Anna

You know (rhetorically), 85% of all problems discussed here on this thread could be SOLVED if the Congregations were governed SPECIFICALLY and EXACTLY  as Jesus directed in Matthew 18:14-17.
What we are seeing now is not even close.
When we interact with people of the nations and tax collectors, who among us here treats them like lepers and takes their families hostage if they don’t do the same?
Nobody.

I think the reasoning the WT would go with will be something like this: The Acts 15 decree said to abstain from food polluted by idols, and from the meat of strangled animals, too: 
 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.  Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols [εἰδωλοθύτων], from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.
There is a very specific Greek word for "food polluted by idols." [εἰδωλοθύτων] Paul used that exact same specific Greek word in 1 Cor. 8.
Note first what Paul says about "food sacrificed to idols." [εἰδωλοθύτων]:
(1 Cor 8 ) Now about food sacrificed to idols [εἰδωλοθύτων]: We know that “We all possess knowledge.” But knowledge puffs up while love builds up. Those who think they know something do not yet know as they ought to know. But whoever loves God is known by God. So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: [εἰδωλοθύτων]:We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is no God but one.” For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. But not everyone possesses this knowledge. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat sacrificial food they think of it as having been sacrificed to a god, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.
And Paul goes on to imply that you as a Christian could actually go ahead and eat this meat sacrificed to an idol right there inside the pagan idol temple itself. But that it's not a good idea because of the weak Christian with a weak conscience who might see you and can't understand why you might be eating food sacrificed to idols in any place.
Then in 1 Cor 10, Paul goes on to say that we don't even need to question whether food was strangled, or whether it was bled correctly, or whether it was sacrificed to an idol. The only thing to be concerned about are those people with weak consciences who are still around and who think we still need the Mosaic Law. (Or at least they were still around in Paul's day.) 
Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, for, “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.”[ If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” [εἰδωλοθύτων] then do not eat it, both for the sake of the one who told you and for the sake of conscience. I am referring to the other person’s conscience, not yours. For why is my freedom being judged by another’s conscience? If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for?
So a very specific thing that Acts 15 told Gentiles to abstain from was food sacrificed to idols. Yet Paul said go ahead and eat it without any qualms of conscience. Paul said to eat whatever an UNBELIEVER puts in front of you to eat; eat ANYTHING sold in the meat market. This could easily include bloody, strangled meat. ANYTHING!! An unbeliever didn't even necessarily follow the Noahide Laws, much less the Mosaic Laws. 
There were people in Corinth who thought they could argue that fornication and idolatry were OK. Some might consider celebrating the Lord's evening meal along with one of the big idol feasts that each city often held. Paul said that was idolatry, and Paul said to Flee from idolatry. Some were evidently "proud" that the congregation could put up with a notorious fornicator, but Paul gave arguments in 1 Corinthians about why fornication was always wrong. 
So if you follow Paul, you might find that bloody meat and food sacrificed to idols was now a matter of conscience, but you couldn't argue for idolatry and fornication.
The best explanation must therefore be that the holy spirit led those Christians who were still zealous for the Law of Moses to find a reason for some useful compromise. It would be necessary for Gentiles to follow this compromise for as long as Gentile Christians needed to associate with Jewish Christians who were still zealous for the Law.
Acts 21: Then they said to Paul: "You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law.
But after 70 CE, no Jewish Christians could be zealous for the Law any more. If you thought you had to follow any part of the Law then you must follow the whole Law, and the whole Law required the temple. The book of Hebrews shows how the entire temple arrangement had become fulfilled for Jewish Christians. There were no more sacrifices and the city of Jerusalem was not a city that remains, so Jewish Christians (Hebrews) needed to now go OUTSIDE the camp, once and for all time:
(Hebrews 13) Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings. It is good for our hearts to be strengthened by grace, not by eating ceremonial foods, which is of no benefit to those who do so.  We have an altar from which those who minister at the tabernacle have no right to eat. The high priest carries the blood of animals into the Most Holy Place as a sin offering, but the bodies are burned outside the camp. And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood.  Let us, then, go to him outside the camp, bearing the disgrace he bore.  For here we do not have an enduring city, but we are looking for the city that is to come. Through Jesus, therefore, let us continually offer to God a sacrifice of praise—the fruit of lips that openly profess his name. And do not forget to do good and to share with others, for with such sacrifices God is pleased.

