Srecko Sostar

I disagree with that. There are many things that are not done at all the same way today (for example the 2/3 majority vote). In fact things are very different only by virtue of the fact that every single person on the GB at the time of Raymond is gone, replaced by a completely different body, and that many of those issue that were pointed to by Raymond have been addressed. (This makes me believe that even today's members of the GB have read Raymond's book).

Thanks John for emotions you put publicly.
All in all, my prison time went well, working, going to school inside prison walls, not have problems with other prisoners, after 2 years get my first vacation to visit home. I am kind of introvert, and to be alone is not so harsh punishment  in my case :))) i like more to be alone in 3x2,5 cell than in crowd. Perhaps .... or certainly/ obviously.... i have some unsolved psycho and early childhood issues :))))   

I laughed. i think here in UK that people are too lazy. Even those in the JW Org are lazy.
It is difficult to get people to do the ministry, but would be probably impossible to get them picking up litter. 
And there is a snobbishness, they think they are too posh / important, to do such things as pick up litter.
English people are strange and yes I'm English.  

From what time period were those men told by the GB to 'go to prison' instead of doing alternative service ?
From what date until what date ? 
I notice you mention 1996, as when the Organization reversed its policy on alternative service.
The reason I'm asking is that in 1962 (or so I've just read) the 'Society' changed the meaning of the Romans 13 scripture, back to its original understanding, that is, that the Superior Authorities are the governments / rulers of this world. Hence, if a government / ruler of a country offered Alternative Service that was not going against the will of God, then the people should obey it. 
Romans 13.
 Let every person be in subjection to the superior authorities, for there is no authority except by God; the existing authorities stand placed in their relative positions by God. 2  Therefore, whoever opposes the authority has taken a stand against the arrangement of God; those who have taken a stand against it will bring judgment against themselves.
Wow, now that is very clear, isn't it.
So if the Society / GB deliberately took this stand against those Rulers that had the authority from God to rule, then the Society / GB were in fact taking a stand against GOD Himself. 
 

Fact is...   in MANY countries and towns,  brothers and sisters were helping by cleaning their towns !  Also in my german town STADE, every year....   Its NOT strange, all that is TRUE, bec. I was helping too.   Ask competently  brothers, then you still can learn a little

Thanks John for emotions you put publicly.
All in all, my prison time went well, working, going to school inside prison walls, not have problems with other prisoners, after 2 years get my first vacation to visit home. I am kind of introvert, and to be alone is not so harsh punishment  in my case :))) i like more to be alone in 3x2,5 cell than in crowd. Perhaps .... or certainly/ obviously.... i have some unsolved psycho and early childhood issues :))))   

@Srecko Sostar  Quote " Today, looking on my period in prison, jail, and obligation on going to army, I came to conclusion how decision to reject army service is more decision of WT Corporation aka JW Church than my clear conscience stand on  matter. Perhaps i assured my self it is my conscience, but in fact it was about behavior according to group (JW congregation) i was belong in that time. It was expected to do it that way. "
Srecko, I have tears for you my friend. The GB have a lot of things to answer for. 
I hope God removes the GB from 'power' and replaces them with a true Anointed class. 

So let's be blunt. The Governing Body sat on their arses in some nice room and decided other men should go to prison. There was basically no scriptural reasons for it. The GB just had that power over people to do it.
Now that proves how much those people were serving the GB. The GB did not give them the choice to use their God given conscience. It proves dictatorship.
Felix is a GB worshiper so I'm not interested in his opinions on this. 
As you have posted  "But their inability to explain the reason for their stand shows that someone else has done their thinking for
them."  That says it all. Case proven. 

Never known it here in England either Srecko. 
In that country where they are doing good practical work, they get treated so badly. 
Perhaps Russian authority thought the JW's would be liked too much by the people. 
Weren't the Egyptians frightened of the Israelites getting too powerful ? Maybe the Russian authorities felt that JW's were getting to powerful too. 

