Anna

It was clearly a call for loyalty, obedience, humility and unity. Those aren't bad things.
But the logic did seem a bit strained when they hitched it to the chariot.
What came across as odd to me was the logic that Jehovah's organization moves so fast that the earthly part of the organization can't keep up; it can only try. But we shouldn't try to keep up with Jehovah's organization because that would mean we will be "running ahead" of the earthly organization. In that case, keeping up with Jehovah's organization (the chariot) will cause division and show a bad attitude. It's always better to humbly stay behind Jehovah's organization, but keep up only with the earthly part of that organization. 
And that's the primary focus of the announcement letter, shown below:
[Note how, between points 5 and 6, the announcement letter blurs the line between the earthly and heavenly part of Jehovah's organization.)

He stared them down.
Seriously. I think that’s what happened. Stared down the local elders, that is, not the GB who apparently didn’t have a problem with it, willing to completely defer to the local BoE, though it may have been a Branch thing. 
It was not in the Bible. It never appeared in Watchtower print. (other than many examples of ‘shaving one’s beard’ listed in the changes made on the road to baptism) The reasons for it, association with beatniks and hippies, disappeared decades ago. We’ve had articles to the effect that we don’t do rules, but primarily principles. And yet, no rule was a firmly enforced as the unwritten no-beard rule.
But—with no documentation behind it—you could stare them down. That’s what I imagine this Kelly beard brother did. I did sort of the same thing with blogging, which may be why I see it this way. He stared them down, not defiantly, but by being such a good example that, even while holding his ground on this matter, they couldn’t tell him no.
If an entire Update dedicated to beards being now okay seems like overkill (it did to me), one might recall that they tried underkill and it didn’t work. From the Sept 2016 Wt: “Does Your Style of Dress Glorify God?”
What about the propriety of brothers wearing a beard? The Mosaic Law required men to wear a beard. However, Christians are not under the Mosaic Law, nor are they obliged to observe it. (Lev. 19:27; 21:5; Gal. 3:24, 25) In some cultures, a neatly trimmed beard may be acceptable and respectable, and it may not detract at all from the Kingdom message. In fact, some appointed brothers have beards. Even so, some brothers might decide not to wear a beard. (1 Cor. 8:9, 13; 10:32) In other cultures or localities, beards are not the custom and are not considered acceptable for Christian ministers. In fact, having one may hinder a brother from bringing glory to God by his dress and grooming and his being irreprehensible.—Rom. 15:1-3; 1 Tim. 3:2, 7.
This paragraph was a big deal at the time, at least in my area. I never look at articles until just before we are to cover then at meetings (unlike when the magazines came in the mail and I read them through promptly), but this paragraph I knew about up front because brothers were talking about it seemingly the day after it was written. When that Watchtower Study finally came, that paragraph was like the elephant in the room that everyone was awaiting, and then Yessss! paragraph 17 finally arrived and you could talk about it. Some congregations spent extra time to ‘explain’ it.
I thought that would be the end of it. I thought at long last the issue had been laid to rest. I thought beards would soon be showing up—at first in publishers and then in MS and elders. Instead, it seemed like congregations doubled-down, as if with the attitude: ‘Well, okay, they can wear beards if they insist, but no way will they ever be appointed.’ A few publishers grew them, but nothing more.
’Look, we don’t have an issue with it,’ is what the GB finally said in this latest Update. It’s not new. It’s what they said 7 years ago only it didn’t take. This time, to make sure it wasn’t another misfire that didn’t take, they made it a big production, brought in bells and whistles, the chariot, and disclaimers for guys like those here who say, ‘It’s about time!’ and for the more rigid guys who drew a line in the sand and are now aghast to see it erased.
Old habits die hard. It may be that circumcism was once biblical whereas no-beards was not. The two customs don’t parallel in that regard. But in the regard of ‘old habits die hard,’ they parallel exactly. 
For me, it is like when the man who invented AI died. ‘Restaurant in peace’ the obits read, though there were a few harsher ones that said, ‘May he rot in hello.’
 