Perfect! 😂 And all duly noted!

Can humans actually invoke God to “bless” something?
… sounds a bit like “casting a spell”, but a “good” one.

Yeah, it’s pretty much like I bless everyone here…No Exceptions!!…but not necessarily the dumb things many of them say.

Twiddle, twaddle. The pope is meaningless and so is whatever comes out of his mouth.

My speculations aren't worth the time to read them, but I'm guessing a timeline like the following: 
2024: No more Circuit Overseers. (The reason that the District Overseers were let go was not because they were costing too much money for cars, convention travel, etc, but because they tended to draw too close a connection between the Headquarters (WTBTS) and the direction followed within all the congregations. This resulted in some legal problems when WT lawyers claimed that the elders shepherd the flock on their own, and the guidance from HQ is not rule-based but only principle-based. But the same legal issue applies with Circuit Overseers.
2025: Shunning is now a matter of conscience. We should all be wary of our associations, but exactly how we implement a shunning policy is up to each one of us. Scriptures will include some Mosaic Law principles related to immediate family, and especially Jesus' parable of the Prodigal Son who was welcomed from afar off, before the father knew anything about motives or repentance.
2026: Blood related therapies in any form are now (officially) a matter of conscience. 
2027: All Bible prophecies said to have a specific fulfillment in 1918, 1919, 1921, . . even into the 1940's will now be officially off the books.
2028: Head coverings now a matter of conscience. But no sister will dare conduct in front of a brother without one.
2034: October 1st "JW Broadcast" and additional GB announcement on October 2nd both offer renewed speculation about 1914 + 120 years = 2034 (i.e. "on or about October 4th, 2034")
2034: Amidst winks and nods, and even some outright laughter, the Annual Meeting will be announced for Sunday October 8th 2034 with simulcasting everywhere to all congregations. Expect announcement that "after careful consideration over the previous several days" ...the 1914 doctrine will be dropped completely at this meeting on October 8th.
2034: Great Tribulation and Armageddon begins October 9, 2034.

I think that's a logical stretch, but I have heard similar ideas about the recent change to allow publishers to be counted even without any hourly goal to report. In an instant, it could bring up the number of publishers to include those who are just attending and rarely report. If membership now reflects attendance rather than regular service reports, then the numbers go up. This can have the effect of making more Witnesses more enthusiastic about the organization. Remember how we used to hear announcements of increases in country after country at conventions and we'd clap and cheer. This year the only place they pointed to, so far, was the Philippines.
If anyone feels like a full member who didn't before, they might feel more inclined to contribute. It also can make for easier converts who might have previously been taken aback at this "salesmen's approach" to making converts. (If you don't know what I mean, look at some of the older publications referring to sales goals and book-selling campaigns, and compare it to any sales meetings from those days when it was popular for people to go door-to-door selling encyclopedias, vitamins, Amway, magazine subscriptions, Fuller Brush, vacuums, Mary Kay, snake oil, etc.)
There is also the more cynical view that there are a couple of countries that give the JWs a monetary "reward" based on the number of JWs in those countries. This is based on the idea that the religions tend to take some of the burden away from the government for charity, social events, child education, elderly care, weddings, funerals, etc.  
Therefore if a religion increases the number of members, they increase their government "reimbursement." Using a membership number closer to the Memorial attendance could be a financial boon in those countries.
A change in beard policy doesn't seem to fit very well. At best it might make a very few persons feel like "full members" when they didn't feel that way before. It could potentially allow more persons to more easily convert, and therefore more likely to contribute. 
I think we've all heard the rumors that the Organization is losing money, and this has driven the reduction in KH's all over the world. We have even heard it stated in videos on jw.org (not just leaked ones). I suspect a connection to lawsuits and potential lawsuits over sexual abuse, blood, and now shunning. But losing money could also just be based on over-optimism about video projects, and building projects, not the lawsuits. And I have seen no evidence that even that cynicism about number of members, and additional converts is true. 
I prefer to think that the Society just wanted to finally "get out of our hair" on this matter. Nit-picking over such details could stubble someone.  
 