You are wrong, but it's easy to see where the mistake comes from. You apparently didn't realize that it was not Raymond Franz who became President on June 7 1977, but it was Frederick Franz, and that it was Frederick Franz, not Raymond Franz, who explained to a large gathering* that 1975 didn't happen because it was the fault of Witnesses in the audience for expecting it. You can still get the audio recording of Fred Franz making this outrageous accusation against Jehovah's Witnesses.
Your quote is from The Re-Enchantment of the West, Vol 2, p.295, by Christopher Partridge. Yes, it's true that Partridge claims that "Raymond Franz conceded that there had been a prophecy" and that it had failed. The book makes it appear that, as you said, Raymond Franz "conceded to a wide erroneous assumption that he ended admitting to." As you said:
The actual talk by F. W. Franz is one for which I have never heard a recording. It was at a new Assembly Hall in Canada. The talk has been described in several places. I just found the following from a Google search that pointed to a book by Edmund C. Gruss: 

I just listened again to the talk that F.W.Franz gave on February 10, 1975 in Los Angeles. I had heard it right after my grandmother recorded it. She was all excited about it. And I was too at the time. But I remember my father still downplaying the date, and saying to listen very closely to what he is NOT saying. I listened again this morning and got a slightly different opinion of it. I realize that Frederick W Franz was actually using deception, pure and simple, to get people to think he was saying one thing while not quite saying it, saying something only slightly different. And it was working very well. He had a good part of the audience "reading between the lines" as you can tell by their applause.
It's a little off topic, but I listened to it from this YouTube video that follows along in the same book that Franz is asking the audience to take note of.
The assembly lapel ID badge shown is not actually related directly to the same talk. It's just what was attached to the video. The actual context of the badge is from 1970 and early 1971. Note the Our Kingdom Ministry that year:
*** km 7/70 p. 3 Announcements ***
A new circuit assembly program is scheduled to begin in September. We believe you will find it most informative and upbuilding. The public talk will be “Who Will Conquer the World in the 1970’s?”
 

Just one moment for say something as general conversation :)))
In this part of world in that period of time (until 1988/89, with fall of Wall and democratic changes in East Europe and in Yugoslavia) there is no alternative service. After, with time, came optional services with this GB "philosophy". Who is in charge and order service? Nonsense of sort, for sure.
Today, looking on my period in prison, jail, and obligation on going to army, I came to conclusion how decision to reject army service is more decision of WT Corporation aka JW Church than my clear conscience stand on  matter. Perhaps i assured my self it is my conscience, but in fact it was about behavior according to group (JW congregation) i was belong in that time. It was expected to do it that way. 
Similar as to  expectations and obligation on JW brothers to not wearing beards :)))). If you want be ok for God, for congregation, do shave every day :))) Issue is not for comparison, but "principle" coming from same idea. To be different, to not to be "part of the world", "to be holy".
Levels of our obligations and obeys to man, is in gradation. You will obey something to certain level, until your "conscience" or belonging to particular group, or Bible verse (interpretation of that verse) said you to NOT doing or obey man, authority or so.
Similar is with army service. If young man wearing uniform, running whole day to get condition, cleaning, learning about weapons, shooting and so ... but not hurt anyone, then some will find such activity to be acceptable. When somebody order you to kill other people, that is situation in what you must have your stand and do as you think is right.
Some religious groups are very active in "proselytizing", preaching to other people. Some have unique "uniforms" and others are "civilians". But their "service" as "soldier of Christ" or "soldier" of their church, can bring also some good and some very bad results. This religious service in the name of god are called "spiritual battles". And all such "soldiers" are able, in spiritual sense, accidentally or purposely, to hurt and to "kill" other people with, sometimes,  persistent consequences. Religious teachings are the "bullets".
Parable...... Well, FDS aka GB are "Army officers" for 8 mil JW members. Would you as  an ordinary JW  rank and file "soldier" obey all commands coming from GB "superior authority"?? 
   

With or without Raymond, the FDS / GB has demonstrated (show it until today) how things are in WT.

