Thinking

Yes, I see your point, and I agree. It could, from our point of view, have been made clearer. Could it be because they are two different contexts?
Like when Paul says:
(Romans 3:28) 28 For we consider that a man is declared righteous by faith apart from works of law. . .
And James mentions something apparently contradictory:
(James 2:24) . . .You see that a man is to be declared righteous by works and not by faith alone.

I would say that Paul, in the aforementioned texts, is alluding to eating meat previously offered to an idol in a pagan temple of worship. Meat that was sold in the temple itself, and the income from the operation financed said place.
Paul says that the Christian with a weak conscience thinks that he is contributing to false worship, but the strong one only thinks that he is paying for a service: receiving food. That is, he does not make a donation to promote something idolatrous.
In other words, I don't find that Paul even remotely addresses the issue of whether or not the meat was bled. That idea was not under consideration in the context we are talking about. I believe that if the Christian suspected that this was the case (that the meat contained blood), his conscience would prevent him from eating it. But that point is not discussed in those verses.
 
(1 Corinthians 10:25-28) 25 Eat whatever is sold in a meat market, making no inquiry because of your conscience, 26 for “to Jehovah belong the earth and everything in it.” 27 If an unbeliever invites you and you want to go, eat whatever is set before you, making no inquiry on account of your conscience. 28 But if anyone says to you, “This is something offered in sacrifice,” do not eat because of the one who told you and because of conscience. 
 
So the question was whether or not the meat was offered in a pagan sacrifice, not the blood it might contain.
I think so, but I may be wrong.

I get what you are saying but if the society said this then each would have to stand before Jehovah on their decision..and have done the homework……for me…well I will take the same stand as now…and again if they did that..it would come down to legal issues..not spiritual..and they would as they have to now stand before their God…
It would remind me of organ transplants….and the change they had on that…if I had lost my son because of that…..I’d be furious…now you can have a heart transplant and it’s celebrated…without blood….so your thought on it is not out of the possibilities.
Even now with organ transplants I’m on shakey ground….not for myself..as I’m at the end scale of life anyway..but if my son got ill and they offered him heart and lung transplant…I probably would feel relieved and want it….how does one know…I guess that scripture that says if you sin against your own conscience then it’s wrong….im too tired to find it.

I get what you are saying but if the society said this then each would have to stand before Jehovah on their decision..and have done the homework……for me…well I will take the same stand as now…and again if they did that..it would come down to legal issues..not spiritual..and they would as they have to now stand before their God…
It would remind me of organ transplants….and the change they had on that…if I had lost my son because of that…..I’d be furious…now you can have a heart transplant and it’s celebrated…without blood….so your thought on it is not out of the possibilities.
Even now with organ transplants I’m on shakey ground….not for myself..as I’m at the end scale of life anyway..but if my son got ill and they offered him heart and lung transplant…I probably would feel relieved and want it….how does one know…I guess that scripture that says if you sin against your own conscience then it’s wrong….im too tired to find it.

My speculations aren't worth the time to read them, but I'm guessing a timeline like the following: 
2024: No more Circuit Overseers. (The reason that the District Overseers were let go was not because they were costing too much money for cars, convention travel, etc, but because they tended to draw too close a connection between the Headquarters (WTBTS) and the direction followed within all the congregations. This resulted in some legal problems when WT lawyers claimed that the elders shepherd the flock on their own, and the guidance from HQ is not rule-based but only principle-based. But the same legal issue applies with Circuit Overseers.
2025: Shunning is now a matter of conscience. We should all be wary of our associations, but exactly how we implement a shunning policy is up to each one of us. Scriptures will include some Mosaic Law principles related to immediate family, and especially Jesus' parable of the Prodigal Son who was welcomed from afar off, before the father knew anything about motives or repentance.
2026: Blood related therapies in any form are now (officially) a matter of conscience. 
2027: All Bible prophecies said to have a specific fulfillment in 1918, 1919, 1921, . . even into the 1940's will now be officially off the books.
2028: Head coverings now a matter of conscience. But no sister will dare conduct in front of a brother without one.
2034: October 1st "JW Broadcast" and additional GB announcement on October 2nd both offer renewed speculation about 1914 + 120 years = 2034 (i.e. "on or about October 4th, 2034")
2034: Amidst winks and nods, and even some outright laughter, the Annual Meeting will be announced for Sunday October 8th 2034 with simulcasting everywhere to all congregations. Expect announcement that "after careful consideration over the previous several days" ...the 1914 doctrine will be dropped completely at this meeting on October 8th.
2034: Great Tribulation and Armageddon begins October 9, 2034.

So Brother Rando was right..
2026…so I could argue that means fornication and idol worship was a matter of conscience 
I like your speculations but I dont want to wait for ten years………tho the 120 yrs thing is a big thing in my mind.

So Brother Rando was right..
2026…so I could argue that means fornication and idol worship was a matter of conscience 
I like your speculations but I dont want to wait for ten years………tho the 120 yrs thing is a big thing in my mind.