On the other hand, did I not read in some study issue: “Later, under the pretext of greeting his cousin Amasa, Joab took hold of Amasa’s beard with his right hand as if to kiss him and then ran him through with the sword in his left hand.”
Shave off those beards, you bad brothers! Later, when you notice no one has run you through, you can thank me.

I KNEW the beard OK or not rational was familiar, but couldn’t place it!
That’s IT!
… on a related note … it’s hard to remember that the way French Poodles look is not their fault ….
————————————————————
Are cats for true Christians?
Is it appropriate for a Christian to own a cat, in light of their past pagan religious affiliation and the medical information that is now coming to light? -J.R., U.S.A.
It would be misleading to answer this question with either a simple 'Yes' or a 'No.' The Scriptural answer of necessity must be a 'qualified' one, and it is easy to see why. Many conscientious ones among Jehovah's people today have wondered if Christians should own cats in view of their somewhat sordid symbolic history and the many health risks associated therewith. While we would not wish to state an opinion on what must remain a matter of personal preference, what is acceptable to one person may, although unintentionally, stumble another. This can become a life-or-death issue since to move the steps of a brother away from the path of Christ's ransom sacrifice is tantamount to 'putting a millstone around the neck and being thrown into the sea.' -Matt. 18:6. Clearly, in a matter where our eternal salvation is involved, the mature Christian will not pursue a purely selfish course based on his own personal choices, but will adopt a congregational viewpoint as scripturally prescribed. 
First, let us consider what most scholars agree is the etymology (word derivation) for the English term 'cat'. When analyzed with the Latin 'felis cattus domesticus', the original Koine Greek is 'cur.io huma bes-tia', means 'a contemporary housecat with all of its beastly identifying characteristics and behavior.' A faithful servant of Jehovah would quickly notice that the nature of a cat is so marked as being 'beastly'. The Bible makes clear reference to this condition when describing parts of Satan's organizations, both past and present. For instance, consider the fearsome 'beasts' as described in the book of Daniel or the 'scarlet colored wild beast' in Rev. 17:3. The demons entered the swine when rebuked by Jesus showing the potential harm and malevolent spirit control to which a Christian may be potentially exposed. Lest we forget the story of Nebuchadnezzar and the condition of God's enemy when being humbled by Jehovah, the student of God's Holy word would ask - is it by accident that the Bible in the book of Daniel describes his experience as a 'beast' of the field? Hardly so!
Clearly, the Bible - by using this kind of terminology - shows beyond any reasonable doubt that the basic nature of cats, while created perfect by God, has become evil or 'beastlike' since the fall of Adam six thousand years ago, and more probably, since the Great Flood of Noah's time (c2350 B.C.E.). This is a development of the condition borne by the 'Original Serpent', the 'Great Dragon' Lucifer himself. (Gen. 3:1) Indeed, modern studies of classification of cats, while not necessarily being reliable as they may be based on the discredited 'theory' of evolution, strongly associate felines with serpents (despite some external differences in physiology and morphology, which confuse those who do not study these matters deeply).
There are numerous reasons why a loyal dedicated servant of God should use his Bible-trained conscience to arrive at a proper understanding of why cats are not advisable as pets or companions for Christians. Consider, then, the following facts:
It was a common practice in ancient Egypt to worship or idolize cats as 'gods'. Indeed, after death many cats were mummified, venerated and sacrifices were made to them. As Christians we observe not only the Mosaic Law, but also the 'necessary things,' identified by the Apostles at Jerusalem, to include the following edict: '(1) Abstain from sacrifices to idols'. We are to 'guard ourselves from idols' and 'worship no other gods'. Such feline influence could lead to idolatry and thereby 'grieve Jehovah's Spirit' with tragic consequences. May we never take for granted Jehovah's wise and generous counsel brought to you by your spiritual brothers in the pages of this magazine!
The Bible does not say that cats were not present at Herod's birthday party when John the Baptist was beheaded. History shows that cats were most likely present at this tragic party that Jehovah did not approve of. Clearly then, as loyal Christians, why would we even want to associate with animals that are without a doubt of such bad influence, remembering how true are the Bible's words: 'Bad associations spoil useful habits'! -1 Cor. 15:33. Some have exposed themselves to possible spiritual contamination in this way. To invite cats in our house is to toy with disaster. Can one deny that the chance exists that the same grave consequences could visit your home that fell upon John? Clearly, God disapproved of this 'birthday' party. Should we not then disapprove (without showing any malicious intent, only Godly hatred) of cats the way the scriptures recommend?