Just one moment for say something as general conversation :)))
In this part of world in that period of time (until 1988/89, with fall of Wall and democratic changes in East Europe and in Yugoslavia) there is no alternative service. After, with time, came optional services with this GB "philosophy". Who is in charge and order service? Nonsense of sort, for sure.
Today, looking on my period in prison, jail, and obligation on going to army, I came to conclusion how decision to reject army service is more decision of WT Corporation aka JW Church than my clear conscience stand on  matter. Perhaps i assured my self it is my conscience, but in fact it was about behavior according to group (JW congregation) i was belong in that time. It was expected to do it that way. 
Similar as to  expectations and obligation on JW brothers to not wearing beards :)))). If you want be ok for God, for congregation, do shave every day :))) Issue is not for comparison, but "principle" coming from same idea. To be different, to not to be "part of the world", "to be holy".
Levels of our obligations and obeys to man, is in gradation. You will obey something to certain level, until your "conscience" or belonging to particular group, or Bible verse (interpretation of that verse) said you to NOT doing or obey man, authority or so.
Similar is with army service. If young man wearing uniform, running whole day to get condition, cleaning, learning about weapons, shooting and so ... but not hurt anyone, then some will find such activity to be acceptable. When somebody order you to kill other people, that is situation in what you must have your stand and do as you think is right.
Some religious groups are very active in "proselytizing", preaching to other people. Some have unique "uniforms" and others are "civilians". But their "service" as "soldier of Christ" or "soldier" of their church, can bring also some good and some very bad results. This religious service in the name of god are called "spiritual battles". And all such "soldiers" are able, in spiritual sense, accidentally or purposely, to hurt and to "kill" other people with, sometimes,  persistent consequences. Religious teachings are the "bullets".
Parable...... Well, FDS aka GB are "Army officers" for 8 mil JW members. Would you as  an ordinary JW  rank and file "soldier" obey all commands coming from GB "superior authority"?? 
   

I know you asked for a response, but you have sometimes indicated that you feel insulted by my responses, so this response is directed only to others who might have also wondered what I meant.
I was referring to the 16 years between late 1979, the last time when R.Franz was involved in the last vote on this issue, and 1996, when the Society finally was able to get a large enough majority for the second time, and the change was finally made. Many brothers who would not have gone to prison by being allowed to act upon their own conscience during those extra 16 years, actually did serve prison time during those years. 
Anyone who wishes can probably see that this is a point that R.Franz made in his book, here:
The twothirds
majority was gone. After further discussion, when another
vote was taken it read: Nine in favor, five against, one abstention.
Though still a definite majority it was no longer a two-thirds majority.
Though only a minority of the Governing Body favored the
continuance of the existing policy and the sanctions it applied toward
any who accepted alternative service (unless sentenced
thereto), that policy remained in effect. Year after year, hundreds
of men, submitting to that policy although neither understanding
it nor being convinced of its rightness, would continue to be arrested,
tried, and imprisoned—because one individual on a religious
council changed his mind. Witness men could exercise their
conscientious choice of accepting alternative service only at the
cost of being cut off from the congregations of which they were a
part, being viewed as unfaithful to God and Christ.
Surely such instances make clear why no Christian should ever
be expected to mortgage his conscience to any religious organization
or to any body of men exercising virtually unlimited authority
over people’s lives. I found the whole affair disheartening,
tragic. Yet I felt that I learned more clearly just to what ends the
very nature of an authority structure can lead men, how it can cause
them to take rigid positions they would not normally take. This case
illustrated the way in which the power of tradition, coupled with
a technical legalism and a mistrust of people’s motives, can prevent
one from taking a compassionate stand.
The matter came up on one other occasion and the vote was
evenly split. Thereafter it was dropped and for most members it
seemed to become a non-issue. The organization, following its
voting rules, had spoken. The Branch Committees’ arguments need
not be answered—they could simply be informed that “nothing had
changed” and they would proceed accordingly. The men in prison
would never know that the matter had even been discussed and that,
consistently, half or more of the Governing Body did not believe
they needed to be where they were.
...
If the published statements in the Watchtower and Awake!
magazines have any validity at all, then, when compared with the
statements of these Branch Committee members, they clearly identify
these young Witness men as either very vulnerable to brainwashing
or as already victims of indoctrination and mass persuasion.
In 1996, when the organization reversed its policy on alternative
service, many hundreds, even thousands, of these young
men were right then in prison, like thousands before them, but they
really did not know why the position they took, which led to their
imprisonment, should have been taken. They accepted a policy
without seeing a sound basis for it, they allowed their decisions to
be governed, not by solid evidence from God’s Word, but by
“group loyalty,” and “organizational loyalty.” These are the same
forces that give such potency to indoctrination on the part of what
Witnesses call “worldly” organizations. It is a case of doing what
one’s associates do and what the authority (the organization) says,
even though one finds the reasons given to be insubstantial, even
“artificial.” The view of alternative service these persons accepted
was clearly a “borrowed” one, not their own. Concern over what
others in their religious community would think, concern over reprisals
by the organization in the form of excommunication, certainly
must have weighed heavily in their thinking, causing them
to shut out any questions from their minds and simply submit.
These young Witness men stood before government tribunals and
declared themselves bound to an uncompromising position of rejecting
alternative service unless first arrested and tried and sentenced
to perform it by a judge, and they perhaps thought that such
was their own conviction. But their inability to explain the reason
for their stand shows that someone else has done their thinking for
them. Recall the Watchtower statements earlier quoted:
 