Twiddle, twaddle. The pope is meaningless and so is whatever comes out of his mouth.

I think that's a logical stretch, but I have heard similar ideas about the recent change to allow publishers to be counted even without any hourly goal to report. In an instant, it could bring up the number of publishers to include those who are just attending and rarely report. If membership now reflects attendance rather than regular service reports, then the numbers go up. This can have the effect of making more Witnesses more enthusiastic about the organization. Remember how we used to hear announcements of increases in country after country at conventions and we'd clap and cheer. This year the only place they pointed to, so far, was the Philippines.
If anyone feels like a full member who didn't before, they might feel more inclined to contribute. It also can make for easier converts who might have previously been taken aback at this "salesmen's approach" to making converts. (If you don't know what I mean, look at some of the older publications referring to sales goals and book-selling campaigns, and compare it to any sales meetings from those days when it was popular for people to go door-to-door selling encyclopedias, vitamins, Amway, magazine subscriptions, Fuller Brush, vacuums, Mary Kay, snake oil, etc.)
There is also the more cynical view that there are a couple of countries that give the JWs a monetary "reward" based on the number of JWs in those countries. This is based on the idea that the religions tend to take some of the burden away from the government for charity, social events, child education, elderly care, weddings, funerals, etc.  
Therefore if a religion increases the number of members, they increase their government "reimbursement." Using a membership number closer to the Memorial attendance could be a financial boon in those countries.
A change in beard policy doesn't seem to fit very well. At best it might make a very few persons feel like "full members" when they didn't feel that way before. It could potentially allow more persons to more easily convert, and therefore more likely to contribute. 
I think we've all heard the rumors that the Organization is losing money, and this has driven the reduction in KH's all over the world. We have even heard it stated in videos on jw.org (not just leaked ones). I suspect a connection to lawsuits and potential lawsuits over sexual abuse, blood, and now shunning. But losing money could also just be based on over-optimism about video projects, and building projects, not the lawsuits. And I have seen no evidence that even that cynicism about number of members, and additional converts is true. 
I prefer to think that the Society just wanted to finally "get out of our hair" on this matter. Nit-picking over such details could stubble someone.  
 

I would like to think that I knew the price I would have to pay, (and I did, for 60 years) in advance, and that never caving in is one reason the Brotherhood has been partially freed from pervasive petty tyranny that was the complete OPPOSITE of being scripturally based.
I hope this is just the beginning of much needed reform.
There is no substitute for Victory!

Obama would bow so low to Saudi royalty it looked like he was searching for a lost contact lens.

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.

He’s not disfellowshipped.

Yes I have…but I was waiting for someone else to bring it up…….

Yes I have…but I was waiting for someone else to bring it up…….

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.

A lot of talk here about some possible ulterior motive to the lifting of the beard ban (although it hasn't been a "ban" for some years now, but still, WT illustrations kept using the no beard as a sign of spirituality). It really was a little hard to fathom whether the GB were for or against beards and were just trying to be subtle knowing there is no Biblicaly sound reason to outright ban them, but they didn't like them and wished no one really wore them. Sometimes WT's subtlety forces one to read between the lines, but often it can give those in responsible positions (elders) too much power because those bits between the lines can be individually interpreted. And this is evidently what happened. 
Finally the GB's hand was "forced" to speak clearly so that every Tom, Dick and Harry understood. After all, wouldn't it be silly if the brotherhood fell apart over a beard misunderstanding!
But has anyone wondered about all these pretty big changes (hour requirements, pulling two disfelliwshiping videos, another chance during the GT and beards) coming shortly after the rearrangement of the members of the GB? 
 

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.

There won’t be an apology or a “ we should have handled that differently”
as then it’s getting into legalities……I know you have been seriously hurt…and it’s a crying shame that only those with such scars really get what you are saying.
Im happy for your sons too and also my grandchildren…a different era of things..and Jehovah remembers those who have drifted….he doesn’t forget them.

Your looking at it the wrong way…you are victorious…..but no one’s going to admit it…..the stupidity of man made rules…is being uncovered….
years ago we had a young brother who was 6’5 and he was a pioneer….and he had a ned Kelly beard..( long one ) don’t know how he got away with it.

This was a very good post…but for those who have extremely deep scars it’s hard to read or hard to digest….i think just acknowledging the wrongness goes a long way in healing……( they are not actually doing this but they are still changing things )……. SOMEONE is making them bend their knees on certain things…..and he will use whatever he has at hand to do that…..personally I am of this mind……and I keep reminding myself I must still keep bending my knee to that someone…I know who he is using…..he will correct those people not so much for them/me…but for his own name sake.
That was a excellent clip!

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. 

This is what Jehovah has said: “Cursed is the able-bodied man who puts his trust in earthling man and actually makes flesh his [chariot]. - Jer. 17:5
"Neither be called leaders, for your Leader is one, the Christ." - Mt. 23:10
 

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.’