Throughout history, particularly in the middle ages and reaching its climax in the Salem Witch trials of the seventeenth century, cats were recognized by the forces of Christendom as familiars and carriers if not direct incarnates of demons. While, in common with most beliefs of the empire of false religion, no evidence has ever been found to support this, the symbolism of cats still remain within the public psyche, and involvement with them reflects poorly on God's footstools and footstep followers. Many pagan faiths still conclude that black cats bring ill-luck and possess demonic forces, while we have shown that it is, instead, all cats that share these perceived characteristics. Since cats were associated with the devil, could we as faithful and dedicated servants of God therefore contaminate ourselves by exposure to a 'living symbol' of satanic incarnation? How would this reflect on God's name and that of his visible, earthly organization? Would we want to be linked with a symbol of Satan, the 'god of this beastly system of things'?
The careful student of the Bible will acknowledge that nowhere within it is any species ('kind') of cat referred to in favorable terms. In fact, was it not lions of the first century who the Devil used to devour faithful Christians? Jehovah Himself 'stopped up the mouths of the lions' (Dan. 6:22) in Daniel's day. True, the small housecats of today are not quite lions, but being of the same accursed animal family used by God's enemies on numerous occasions throughout history, would it be wise or prudent to own one? In addition, by owing any type of cat (feline), would we not give an appearance of condoning their evil deeds throughout recorded Bible and secular history? The Bible makes clear that God's people are 'no part of this world' (John 15:19) and that we are 'not to share in the sins of others', consume lecithin within nutritive cereal or 'candy' bars, or do other things directly banned in Holy Scripture.
The demeanor of a cat is seen by many honest-hearted observers as reflecting some supernatural, unnatural proclivity towards malice or evil. And, it is a well-known fact that cats are impossible to tame, teach or raise in the truth. The cat has a rebellious, independent spirit. While the animal itself may be unaware of this tragic condition, it serves only its true master - Satan, the Devil.
The scriptures clearly indicate that neither Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, faithful Job, the Apostles, Jesus nor any other human bearing God's favor himself owned a cat. Should we simply assume that this is a mere coincidence? Surely not! This was most likely because they didn't want to be like the pagan contemporaries of their respective days who showed no regard for how God feels about owning a cat. In harmony with the pattern set by the faithful prophets and worthies of old, it would therefore not be fitting for the true Christian today to own a cat.
But, the most modern scientific evidence also supports the Biblical view. Contrary to popular beliefs among worldly people, cats are unhygienic animals. Recently the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) announced that 'Cats .. can shed Salmonella in their feces, which can spread the bacterial infection to humans'. Salmonella (salmonella typhimurium) creates a condition of 'week-long diarrhea, abdominal cramps and in some instances, hospitalization.' Would we be showing the proper respect to our life, Creator and to our 'neighbor' by exposing ourselves and others to this potentially deadly disease? Would this be seen by your brothers, and by those showing an interest in God's word, as giving a good witness?
Additionally, cats practice many unclean habits not befitting a Christian household: coughing up fur balls, licking inappropriate body areas on their own bodies (inappropriate handling) and even, in some cases, on the bodies of their human owners (wrongful motive?), urination on the floor, vocal and blatant promiscuity (unknown to any other species, all others being endowed with Godly chastity and decorum) and widespread sexual misconduct without the benefit or sanctity of holy matrimony, even orgiastic practices, substance abuse of catnip (an intoxicating herb) which produces conditions akin to drunkenness, stealing food from the table, producing ungodly sounds, excessive playfulness and the employment of devices not known to have been used by Jesus, the conducting of its unholy business under the cover of the darkness of night, and so on. What sort of example does this give our young ones endeavoring to faithfully serve Jehovah? The Bible clearly shows that 'neither fornicators .. nor thieves .. nor drunkards .. nor revilers .. will inherit the Kingdom.' (1 Cor. 6:9-11)
It must not be forgotten that the feline is a killer. It eats mice and their kind, which is forbidden to Christians and their pets (Lev. 11:29, Isa. 66:17). But, far more serious, is the matter of the wanton consumption of the undrained corpses of the victims of this nocturnal creature; eating bodies filled with God's sacred blood is not a matter to be trifled with (Gen. 9:3,4; Lev. 3:17; Deut. 12:16,23,24; Acts 15:20,28,29). In an earlier article in The Watchtower, we have shown that it would be improper for a Christian to permit a veterinarian to give blood transfusions to his pet, for animal feed known to contain blood to be served to a pet or a farm animal under one's jurisdiction, or to employ any fertilizer that is known to have blood in it (w64 2/15 127-8). By allowing one's cat to roam uncontrolled, the Christian becomes a willing party to, even a conspirator within, this serious breach of God's law of life.
In addition, the Apostle Paul admonishes us to 'quit mixing in company .. not even eating with such an unclean [one].' -1 Cor. 5:9-11; Mark 2:13-17. Although Paul was speaking primarily about Christians who fell into sin, there is no reason to conclude that this inspired Biblical principle cannot be applied to association with cats. Uncleanness in any form is condemned by Jehovah and the fact that the Apostle Paul made no distinction when it came to associating with housecats proves beyond a doubt to the right-thinking worshiper of Jehovah that loyal Christians must avoid all association with all sources of uncleanness. This would logically include animals that either harbor these tendencies or indulge in such practices.