 
 
 

I think I missed the point at first when I heard Brother Lett say this: Others might feel disappointed, saying, in effect, ‘I supported the policy about grooming for all those years. Now I feel let down!’ But is either reaction appropriate?
My first thought was the brother(s) who had to dismiss a brother at Bethel in 1979. The young brother was a Bethel elder, loved by everyone because he always seemed humble and ready to help in any way. He was counted on for a lot of accounting tasks, and Bethelite vacation days, and he was also in charge of requisitions for the purchase of non-Society books that Bethelites would order for their own personal libraries. (I got Josephus and Matthew Henry and Barnes' Notes and a few other books through him.) He came to breakfast one day with well-groomed but obvious weekend-length whiskers, not just "5 o'clock shadow." I remember thinking that he better go back to his room after breakfast to shave before going to work. He didn't, and he must have been called to ask what he was doing, because he was dismissed from Bethel immediately.
I imagined the disappointment and pain of the elders or committees that had to dismiss such a well-loved brother. I think it was Dean Songer who dismissed him, and Songer was probably the cleanest cut man at Bethel with a short 1960's NASA/FBI crewcut. He might have dismissed him with pleasure, but I thought of him anyway as someone who might have been disappointed in losing such a great asset to the Society.
Of course, if you were a brother, usually black, who could show medical or visible evidence of skin bumps and bleeding after each shave, you already had a reprieve. They had "skin in the game," but they would more typically suffer the loss of it, and surreptitiously touch up their wounds with bloody tissues at breakfast so that the scabs would be dry throughout the day.    

Sometimes I think we overuse the chariot illustration. 
Recently my wife and I were invited on a KH remodeling project. At my age and non-skill level, I am not going to be any major player in anything, but I appreciated the invitation and accepted a two-day stint along with my wife.
Safety training is required—a lot of it before you even set foot on the project. For one session online that I was informed might take up to three hours—several videos followed by answering questions off the master safety document, I found myself beating back the cynical thought that some too-starryeyed artist might insert God strapped into his chariot in one of the videos. But it did not happen and I could not help but think that the quality of training would be the envy of any construction organization. The way scriptures were interwoven was masterful. Even the verse of the ‘overconfident one who comes to ruin’ was applied to the experienced worker inclined to blow past safety regulations because he is so experienced as to think himself immune. Nobody blows past anything when it comes to safety, experienced or not. You’re dismissed from the site if you do, but I didn’t see anyone coming even close to grumbling over such rules of safety, which are iron-clad. Zero accidents is the goal.
Not just the training, but the project itself. The people skills on display far outshone what would be found on any secular construction site. The abilities of volunteers, some experienced and some not, was harnessed to an astonishing degree. Always, there was a brother with oversight to accommodate any skill level and to break any task into doable steps—and always with the safety and overall well-being of participants placed even ahead of the job itself. First of all, they are shepherds, I am told—that is incorporated into their training. In short, I’ve never seen anything like it—even if the chariot was not on visible display.

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...

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...

Frankly Scarlett, I don’ give a damn!  
YOU made the assertions without proof, Georgie. 
 

I remember having to tell a young woman that her dreadlocks weren't in keeping with the field ministry, that it was associated with Rastafarians and all that related to the same. She wanted to get baptized and the body left it up to me to explain to her the whole thing. I was annoyed at having to deal with being the congregation fashion coordinator on two counts: 1st that people couldn't read the room and conform to somewhere in the middle and 2nd that I had to enforce something that was a personal choice people were making. I did it thinking to myself that these kinds of people would likely have argued with Moses about circumcision, when there is zero explanation in scripture as to the reasons for it being a requirement other than Jehovah saying "because I told you to". I see both sides of these things. On the one hand, it's nice to have an external sign of people who could be troublemakers, on the other hand "Really? I have to deal with beards, and other fashion concerns? Don't we have bigger fish to fry?" Then I see it all as some kind of useful social exercise. It forces me to think about the benefits and hazards of conformity, and what standards to use, and balancing the differences. When we choose to look different from those we have social bonds with, we are sending messages. There's a whole social science dealing with these "semiotics". Are we Jehovah's Christian Witnesses? Then what does that look like? How does it act? Does it look like seeking it's own personal advantage? Does it look like lording it over the brothers and sisters in telling them what to do with regard to personal matters? Nature identifies juveniles by the way that they look when they are young, vs when they become mature. What do mature people look like? Do they wear themselves out over fashion? 
I remember one elder before my appointment asking me whether I wondered why I wasn't appointed as an elder yet seeing as how I'd been a regular pioneer and servant for almost ten years then and was regularly giving talks outside the congregation. My response was "I imagined it was because Jehovah decided it wasn't the right time". I never asked, because I cared, but I didn't care either if you know what I mean, it's not like I didn't have things to do. The only things I didn't have to do looked more like the annoying things like judicial committees with people who can't take hints from the Bible about how to behave themselves. His reaction was a bit surprised, but then I could see that he needed to give me some counsel so I relented and he went on. It turned out my answers in the meeting suggested I relied on "Worldly Wisdom", my shoes weren't shiny enough and I walked funny when I went up to the podium.  So I thought to myself that I want this elder to feel good about this counseling session so I asked him to watch me at the meetings and let me know if I was slipping in these areas. I told him that when conversing w/the friends I would mention where in the Societies pubs I read whatever it was I was commenting on, so they wouldn't get the idea I was pushing some novel idea unique to me as well. He seemed pleased with my responses. My thoughts were that as an elder you can do some damage, so if I make this elder happy about giving counsel he'll do a better job with the next publisher.
 
