New Light on Beards

[xero]

26 minutes ago, George88 said:

Given that Trump was once a Democrat, the argument has been established. However, how can one be certain that Trump never donned a hood, especially considering his demeanor as a highly influential figure in the Republican Party? It seems he is a perfect fit for a presidency reminiscent of the Confederacy, much like Davis himself.

What are you babbling about? You sound like a confused, economically ignorant, covetous socialist.

[George88]

3 minutes ago, xero said:

What are you babbling about? You sound like a confused, economically ignorant, covetous socialist.

Are you referring to me, or yourself? I will admit, that most of the posts here by the closed club personnel meet that description.

[xero]

20 minutes ago, George88 said:

Are you referring to me, or yourself? I will admit, that most of the posts here by the closed club personnel meet that description.

If the shoe fits.

[TrueTomHarley]

15 hours ago, Pudgy said:

No, I have never, to my rememberance, used the word bankrupt here on the Archive before. I have never once said that before.  
 If you can show I am wrong, I stand corrected.

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.

22 hours ago, Pudgy said:

I am happy the Brotherhood, and my sons, are now free of this tyranny.

It would have helped,  had there been an apology for all the ruined lives.

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?”

5 hours ago, xero said:

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

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.”

 

[TrueTomHarley]

10 hours ago, Anna said:

I just found the remark about keeping up with Jehovah's chariot a little strange,

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.

[Anna]

37 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

So it has proved today, with issues taking longer to resolve than you might hope would be the case

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...

[Pudgy]

..

[Pudgy]

 

When I was in Jr. High School, my History Teacher was a WWIi veteran that always wore a suit that looked large on him, and walked with a cane. Many years after his death I read that he lost both legs in a battle. I always knew him, and everyone else knew him as “Mr. Tolliver”.  

One day I asked him how he spelled his name, and he replied “T-A-L-I-F-E-R-R-O”.  I replied “THAT’s not how you spell Tolliver!”,

He replied “That’s my family name… for generations it had been pronounced and spelled that way. I should know.”

So do I, when I use any term, including “bankrupt”.  

Your extrapolations are occasionally invalid. This is one of those times.

Perhaps just a “bad hair day”?

[xero]

6 hours ago, Anna said:

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...

One might use the scripture about Timothy getting unnecessarily circumcised "on account of the jews" and take the principle there that you wouldn't wear a head covering, because to do so would make the study all about head covering and why the organization has this on the books, whereas you might/might not agree. So to take the analogy (am I twisting scriptures? I don't think so) it would be like not wearing a head covering "on account of the unbelievers". But of course "let each person be fully convinced in his/her own mind", would always be the principle to apply as well.

[TrueTomHarley]

4 hours ago, Pudgy said:

So do I, when I use any term, including “bankrupt”.  

Your extrapolations are occasionally invalid. This is one of those times.

Perhaps just a “bad hair day”?

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.

[Anna]

16 hours ago, JW Insider said:

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. 

Yes, that was really weirdly worded. Makes no logical sense. What did they mean? It's one of those mind games/word salads that makes you scratch your head. 

[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.