Of course, while demonstrating one's obedience to God's lovingly-issued commandments, one must do so without any spirit of meanness or ill-will towards these Satanic creatures, though they represent God's enemies. Instead, mature Christians 'feel a loathing' toward those, including cats, who have voluntarily or otherwise made themselves God's enemies, and they leave it to Jehovah to execute vengeance. -Job 13:16; Romans 12:19; 2 John 9,10.
Are we not grateful for this insight on God's viewpoint regarding such matters? True worshipers follow closely God's mandates on cleanness to their eternal benefit! Sister N.K. from Virginia, U.S.A. tells us that since getting rid of her cat, she has not had to be preoccupied with cleaning the litter box or wasting valuable time better spent pursuing kingdom interests with the burden of purchasing cat food. This has allowed her to become a full-time pioneer; she finds that it is now easier to meet her allotted hours in field service. Godwin, a brother from Sierra Leone, puts it this way: 'I'm so grateful that God's organization is kept clean! It has freed me from the burden of owning a cat and all the spiritual pitfalls and financial commitments that go with it. I hope all the brothers will realize how the Devil subtly uses cats to corrupt and distract us from the disciple-making work.' (Matt. 24:14). What fine examples of faithfulness!
The question of how to dispose of one's unwanted cat is a serious matter. Would it be proper to hand over such a creature of Satan to a person of the world? We see no immediate problem with this, as such a person is already immersed in the wicked ways of this system of things, and so a beastly companion would be a fitting one indeed. They could accompany eachother on the road to destruction, through ignoring God's generous gift of life proffered via His spirit-begotten earthly organization. It is on this same sound principle that a Christian doctor would have no reason to deny blood transfusions to a worldly patient. If, on the other hand, one took the view stated on page 128 of the abovementioned Watchtower, and consider that the pet or any other animal is under the ultimate jurisdiction of a Christian, who therefore bears responsibilities (Eccl. 12:13,14; Jas. 4:17, 1 Pet. 3:21) that are essentially parental in nature. The cat is a dependant. In harmony with this, surely it is the parent's obligation before God to ensure the feline pet is treated as one would an unruly child who repeatedly refused to obey its parents, or of one who committed apostasy. Unfortunately in the case of human offspring, one is limited by the laws of the higher authorities of the land as to what scripturally-ordained punishment may be meted out, as compliance with both sets of laws is necessary in such areas. This may not always be the case in terms of felines, where the fact that we are not living in theocratic countries may not prove such an impediment to what God requires of us, as manmade law may not afford such unmerited protection to cats as it does to humans. God's soldiers would be mindful to apply, where the case merited it and local custom did not prohibit it, the principle of Deut. 21:18-21 which states that: 'In case a man happens to have a [dependant] who is stubborn and rebellious, he not listening to the voice of his [guardian], and they have corrected him but he will not listen to them, his [guardian] must also take hold of him and bring him out to the older men of his city and to the gate of his place, and they must say to the older men of his city, 'This [dependant] of ours is stubborn and rebellious; he is not listening to our voice, being a glutton and a drunkard.' Then all the men of his city must pelt him with stones, and he must die.' The mature follower of Jehovah will do well to be reminded of God's advice in page 503 of The Watchtower of November 15, 1952 where it was held that 'In the case where a father or mother or son or daughter is disfellowshiped, how should such person be treated by members of the family in their family relationship? .. We are not living today among theocratic nations where such members of our fleshly family relationship could be exterminated for apostasy from God and his theocratic organization, as was possible and was ordered in the nation of Israel in the wilderness of Sinai and in the land of Palestine. 'Thou shalt surely kill him; thy hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him to death with stones, because he hath sought to draw thee away from Jehovah thy God, .. And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is in the midst of thee.' -Deut. 13:6-11, AS.' Of course, we can take no legal responsibility for anything which results from your voluntary application of your interpretation of such Biblical principles as you may believe that we have brought to your attention.
As loyal followers of Jehovah's thinking on this matter, we can rejoice in the fact that in the new system, the incoming theocracy and World Order, the 'lion will lie down with the lamb' -Isa. 11:6-7. Yes, when Satan is finally abyssed, the 'beastly' nature of felines will be forever abolished, and they will be fit companions for humans on Paradise Earth! But until that rapidly-approaching time, God will reward all of our efforts to maintain integrity by loyally submitting to the leading of his spirit expressed through the loving guidance of the 'faithful and discreet slave'. -Matt. 24:45-47