I didn't say there was. And I never thought you were saying there was.
I won't be quoting it for you. But why would you claim he said something in his book and then find it insulting when I show you that he said the opposite? Isn't it possible to simply acknowledge or even apologize for the error and move on without feeling insulted?

Another interesting belief. What you state would normally mean that you believe that seeing a 2/3 majority vote, is the same as seeing a sign from the Holy Spirit.
Amazingly, that would mean that when Brother Lloyd Barry saw that the vote was a two-thirds majority in the vote on alternative service, he should have recognized it as a sign from the Holy Spirit. But, then why would he decide to change his vote. We know that he had just realized that only one vote would make this go against the vote of Fred Franz. Could that be why? Or, if you are right, then he deliberately fought against a sign given by the holy spirit.
You have Brother Barry thinking something like the following:
"Oh look, a sign from the Holy Spirit -- a two-thirds majority. I wonder if I should kick against the goads of the Holy Spirit and change my vote, or just accept the sign. Well, it doesn't have to be me does it? After all Fred Franz saw it, too, and we call him the 'Oracle.' So surely Fred will see that there was as sign from the Holy Spirit and he will change his vote accordingly. But then again, we all know that the voting goes pretty much like this (as taken from CoC, p.279) : 
If, for example, the hands of Milton Henschel, Fred Franz, Ted
Jaracz and Lloyd Barry went up, one could generally be sure that the
hands of Carey Barber, Martin Poetzinger, William Jackson, George
Gangas, Grant Suiter and Jack Barr would go up as well. If the hands
of the former stayed down, the hands of the latter would generally
stay down also. Some others would likely vote with these but their
vote was not as predictable. With rare exceptions, this pattern prevailed.
The pattern held particularly true if any traditional policy or
position was under discussion. One could know beforehand those
members who would almost certainly vote in favor of maintaining
that traditional policy and against any change therein. Even in the case
of the “alternative service” issue, already discussed in a previous chapter,
though here outnumbered, these members were still able to prevent
a two-thirds majority vote from altering the position on that issue.
But we know that Fred Franz almost never changes his vote, and Klein won't change unless Fred does. But we do have Jaracz going against his usual pattern and voting to change this thing, even though Franz is voting to leave it as it is. So really it should be be Jaracz who changes his vote. Maybe I can find some excuse, and then change my vote to be in line with Fred Franz again. I owe him after that GB vote where I begged him to join the rest of us to make it unanimous.
As it happened, Barry was able to find an excuse to change his vote. So he did. Then the vote had to come up again to see if it would still pass. This time Barry stepped away so as not to be included. The first time it was F.Franz, Henschel, Jackson and Klein who opposed the change. If one more had taken his place, it would have passed with the two-thirds majority. But this time Carey Barber switched sides, too. And Jaracz, who had voted for it the first time, abstained from voting.
 

