Pudgy

As it should be.
So, then, each of us will render an account for himself to God. (Ro 14:12)
 
 
 
 

You know (rhetorically), 85% of all problems discussed here on this thread could be SOLVED if the Congregations were governed SPECIFICALLY and EXACTLY  as Jesus directed in Matthew 18:14-17.
What we are seeing now is not even close.
When we interact with people of the nations and tax collectors, who among us here treats them like lepers and takes their families hostage if they don’t do the same?
Nobody.

What does a person have to be, to want to be photographed with cardboard and papers. lol

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.

He is not the only religious leader who supports nonsense.

Quote from article:
In response to concerns over the scope of the project, the applicant has proposed building heights up to 75 feet in exchange for designating half the acreage as open space. The proposed MU3 district allows for building heights up to 45 feet. The applicant said that because of the topography, 75 feet buildings would appear smaller than the 45-foot buildings.
Indeed this building on the right looks lower than the one on the left.
 
 

Yes. Every religious institution is guilty of something.

Perfect! 😂 And all duly noted!

I think the reasoning the WT would go with will be something like this: The Acts 15 decree said to abstain from food polluted by idols, and from the meat of strangled animals, too: 
 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.  Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols [εἰδωλοθύτων], from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.
There is a very specific Greek word for "food polluted by idols." [εἰδωλοθύτων] Paul used that exact same specific Greek word in 1 Cor. 8.
Note first what Paul says about "food sacrificed to idols." [εἰδωλοθύτων]:
(1 Cor 8 ) Now about food sacrificed to idols [εἰδωλοθύτων]: We know that “We all possess knowledge.” But knowledge puffs up while love builds up. Those who think they know something do not yet know as they ought to know. But whoever loves God is known by God. So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: [εἰδωλοθύτων]:We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is no God but one.” For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. But not everyone possesses this knowledge. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat sacrificial food they think of it as having been sacrificed to a god, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do.
And Paul goes on to imply that you as a Christian could actually go ahead and eat this meat sacrificed to an idol right there inside the pagan idol temple itself. But that it's not a good idea because of the weak Christian with a weak conscience who might see you and can't understand why you might be eating food sacrificed to idols in any place.
Then in 1 Cor 10, Paul goes on to say that we don't even need to question whether food was strangled, or whether it was bled correctly, or whether it was sacrificed to an idol. The only thing to be concerned about are those people with weak consciences who are still around and who think we still need the Mosaic Law. (Or at least they were still around in Paul's day.) 
Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, for, “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.”[ If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” [εἰδωλοθύτων] then do not eat it, both for the sake of the one who told you and for the sake of conscience. I am referring to the other person’s conscience, not yours. For why is my freedom being judged by another’s conscience? If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for?
So a very specific thing that Acts 15 told Gentiles to abstain from was food sacrificed to idols. Yet Paul said go ahead and eat it without any qualms of conscience. Paul said to eat whatever an UNBELIEVER puts in front of you to eat; eat ANYTHING sold in the meat market. This could easily include bloody, strangled meat. ANYTHING!! An unbeliever didn't even necessarily follow the Noahide Laws, much less the Mosaic Laws. 
There were people in Corinth who thought they could argue that fornication and idolatry were OK. Some might consider celebrating the Lord's evening meal along with one of the big idol feasts that each city often held. Paul said that was idolatry, and Paul said to Flee from idolatry. Some were evidently "proud" that the congregation could put up with a notorious fornicator, but Paul gave arguments in 1 Corinthians about why fornication was always wrong. 
So if you follow Paul, you might find that bloody meat and food sacrificed to idols was now a matter of conscience, but you couldn't argue for idolatry and fornication.
The best explanation must therefore be that the holy spirit led those Christians who were still zealous for the Law of Moses to find a reason for some useful compromise. It would be necessary for Gentiles to follow this compromise for as long as Gentile Christians needed to associate with Jewish Christians who were still zealous for the Law.
Acts 21: Then they said to Paul: "You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law.
But after 70 CE, no Jewish Christians could be zealous for the Law any more. If you thought you had to follow any part of the Law then you must follow the whole Law, and the whole Law required the temple. The book of Hebrews shows how the entire temple arrangement had become fulfilled for Jewish Christians. There were no more sacrifices and the city of Jerusalem was not a city that remains, so Jewish Christians (Hebrews) needed to now go OUTSIDE the camp, once and for all time:
(Hebrews 13) Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings. It is good for our hearts to be strengthened by grace, not by eating ceremonial foods, which is of no benefit to those who do so.  We have an altar from which those who minister at the tabernacle have no right to eat. The high priest carries the blood of animals into the Most Holy Place as a sin offering, but the bodies are burned outside the camp. And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood.  Let us, then, go to him outside the camp, bearing the disgrace he bore.  For here we do not have an enduring city, but we are looking for the city that is to come. Through Jesus, therefore, let us continually offer to God a sacrifice of praise—the fruit of lips that openly profess his name. And do not forget to do good and to share with others, for with such sacrifices God is pleased.