A lot of talk here about some possible ulterior motive to the lifting of the beard ban (although it hasn't been a "ban" for some years now, but still, WT illustrations kept using the no beard as a sign of spirituality). It really was a little hard to fathom whether the GB were for or against beards and were just trying to be subtle knowing there is no Biblicaly sound reason to outright ban them, but they didn't like them and wished no one really wore them. Sometimes WT's subtlety forces one to read between the lines, but often it can give those in responsible positions (elders) too much power because those bits between the lines can be individually interpreted. And this is evidently what happened. 
Finally the GB's hand was "forced" to speak clearly so that every Tom, Dick and Harry understood. After all, wouldn't it be silly if the brotherhood fell apart over a beard misunderstanding!
But has anyone wondered about all these pretty big changes (hour requirements, pulling two disfelliwshiping videos, another chance during the GT and beards) coming shortly after the rearrangement of the members of the GB? 
 

I hope this will become a future trend. 
If anyone has read the satirical piece about why Jehovah’s Witnesses should not own cats will know what I mean, and understand.

A lot of talk here about some possible ulterior motive to the lifting of the beard ban (although it hasn't been a "ban" for some years now, but still, WT illustrations kept using the no beard as a sign of spirituality). It really was a little hard to fathom whether the GB were for or against beards and were just trying to be subtle knowing there is no Biblicaly sound reason to outright ban them, but they didn't like them and wished no one really wore them. Sometimes WT's subtlety forces one to read between the lines, but often it can give those in responsible positions (elders) too much power because those bits between the lines can be individually interpreted. And this is evidently what happened. 
Finally the GB's hand was "forced" to speak clearly so that every Tom, Dick and Harry understood. After all, wouldn't it be silly if the brotherhood fell apart over a beard misunderstanding!
But has anyone wondered about all these pretty big changes (hour requirements, pulling two disfelliwshiping videos, another chance during the GT and beards) coming shortly after the rearrangement of the members of the GB? 
 

