TrueTomHarley

Oh, don’t mind Pudgy with his bellyaching over no apologies. 
This is the same Pudgy who, along with his cohort Rush Limbaugh, used to heap scorn on President Obama for embarking on worldwide Apology Tours.
I am sympathetic to difficulties he has encountered. But it doesn’t justify a lifelong Character Assassination Tour of people who even he acknowledges are in the main good and honorable men. (Or is that the local elders he says that of?) And, surely, his own hardheadedness and inflexibility has had something to do with it.

YEAH!!!

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.

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.

Not to mention how the video in #8 linked the sudden shaving craze to the a direct aftermath of WWI, and we all know what year that began in. There was the Bethel photo prior to 1914 showing all beards. There was the Bethel photo after 1914 showing few.
With any luck, the beard brouhaha can become the latest ‘sign of the last days’ to have been dealt with.

Not to mention how the video in #8 linked the sudden shaving craze to the a direct aftermath of WWI, and we all know what year that began in. There was the Bethel photo prior to 1914 showing all beards. There was the Bethel photo after 1914 showing few.
With any luck, the beard brouhaha can become the latest ‘sign of the last days’ to have been dealt with.

That’s what you want to happen…..I see this as corrections being made…that were well overdue…for whatever reason ..I’m very grateful.
Im very wary of you miles as so many on line start out warm and fuzzy..but they do not build up their former brothers and sisters but tear them down…not in a straight out  way…
Your scars do not give you the right to throw seeds of doubt around..endangering one’s who may themselves be struggling in this world and spiritually.
You have left the organization…..that’s your decision..and I respect it…even understand it….but you should be very very careful that you yourself do not  end up with blood on your hands.

this is too.

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.’
 
 
 
 

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.
   

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.

This is very perceptive, very applicable.

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.
   

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"

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. 

Sorry, it was just a new one for me. I had heard you tell of your troubles in connection with 75. I had never heard of any in connection with beards. My bad.
Score Pudgy 1 and TTH 0.
But maybe tomorrow it will not be that way.

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.’
 
 
 
 

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.

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.

No. You did not use the term bankrupt in connection with 1975. You used terminology that meant the same thing—massive upheaval in your life. Whereas you were an engineer for many years and thus are accustomed to being precise, I am not. I am stuck with common sense and knowing a synonym when I see one.
Are you even sure ‘bankrupt’ is the proper word in this connection? Did you file for Chapter 7? If anything, the word would have been more appropriate for your job change back in 75, when it appears you took a certain financial hit.
I’ve no patience for calling this sort of thing ‘tyranny.’ It’s not important enough. Moreover, given what you have written about your sons in the past, they appear to have no issue with it. Save your ‘tyranny’ for occasions in which to resist will cost you more than hurt feelings.
Everyone must pick the hill they will die on. I like the expression not only for its surface value, but also for its acknowledgment that you will die on one. So make it count, son. Don’t die on a stupid hill. Don’t leave your epitaph to say: “Here lies Pudgy. I guess he told those elders a thing or two, didn’t he?”
Exactly. You do these things. You don’t make an issue over such things. You say to yourself, ‘Well, this is dumb,’ if you think it is, but you do them anyhow. Or not. Don’t do them if it is important enough to you, but then don’t cry if this or that privilege doesn’t come your way. 
We forget what stubbornness is. Because people are stubborn, persons are literally sent to their deaths, their lives are actually ruined. Compromises are not reached today in Ukraine and Israel because people are both truculent and stubborn. There they literally die on hills—they don’t just get their feelings hurt.
The entire tort system of law thrives because people are stubborn—1/3 of our wealth ends up in the pockets of barristers because people are stubborn and refuse to compromise. 
You don’t cheapen words like ‘tyranny’ and ‘ruined lives’ by using them in this context. Our ‘tyranny’ and ‘ruined lives’ is child’s play to that of the greater world. All a person would have to do to avoid it (in Xero’s situation) is to shine your shoes. I’ll shine mine as brightly as the expanse of the heavens if I have to; it’s not a big deal—and to make it such says as much about me as it does them. (As it turns out, I don’t have to. I haven’t worn shineable shoes in 20 years at least and nobody cares.)
On the one hand, it all seems pretty silly. The greater world solved this beard issue decades ago: 
And the sign said
"Long-haired freaky people
Need not apply"
So I tucked my hair up under my hat
And I went in to ask him why
He said, "You look like a fine upstandin' young man
I think you'll do"
So I took off my hat and said, "Imagine that
Huh, me workin' for you"
There. Done. Settled. Back in 1990. Whereas, we don’t settle it till 2023. But, in fairness, it ought be remembered that the overall world is going down the toilet and Jehovah’s organization is not.
More than once the Bible says that those drawn to the Lord must become like young children. And indeed they have proved to be that way, not just in the good ways but also the not-so-good. 
Paul said: “Brothers, do not become young children in your understanding, but be young children as to badness.” (1 Cor 14:20) Why did he say this—because they never became young children in their understanding?
So it has proved today, with issues taking longer to resolve than you might think would be the case. Those the Lord can work with are like ‘young children.’ Those whom he cannot are ones too insistent upon their rights to be molded. They are left to the reward of whatever their discord can produce. In short, “they are having their reward in full.”