I'm sorry about insulting you. I don't think I am. Perhaps you can explain how.
I wish I knew a better way to say it. But it's still true that you are presenting something as if it is a fact, when it is clearly untrue.
You indicated that R.Franz said that in 'Watchtower literature . . . [it states] unequivocally the world would end in 1975'
That's the claim I was responding to. It's a false statement because R.Franz never said that in either of his books. In fact, you appear to have known this, or at least you know it by now. And you even offered a quote that shows that R.Franz understood exactly what the Watchtower literature was stating about 1975.
Unfortunately, when you wish to show someone that their words are not true, it seems best to quote which words aren't true. It's not like everything you said is untrue, so I didn't wish to make a blanket statements and assumptions about your ideology as you have about mine.
In fact the portion you quote from the chapter called "1975: 'The Appropriate Time for God to Act'" is quickly followed up with these words proving that R.Franz was being very accurate:
Had the organization said “flat out” that 1975 would mark the start
of the millennium? No. But the above paragraph was the climax to
which all of the involved, carefully constructed argumentation of that
chapter had been building.
No outright, unqualified prediction was made about 1975. But
the writer had been willing to declare it to be “appropriate” and “most
fitting on God’s part” if God would start the millennium at that
particular time. It would seem reasonable that for an imperfect man
to say what is or what is not “fitting” for the Almighty God to do
would call for quite a measure of certainty, surely not the mere
‘expression of an opinion.’ Discretion would require, rather, would
demand that. Even stronger is the subsequent statement that “it would
be according to the loving purpose of Jehovah God for the reign
of Jesus Christ, the ‘Lord of the sabbath,’ to run parallel with the
seventh millennium of man’s existence,” which seventh millennium
had already been stated as due to begin in 1975.
I had noted that you listed 5 points supposedly about R.Franz, and you got all 5 of them completely wrong about R.Franz, so I speculated that you didn't really know as much as you thought about him. By the way, this matches what you said earlier in this same topic about me. I hope you didn't think you were insulting me. 😉 
At any rate, I agree that we all have different opinions, and I think I can manage to avoid further speculation.

Many at Bethel, and even a non-Bethel elder in the local Brooklyn Heights Congregation saw him as the natural next "President" after F.Franz. But I also thought it was obvious that he would not have wanted it. I also thought it was obvious he would not get it. Schroeder, Henschel and Jaracz seemed to be the most politically active. R.Franz was always quiet and serious and sorry to say it, he just seemed like too nice a guy. The kind of guy that would always finish last. You could listen to morning comments by Schroeder and Jaracz and get an idea of great assignments they had in the past (Schroeder was the UK Branch Servant in London). Schroeder actually mentioned F.Franz' age and started a quick discussion about potential genetic influence on longevity. But almost no one at Bethel even seemed to know that R.Franz had been the coordinator and primary writer of the huge Aid Book. His experiences he related at morning worship were usually of the sort "I once knew a brother or sister who did [this or that]" and it was sometimes an amusing anecdote that made a specific point to highlight the meaning of a proverb or other scripture.
But the decision to have a Governing Body actually came out the research that R.Franz produced for the Aid Book which discussed how the first-century congregations had  the "Elder arrangement." Even here he decided to get "permission" from F.Franz to publish this because it would be obvious that if people read the entry under Elder that he completed in 1969, Witnesses would wonder why we didn't implement the elder arrangement today in our congregations.
By 1971, the Society implemented the Elder arrangement in all congregations with a yearly rotation in place so no one would preside for too long as the "Presiding Elder" ("president" elder in some languages). And the Society's board was turned into a kind of Elder arrangement, too, with rotating committees, so that no one handled any one committee (like the Chairman's Committee, etc) for too long. This didn't have any effect on Society's decision-making however because the Society still had a President and Vice President and Treasurer, etc., and continued to make decisions as they always had. It was basically just another name for the board of directors at that time and it was expanding by three persons, including R.Franz.
It sounds like R.Franz thought this was a scriptural arrangement, and he might have even accepted the Presidency had it been offered. I have no idea. But I don't think he would have wanted it, and he as good as admits that he wouldn't have wanted such a thing.
I think you know that Henschel was given the Presidency after F.Franz. After 2000, the Presidency had nothing to do with the Governing Body any more and it was given to a person who did not claim to be of the "anointed."