Anyway, I'm rambling now....

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!

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....

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!

Obviously because he was 6'5!

My mum and I were trying to imagine some GB members with a beard, and we decided, nah, brother Lett wouldn't suit one, and here, this proved us wrong, it actually really suits him! 

One of the two pictures of Brother Lett above is not real. I just told an AI program to add a beard. It might be what Brother Lett would look like if he led by example, as in:  "As you see how their conduct turns out, imitate their face." 

Oy you just opened up another pandora's box, there are way too many variations of taco's in the world, now there's gonna be a pissing contest on what  is a taco, which is the best taco, and does fish really belong in a taco....😜

Going back on topic, (of a post that hasn't been on topic, lol) in reading everyone's comments I see the reasoning behind both the against and the for blood. Personally I can see why someone would abstain (which means both eating and transfusing). My main issue is that the organization says this is a conscience matter, whereas in practice this is not true. It is the societies conscience we are told to obey. We were always taught to tell the doctors that our conscience will not allow us to break God's law on blood. But what if someone's conscience did allow them, for whatever reason? This is why I think the blood issue (whole blood) should be something between them and Jehovah only. (Someone said well then we could say the same about fornication. Well, if no one in the congregation finds out about it, then it will still be between them and Jehovah, and they will have to answer to Jehovah for it in the end.
In line with this, I have noticed that elders on the HLC no longer "interfere" or are privy to a person's medical decision. In the USA hippa laws are strict, and absolutely no one should be able to find out if someone has had a blood transfusion, even relatives. So if someone does get a blood transfusion, it remains between them and Jehovah.
I think Tom's handling of the situation with the young brother in hospital was very good. No elder should be persuading another person to follow his (the elder's) conscience, or anybody else's conscience for that matter. The conscience is each person's their own. (This is why the conscientious objection to alternative service was a farce because the brothers who objected, for the most part, didn't know why they were objecting, they were just following the societies conscience). 
The stance now is we do not fight the Superior Authorities when it comes to transfusing children. Which makes me wonder where the principle "obey God as ruler rather than men" went to? Did we decide this because we do not want to make a spectacle of ourselves, fighting court battles and making it look like JW parents want their children to die? Don't get me wrong, I am glad about it, but where in truth does it leave  "obey God as ruler rather than man?" It seems like the organization has compromised... or not? Same with the fractions becoming  a conscience matter. I get why this was so, they "didn't want to get "dogmatic" (a phrase we will probably be hearing a lot more). But how much of this was also for practical reasons? The guidance about blood fractions itself says that people should realize that many vaccines (which members of Bethel used) and other therapeutic medicines contains blood fractions. So the person who says no to blood fractions should realize this, and then make an informed decision. I wonder if the covid vaccines had been based on blood fractions, or contained blood fractions, how would the organization have handled that? Probably they wouldn't have been able to "push" it like they did, and would have just had to say it's each person's decision, based on their own conscience. 
For me, when it comes to the question of blood, we don't want to be putting our life at risk just for man made rules. We have to be sure it is Jehovah's law, and by the looks of it this camp is split into two. Some say yes and some say no. 
I feel like we should apply Occam's razor and go with the simplest and clearest explanation. 
It's all giving me a headache...
 

The details have already been checked for timeline accuracy and hard fossil evidence under the working title “ The First Cain Mutiny”.
I rejected including two big honkin’ dinosaurs because they died 65 million years ago.

More has been accomplished in this discussion than meets the eye. Maybe there's more life to it yet. We'll see.

Oh yeah, it happens all the time. A thread will deteriorate into a bunch of ‘treading water’ remarks, then a new wave comes along and everyone washes off in a new direction—must to the consternation of The Librarian (that old hen) who cries about her card catalogue and how it exists to keep separate topics separate. 
Sometimes a thread even deteriorates into, ‘You’re stupid!’ ‘No, you’re stupid!’ ‘When you were born the doctor probably slapped your mama and not you!’ and so forth. You come along with your shovel to bury the thread, then it catches another breath and it is Game On again in a new direction.

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?

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?

You mean Jehovah created sub humans like he created dinosaurs?