Srecko Sostar

I think everybody here knows that, only God can bestow the Holy Spirit, what we are really analyzing is the silly excuses that for 80+ years were given to discriminate against beards.
It is a well known phenomenon that if you want to exercise control over people, keep them off balance with authoratative false premises, enforced  with arbitrary use of power, and peer pressure.
Hypnosis by grinding them down into numbness with 18 paragraphs when one will do.

Since WTJWorg and GB should operate within the USA Constitution, we come to a point where we have to ask;
1) What does God guarantee to all people?
2) What does GB guarantee to its people?

You seem to me to be forgetting WHO brought forth the Doctrine of that Trivial Thing.
Any attempt, by you or by anyone else, to mitigate the seriousness of the idiocy that has been and continues to be carried out in the name of God YHVH, now after decades of torture on this issue, is shameful.
We see at least two ways of tyrannizing. One dragged on for decades in such a way that it was Forbidden to wear a beard. Now they continue with the tyranny through Permitting the wearing of beards.
Taking away or giving someone Freedom is a kind of tyranny, because they (GB) have taken a place that does not belong to them. They are not placed by God in a position to take away or give someone freedom of choice.

According to WTJWorg teaching, men who are called (appointed) to positions of responsibility and authority in the congregation are called to that position because they have fulfilled spiritual values/conditions, and therefore HS has appointed them through the existing elders.
The practice over the past almost 100 years has not allowed bearded men to be called into such ministry. We can publicly say that they were not appointed by HS and the elders because these individuals had beards. They were not "spiritually mature" because they showed/manifested this with their beards.
S. Lett says, in fact, that beards are not a prerequisite for spirituality and not prevent the HS from appointing such bearded persons. He says this has never been the case because there is no Scriptural obstacle for bearded "brothers" to take "responsibility". This, consequently means, that the HS did not appoint bearded men, not because beards, but because the elders and the GB prevented/stopped the HS from acting freely in the church. They (GB) admitted this publicly in their update a few days ago.
JWs, are you wondering if, whether at all, the power of HS rests over your congregations or is all power and governance in the hands of GB with their earthly subjects aka elders.

According to WTJWorg teaching, men who are called (appointed) to positions of responsibility and authority in the congregation are called to that position because they have fulfilled spiritual values/conditions, and therefore HS has appointed them through the existing elders.
The practice over the past almost 100 years has not allowed bearded men to be called into such ministry. We can publicly say that they were not appointed by HS and the elders because these individuals had beards. They were not "spiritually mature" because they showed/manifested this with their beards.
S. Lett says, in fact, that beards are not a prerequisite for spirituality and not prevent the HS from appointing such bearded persons. He says this has never been the case because there is no Scriptural obstacle for bearded "brothers" to take "responsibility". This, consequently means, that the HS did not appoint bearded men, not because beards, but because the elders and the GB prevented/stopped the HS from acting freely in the church. They (GB) admitted this publicly in their update a few days ago.
JWs, are you wondering if, whether at all, the power of HS rests over your congregations or is all power and governance in the hands of GB with their earthly subjects aka elders.

that is a very important point…… Here in the United States people think that the Constitution gives or takes away freedoms and liberties. It does not. What it does is guarantees by law the freedoms that we as people have naturally because we are humans, and God has allowed us these freedoms and liberties.
The Constitution  identifies natural rights and protections, but it not create them or “give” them to us.

You seem to me to be forgetting WHO brought forth the Doctrine of that Trivial Thing.
Any attempt, by you or by anyone else, to mitigate the seriousness of the idiocy that has been and continues to be carried out in the name of God YHVH, now after decades of torture on this issue, is shameful.
We see at least two ways of tyrannizing. One dragged on for decades in such a way that it was Forbidden to wear a beard. Now they continue with the tyranny through Permitting the wearing of beards.
Taking away or giving someone Freedom is a kind of tyranny, because they (GB) have taken a place that does not belong to them. They are not placed by God in a position to take away or give someone freedom of choice.

Read the U.S. Declaration of Independence, in it’s entirety. 
86% of the Colonies endured British tyranny as “the way things are”.  Only 14% were willing to put their lives on the line to defeat arbitrary tyranny.
For them the issues were not trivial.

Severe persecution of Brothers FOR 80+ Years for unscriptural reasons is NOT a trivial matter.

Overlapping generations, beards, abolition of hours, daily lawsuits and more will cause an impact that few, if any, are prepared for.

The laugh is because of the last sentence in the Warning.

I have never “made fun” of anybody’s disabilities … except of course my own if it makes for a good joke.
I may make fun of a one-legged tap dancer in general, unaware that someone here is one however.
I do consider it open season on arrogant bullies, manipulators, and the deliberately stupid.
I do have a macabre. sense of humor.

“Evvvverybody” wants to go to Heaven … but nobody wants to die.
What’s with THAT?

Joke I heard from Sophia the Robot to morning talk show host:
”How do you call a bear down from a tree?”
… “ Come here bear!”