From here you go on to indicate that there were differences between the opinions and beliefs of R.Franz and what is found in Watchtower literature. 
But I get the feeling, now, that you probably did not read his books, or did not remember what you read. Either that, or you found it necessary for some unstated purpose to skew the opinions and beliefs of R.Franz into something he did not say. For example:
He claims that 607 is a hugely relevant date to the Governing Body and to the Watchtower writers. And although he never mentions the date 587 or 586 in either book, I agree that his first book points to the fact that all the evidence he could find supports a date "twenty years later" than 607. His point here is that even though he found no evidence, he acquiesced.
We found absolutely nothing in support of 607 B.C.E. All
historians pointed to a date twenty years later.
Before preparing the Aid material on “Archaeology”
I had not realized that the number of
baked-clay cuneiform tablets found in the
Mesopotamian area and dating back to the
time of ancient Babylon numbered into the
tens of thousands. In all of these there was
nothing to indicate that the period of the
Neo-Babylonian Empire (in which period
Nebuchadnezzar’s reign figured) was of the
necessary length to fit our 607 B.C.E. date
for the destruction of Jerusalem. Everything
pointed to a period twenty years shorter than our published chronology
claimed.
Though I found this disquieting, I wanted to believe that our
chronology was right in spite of all the contrary evidence, that such
evidence was somehow in error. Thus, in preparing the material for
the Aid book, much of the time and space was spent in trying to
weaken the credibility of the archeological and historical evidence
that would make erroneous our 607 B.C. E. date and give a different
starting point for our calculations and therefore an ending date
different from 1914.
Charles Ploeger and I made a trip to Brown University in Providence,
Rhode Island, to interview Professor Abraham Sachs, a
specialist in ancient cuneiform texts, particularly those containing
astronomical data. We wanted to see if we could obtain any
information that would indicate any flaw or weakness whatsoever
in the astronomical data presented in many of the texts, data that
indicated our 607 B.C.E. date was incorrect. In the end, it became
evident that it would have taken a virtual conspiracy on the part of
the ancient scribes—with no conceivable motive for doing so—to
misrepresent the facts if, indeed, our figure was to be the right one.
Again, like an attorney faced with evidence he cannot overcome, my
effort was to discredit or weaken confidence in the witnesses from
ancient times who presented such evidence, the evidence of historical
texts relating to the Neo-Babylonian Empire. In themselves,
the arguments I presented were honest ones, but I know that their
intent was to uphold a date for which there was no historical support.
So, despite our heightened appreciation of certain principles, the
Aid book nonetheless contained many examples of our efforts to be
loyal to the Society’s teachings. In many respects, what we learned
through our experience did more for us than it did for the publication.