A lot of talk here about some possible ulterior motive to the lifting of the beard ban (although it hasn't been a "ban" for some years now, but still, WT illustrations kept using the no beard as a sign of spirituality). It really was a little hard to fathom whether the GB were for or against beards and were just trying to be subtle knowing there is no Biblicaly sound reason to outright ban them, but they didn't like them and wished no one really wore them. Sometimes WT's subtlety forces one to read between the lines, but often it can give those in responsible positions (elders) too much power because those bits between the lines can be individually interpreted. And this is evidently what happened. 
Finally the GB's hand was "forced" to speak clearly so that every Tom, Dick and Harry understood. After all, wouldn't it be silly if the brotherhood fell apart over a beard misunderstanding!
But has anyone wondered about all these pretty big changes (hour requirements, pulling two disfelliwshiping videos, another chance during the GT and beards) coming shortly after the rearrangement of the members of the GB? 
 

I hope this will become a future trend. 
If anyone has read the satirical piece about why Jehovah’s Witnesses should not own cats will know what I mean, and understand.

A lot of talk here about some possible ulterior motive to the lifting of the beard ban (although it hasn't been a "ban" for some years now, but still, WT illustrations kept using the no beard as a sign of spirituality). It really was a little hard to fathom whether the GB were for or against beards and were just trying to be subtle knowing there is no Biblicaly sound reason to outright ban them, but they didn't like them and wished no one really wore them. Sometimes WT's subtlety forces one to read between the lines, but often it can give those in responsible positions (elders) too much power because those bits between the lines can be individually interpreted. And this is evidently what happened. 
Finally the GB's hand was "forced" to speak clearly so that every Tom, Dick and Harry understood. After all, wouldn't it be silly if the brotherhood fell apart over a beard misunderstanding!
But has anyone wondered about all these pretty big changes (hour requirements, pulling two disfelliwshiping videos, another chance during the GT and beards) coming shortly after the rearrangement of the members of the GB? 
 

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!

A lot of speculation there.
I think this is about unity.
I always say there is strength in numbers. It's apparent that HQ received many "complaints" (they said so) from people who were arguing the "beard issue" . The organization probably realized that in 2016 they had left the question too ambiguous and this resulted in unnecessary "divisions" in the congregations. It was basically left up to the BOE. So consequently, in the same  building the English congregation had three elders with beards, one of them the COBE, and in the hall literally across the foyer the congregation (not English) wouldn't alow a young brother to operate the microphones unless he shaved his beard off. One elder in another congregation in the same city grew a beard (his wife liked it, it suited him) but the other elders were against it. Obviously no harmony there. So he and his family moved to the English congregation where beards were allowed. In the same city. 
The message was clear: give us a black and white answer, because this policy, that it was up to the elders, was causing divisions. Over what? Over beards! So the logical conclusion was to remove any "supposed" cultural barriers which caused the beard issues and let everyone know that to beard or not to beard is ok world wide for every male and in all responsible positions. 
My only complaint was the use of the chariot and the keeping up with the heavely organization mantra which I personally feel could have been omitted because in my opinion it created the word salad and was a little confusing, and open to interpretation because it suggested what JWI said, and that didn't make much sense. It's almost like sometimes the earthly organization paints itself into a corner. Unnecessarily. 
Jehovah's heavenly organization was obviously never against beards because all the angels had them, including Jesus. 

Says who? 
The veracity of it will not be evident for decades to come. ‘Generation’ can even be stretched further by saying it means ‘era.’
Meantime, those too intent on proving themselves right over this matter tend to miss entirely the greater world’s astonishingly rapid plunge. They effectively join the ranks of ridiculers with their, ‘Where is this promised presence of his?
If the GB simply holds the line on 1914, it becomes a game of chicken with those plotting their downfall. It becomes the movie ending of all movie endings of the Greatest Action Flik of All Time. Let us see who pees their pants first.
   

this is too.

This is very perceptive, very applicable.