(Philemon 7, NWT)  For I got much joy and comfort over your love, because the tender affections of the holy ones have been refreshed through you, brother.
*** Rbi8 Philemon 7 ***
“The tender affections.” Lit[erally], “the bowels.”
 
Imagine if they had translated this literally?
(Philemon 7) 7 For I got much joy and comfort over your love, because the bowels of the holy ones have been refreshed through you, brother.

But that same article about how we as Witnesses were safeguarded from the cannibalism of transplants made some curious claims about blood that cannot be restated in the literature, now that transpants are OK.
*** g72 7/8 p. 28 “Keep Abstaining from . . . Blood” ***
Yes, blood is a tissue, just as the heart and the kidneys are tissue. Because it is a “liquid tissue” this fact is not generally appreciated. Immunological forces, placed in the body by the Creator to protect it, oppose any foreign tissue and raise up antibodies to fight against it. That is why the popularity of heart transplants was so short-lived.    
. . . . quoted in previous post . . . . 
‘If blood transfusions also violate the immunological principle, then why do they not prove as lethal as do heart transplants?’ you may ask. The reason is that blood is a temporary tissue. A temporary tissue? Yes, for in every second of time millions of red blood cells die and are replaced. So any ‘foreign’ transfused blood cells do not remain for long in the body.
 
Those arguments stuck with me for a long time, and I still have a bit of trouble accepting the idea of organ transplants because of it. Yet, if the WT was wrong about it --and they say they were wrong about it-- it's the same argument that would make some of us question the arguments about blood itself.

I have a feeling I must have come across in this thread as a promoter of whole blood transfusions. But I'm really looking for clarity myself. I also hate the idea of someone's blood pumped into my veins. There was a time when I would have died rather than allow that. But then I had children and realized that even though I had every right to die for my beliefs, I better be awfully certain of my reasons before imposing a similar death sentence on my children if the situation arose. 
Over the years, however, I have ended up visiting worldly relatives, friends and neighbors while they were hospitalized, and even visiting a hospital where my daughter worked as part of her college work in biochemistry and pre-med stuff. I still had that same sick feeling when seeing those packs of blood. But I realized that some of the JW arguments FOR medical use of blood make sense, and I learned that there were Witnesses taking blood that had required blood from hundreds of blood donors, and it made me wonder why Witnesses could only TAKE blood from worldly donors, and never offer anything back in terms of donated blood. 
Then the change in the WT's view of organ transplants happened the year I got married and started thinking about children, insurance, what to do if my wife had a serious medical issue, what she should do if I had one. 
It was a time I studied the situation hard, and we both (wife and I) came up with the idea that we are both willing to die for Acts 15, even when it comes to fractions, but that we could not impose our conscience on our children. We realized how most of us, as Witnesses, were always anxious to discuss the medical dangers of blood, and leave it at that, as if the dangers of blood alone made us so much better than all those worldly people who were risking their lives for nothing. Focusing on the dangers was supposed to be enough so that we never had to even think about the many more positive outcomes where blood actually saved a life. 
It reminded me of that same time period 10 years earlier, when many types of transplants were in early testing stages and had bad outcomes. The WTBTS focused almost completely on how many failures there were. 
*** g72 7/8 p. 28 “Keep Abstaining from . . . Blood” ***
Life magazine, September 17, 1971, showed a picture on the front cover of six persons who had received heart transplants and who seemed to be well and happy at the time. But within just eight months after the picture was taken all six of these had succumbed to their body’s efforts to reject foreign tissue. The article told how “the rejection drugs triggered bizarre acts,” and that “their ballooning faces haunted one doctor.” The author of the article, who has written a book on the subject, Hearts, also reported that the death rate for heart transplants for the first three years was more than 85 percent. One surgeon, who transplanted twenty-two hearts, had every last one of his patients die. And while he dismissed the entire matter as “a procedure which we tried and—for the time being—discarded,” the patients were not able to be so casual about it. And here again, it might be noted, that the stand of the Christian witnesses of Jehovah—that such transplants are in effect a form of cannibalism—proved a safeguard. How so? In that it spared them much frustration, grief and anxiety, which were experienced not only by the patients and their relatives but even by many of the assisting medical personnel.
 

Yeah. I remembers some of those talks myself. The real whoppers were the talks given as second and third-hand accounts of men who shared what they learned from those talks. Some real eye-rollers there!
There is current research underway looking at tissue memory and what effect tissue-to-brain communication may have in patients the result of organ transplant. There is so much to learn about biological physiology. But suggesting an outcome of any such research before sound conclusions are achieved is a problem.