You would have read enough comments on here to know how JW's treat those that are d/fed and those that leave the org.
Some Witnesses have no feelings, they just go by the 'rules' of the JW Org. For instance :-
Our only daughter (H) that is still in the Org, 'grassed up' one of our other daughters, to the Elders. 
(H) didn't even consult us, mum and dad, even though I was still a JW and my wife was attending meetings with me and was an unbaptised publisher. (H) had some information and she just wanted to go straight to the Elders. She has no love, no mercy, she is just a robot JW. But other JW's see her as a really good person. 
The daughter that was 'in trouble' chose to leave the Org. But even though i was still a JW I stated to everyone that I would not shun my daughter. And my wife and I kept in contact with her.  So like I say it is an individual thing. 
However, when I left the JW Org of my own choice, because of the serious Child Abuse problem within it, I was completely shunned by the whole congregation, around 120 to 130 people. 
Now you show me 3 scriptures that directly state that congregants should shun me for leaving the Org for a good reason ? 
In my honest opinion the scriptures are written for the Anointed, not the earthly class. 
Much more is expected of the Anointed because they have a much closer relationship with God. (And i mean the true Anointed, not your GB) 
But your comment is about your worship of men, the GB. You are trying to protect their reputation. 
You are not looking for justice or mercy. You do not have 'the mind of Christ'. You are like our daughter (H), just a robot for the JW Org. 
Using silly expressions such as Anti-Pauline. Does it make you feel good ? I'm not impressed. 
God and Jesus Christ know everything about everyone. They know when people are falsely disfellowshipped, that is, disfellowshipped for non scriptural reasons, and they know when a person is shunned because that person takes an action in line with God's word. 
Your GB have placed themselves on high. They think they have the right to make non-scriptural rules to domineer people, just like the Pharisees did. 
If you are happy with that so be it, but be careful they may just turn on you some day. 
 
 

If Christ, who is one in Spirit with the Father (John 17:22),  did not know who would betray him when choosing the 12 apostles, then how does the uninspired GB know they are the "faithful and discreet slave"?    Luke 3:8; Matt 7:16

@Equivocation  Quote " But if a suit and tie is that bad, why are you wearing a suit and tie, let alone clothing if you say it is tradition of man? " 
When i was in the JW Org, I obeyed the rules. Rules of men. I didn't want to deliberately cause trouble or to embarrass my family by being moaned at by the police, sorry I mean Elders, of the congregation. 
We had an Elder in the congregation, a big man, that really suffered with the heat causing him problems. He never wore a jacket or tie in the hall, BUT he still had to wear a suit and tie when he went up on the platform. They had to put a big electric fan on the edge of the stage each time he was on there. So tell me where is the love and consideration for that Elder ?
And yes they didn't question him for not wearing a jacket and tie in the hall, but I did get 'spoken to' once for not wearing a tie, hence in future I conformed. 
In my opinion it becomes 'traditions of men' when it is not scriptural but is still enforced by 'those in power', the GB down to the Elders. 
And yes certain types of clothing are traditions of men if dictated by humans.
This point has been proven by women in certain secular jobs having to wear high heeled shoes all day, when they would prefer to wear flat comfortable shoes. I believe this has got to the point of actual court cases. I think that proves the tradition of MEN in the true sense. 
And the suit and tie was supposed to represent decency, honesty, trustworthiness, etc. But in many cases it was just used to trick people into thinking that way. However, it has been carried forward to this day, as a tradition of men. 
So is it still necessary ? 

It is understandable for me to see your disappoint about R.F. or similar characters inside JW. Yes, perhaps your view about him is correct. But for many of us is of less concern why he wrote a book about GB and WT. We can feel sorrow for him or we can say he is/was hypocrite. Nevertheless, information's we get from his inside insight about WT GB mechanism are more important then he alone. Because "The Truth" is in question, not he, not me, not you. 
He was the one who has must struggle with HIS conscience why he stay inside and support all wrongs he knew about, despite knowledge he had. He was the one who has been responsible for covering this too long and so on. I do not care, in final stage of matter, what was his motive. Only important thing for me is;  Is it that or this, what he said, true?      

Hi! 
I see this subject this way. If somebody made decision, rule (that in KH meeting) how particular clothes and details in clothes are only acceptable (but some other fashion is even forbidden or just "not good")  for people who coming in KH, then after some time, this rule come to be tradition. And in general, with time passing, members will not consider this as just rule but as tradition, folkloric issue, for particular people in particular social group, JW community in this case.   

What do you mean by meaningless understandings? And what do you mean by "what the world doesn't already know? Please explain a little. Perhaps give examples of the 'meaningless understandings' you have in mind. And what is the 'knowledge' you are talking about that the world ready knows?