The thing is, that one thing I go back to, is not so much that the humans behind the organization have been brilliant, or their ideas were literally from Jehovah's mouth to their ears (or even what was imagined w/regard to those who imagine themselves to be anointed) is this: Jehovah uses organizations to accomplish his will and purposes. With all it's defects this particular organization has highlighted and stuck to many important fundamental points. No Trinity, no hellfire, the kingdom is a government, Jesus is the king of that government, the need to personally get on board with preaching personally. It was the only one annoying enough to get my attention back when I was an unhappy atheist. "1914? Are you kidding me? That's pretty specific. How did you get that?" It little matters to me now that certain things I'd expected didn't take place as I'd expected, or even as I was led to believe. The people I was introduced to were really different and different because THEY believed what they were saying. There was a personal cost to the individual to become one of Jehovah's Witnesses. One can't say that about most nominally Christian organizations. Disfellowshipping, as painful as it is and has been is a critical factor as well, though I disagree with it's use as a tool to silence those drawing attention to perceived or real failings. In the end it is and has served in my view, Jehovah's purposes, though I'll admit to believing that it is not the only one in history or even today to be doing so. I think of the dragnet illustration,and the organizations admission to be part of that dragnet, and I  believe that this is so, and though I couldn't attach myself to any other organization I still feel that it's up to each individual to work out his own salvation with fear and trembling (all the while I can't admit to so much trembling any more at this stage of my life, recognizing that I'm about as good as I can get right now and that's not so great either, so as the saying goes "so sue me" and "you can't get blood out of a turnip" if someone wants any more out of me. I trust Jehovah will deal with me justly (whatever that might be) and I'm OK with that). If a person feels that some other organization would better suit their spiritual growth, then they have the personal responsibility to go with them. I won't curse them if they choose to go even if that wouldn't be my choice.

What comes to mind as I ramble is "Greetings!  Consider it all joy, my brothers, when you meet with various trials, 3 knowing as you do that this tested quality of your faith produces endurance. But let endurance complete its work, so that you may be complete and sound in all respects, not lacking in anything..." James 1:2
People and organizations are like art. There's a proper viewing distance. Sometimes I see trees, sometimes I see the forest. Sometimes I see defects, and sometimes I see these as an opportunity.

In all this I look for Jehovah and to him and the guidance of his Son, and not to the humans who may or may not be moving in harmony with the Holy Spirit.
For some reason that also reminds me of this clip from "Enter the Dragon"
"Don't concentrate on the finger"

I think the current GB realizes it has a compilation of messes on its hands that can only accrue problematically. It's trying to dig itself out. But the fear is the pile is too deep. Ultimately the 1914 thing will implode on itself. Just a matter of time. Ultimately the blood policy will implode on itself. Just a matter of time. I think the society is looking for an exit ramp. Too many problems, too many informational sources. It'll only snowball.

A lot of speculation there.
I think this is about unity.
I always say there is strength in numbers. It's apparent that HQ received many "complaints" (they said so) from people who were arguing the "beard issue" . The organization probably realized that in 2016 they had left the question too ambiguous and this resulted in unnecessary "divisions" in the congregations. It was basically left up to the BOE. So consequently, in the same  building the English congregation had three elders with beards, one of them the COBE, and in the hall literally across the foyer the congregation (not English) wouldn't alow a young brother to operate the microphones unless he shaved his beard off. One elder in another congregation in the same city grew a beard (his wife liked it, it suited him) but the other elders were against it. Obviously no harmony there. So he and his family moved to the English congregation where beards were allowed. In the same city. 
The message was clear: give us a black and white answer, because this policy, that it was up to the elders, was causing divisions. Over what? Over beards! So the logical conclusion was to remove any "supposed" cultural barriers which caused the beard issues and let everyone know that to beard or not to beard is ok world wide for every male and in all responsible positions. 
My only complaint was the use of the chariot and the keeping up with the heavely organization mantra which I personally feel could have been omitted because in my opinion it created the word salad and was a little confusing, and open to interpretation because it suggested what JWI said, and that didn't make much sense. It's almost like sometimes the earthly organization paints itself into a corner. Unnecessarily. 
Jehovah's heavenly organization was obviously never against beards because all the angels had them, including Jesus.