendants of Noah, but He did. This would suggest God had no particular aversion to the notion aside from what He demanded of Jews under Mosaic law. But people of the nations, though descendants of Noah, were not Jews under Mosaic Law. Did I read something earlier about God not departing from His character? How does that fit here?