Emotional Regulation: The vagus nerve is a key component of the parasympathetic nervous system, which helps regulate the body's "rest and digest" response. It counterbalances the sympathetic nervous system's "fight or flight" response, promoting relaxation and emotional regulation. When the vagus nerve's control over the heart and digestive system is altered, it can affect the body's ability to regulate emotions effectively.
Heart-Brain Connection: The vagus nerve is involved in the communication between the heart and the brain, including the transmission of signals related to emotional states. Disruption of this connection may influence the way emotional information is processed and experienced.
Stress Response: The vagus nerve contributes to the body's stress response, and it plays a role in modulating the body's reaction to stressors. Alterations in vagus nerve function may impact how the body responds to stress, potentially affecting emotional responses to stressful situations.
Gut-Brain Axis: The vagus nerve is also part of the gut-brain axis, connecting the digestive system to the brain. This axis plays a role in mood regulation and emotional well-being. Changes in vagal tone (the activity of the vagus nerve) can influence gut-brain communication and may have emotional consequences.
While heart transplantation does disrupt the vagus nerve's direct connections to the heart, the body often adapts over time, and other autonomic mechanisms and neural pathways can partially compensate for this disruption. Additionally, emotional responses involve complex interactions among multiple brain regions and neurotransmitters, so the impact of vagus nerve alterations on emotions can vary from person to person.

One of the important features that members of the GB took into account for "clarification about wearing a beard" includes imitating the trends that prevail in the world of politics and business. This is clearly stated in Update by Steven Lett. (starts at minute 10:00)
Quote: "Furthermore, as time has passed, we have noted that in many countries it is acceptable for men who hold responsible positions in business and government to wear beards..."
That same Governing Body (consisting of elders) wrote this: "If an elder establishes a rule based on culture, he is not acting according to the Scriptures. Younger men must be evaluated, not by personal or cultural viewpoints, but by the measuring stick of God's Word. - 2 Tim. 3:16, 17." - https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/watchtower-study-august-2018/do-not-judge-outward-appearance/
Another in a series of contradictions of this "Theocratic Government" in WTJWorg. 
Double talk. Imitation of "the world". Adapting to "world trends". Disregarding one's own standards. "Lowering" own standards.
In the world of WTJWorg, certain patterns of behavior change depending on the current circumstances in the environment (especially in the USA). We have the opportunity to see two ways in which the GB applies the so-called "Biblical Principles".
In one model, the GB tries to "force" the government of a country to respect the JW's right to freedom of thought, speech and worship as implemented and practiced by WTJWorg, usually through court cases or mass letters campaigns.
In the second model, they find reasons to adapt the so-called "biblical principles" to the social and cultural changes of "worldly people and their institutions".
 

They carried a donkey full of scrolls I presume….

One of the important features that members of the GB took into account for "clarification about wearing a beard" includes imitating the trends that prevail in the world of politics and business. This is clearly stated in Update by Steven Lett. (starts at minute 10:00)
Quote: "Furthermore, as time has passed, we have noted that in many countries it is acceptable for men who hold responsible positions in business and government to wear beards..."
That same Governing Body (consisting of elders) wrote this: "If an elder establishes a rule based on culture, he is not acting according to the Scriptures. Younger men must be evaluated, not by personal or cultural viewpoints, but by the measuring stick of God's Word. - 2 Tim. 3:16, 17." - https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/watchtower-study-august-2018/do-not-judge-outward-appearance/
Another in a series of contradictions of this "Theocratic Government" in WTJWorg. 
Double talk. Imitation of "the world". Adapting to "world trends". Disregarding one's own standards. "Lowering" own standards.
In the world of WTJWorg, certain patterns of behavior change depending on the current circumstances in the environment (especially in the USA). We have the opportunity to see two ways in which the GB applies the so-called "Biblical Principles".
In one model, the GB tries to "force" the government of a country to respect the JW's right to freedom of thought, speech and worship as implemented and practiced by WTJWorg, usually through court cases or mass letters campaigns.
In the second model, they find reasons to adapt the so-called "biblical principles" to the social and cultural changes of "worldly people and their institutions".
 

Honestly it saddens me to see men following men. Just plain petty. Which version of "the organization" are folks supposed to follow? Folks treat men like God, who decides for them what is supposed to be good or bad. The GB shows over and over again it can flip its teachings upside down. What are honest people trying to live right supposed to do? Just prostrate themselves before mortals like themselves and say, "Please! Tell us how today what we should do today to worship our Creator, and tell us tomorrow if YOU want us to do the opposite and we will." Put that in your next work of fiction. Or, maybe its a reality in someone's mind? Go ahead. Write it. It should be that way.
Men who follow men are victims of a dominion never granted to mankind. Mankind was granted dominion over animals, vegetation and the earth. But not dominion of men. Men who dominate men do so to the injury of those whom are dominated by men.
Worship God by living decently. Treat your fellow man as you would want to be treated yourself. Be willing to give your life for those whom you love. Fear God. Do your best to learn yourself what He expects of you. If this is done sincerely it is enough. There is no more to give than your best. Anything beyond that and God will step in to help. And, why not. According to the biblical account, all God ever wanted from Adam was to live in harmony with the natural world provided, and to have enough respect to abide by a single prohibition beyond that.
But that doesn't seem to be enough for some folks. No. Some folks need us to worship "the organization".