Can humans actually invoke God to “bless” something?
… sounds a bit like “casting a spell”, but a “good” one.

semantics … but you are correct more than I.

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.

Yeah, it’s pretty much like I bless everyone here…No Exceptions!!…but not necessarily the dumb things many of them say.

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

I should find a good and accurate newspaper article that conveys their decision and explains this move by the Church.

I. Blessing in the sacrament of marriage
4. The recent response of the Holy Father Francis to the second of the five questions posed by the two cardinals[4] offers the possibility of further consideration of the question, especially in its pastoral implications. It is about avoiding "recognizing as marriage something that it is not".[5] Therefore, rites and prayers that can create confusion between what is contrary to marriage and what is fundamental to marriage as "an exclusive, permanent and indissoluble union between a man and a woman, naturally open to the birth of children" are inadmissible.[6] This belief is based on the timeless Catholic teaching on marriage. It is only in this context that sexual relations find their natural, appropriate and completely human meaning. Church teaching on this matter remains constant.
5. This is also the understanding of marriage that we find in the Gospel. Therefore, regarding the blessing, the Church has the right and duty to avoid any type of ceremony that could contradict this belief or lead to any confusion. This is also the meaning of the Responsum of the then Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which states that the Church does not have the authority to bless same-sex unions.
6. It should be emphasized that when the sacrament of marriage is celebrated, it is not about any kind of blessing, but about a gesture that is reserved for an ordained minister. In this case, the blessing of the ordained minister is directly related to the concrete union of a man and a woman who, with their consent, establish a permanent and indissoluble union. This allows us to better emphasize the risk of mixing the blessing, given to any other union, with the rite of the sacrament of marriage.
https://www.bitno.net/vijesti/vatikan/fiducia-supplicans-evo-sto-pise-u-dokumentu-koji-spominje-blagoslov-parova-u-neredovitim-situacijama/

Half an hour ago in the central TV daily they said that the Pope blesses persons and not their relationship.

Remember back when everyone was in a tizzy about circumcision?

Because they tried to do it gradually and it didn’t work:
https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2023/12/beards-get-the-green-light.html
I did my very best to reassemble all—the good, the bad, and the ugly—stopping short only at the ridiculous.

I am inclined to believe all you have stated, and more.  Like I mentioned before, it might have been a good idea for someone to check Aaron’s tent for some leftover golden calf gold.
Of course, studies suggest alternate explanations ….
U.S. - A new study released by LifeWay Research confirmed what everyone knew all along: beard length is directly connected to preaching ability.
"Throughout church history, the ones with long, flowing beards could preach sermons that would shake the gates of hell," said head researcher Dr. Jonathan "The Spurge" Pendleton, who happens to have a long, flowing beard himself. "The bald-faced ones are the heretics."
Presbyterian and Reformed ministers across the country agreed with the findings, saying it was a self-evident truth that God has revealed in the hearts of all men. "Only the depraved suppress this truth as they listen to their peach-fuzzed, wanna be pastors," said Charles J. Finklestein, an OPC minister in Philadelphia, as he stroked his 3-foot-long beard. "May they receive the condemnation they are due."
The study obviously found that women can't preach at all from a podium.


And in another study :
ORANGE COUNTY, NY - A study of over 2,000 non-JW bearded men found a "strong correlation" between a thick, bushy growth of facial hair and uncanny supernatural abilities such as flight, powerful regenerative abilities, heat vision, and enhanced strength, researchers at the Jehovah’s Witnesses Warwick World Headquarters announced Monday.
"Besides the obvious benefits like a manly look, warmth in the winter, and enhanced preaching and teaching skills, beards seem to grant the owner any number of enhanced capabilities," a Governing Body Helper told reporters Monday. "We witnessed one caged disfellowshipped JW  who grew a beard, and after it breached a length of one inch, could morph back and forth from an overweight  two dimensional cartoon dog, and was instantly gifted with the ability to run away at the speed of sound."
"It seems the obvious choice for any man is to grow a beard. We really don't see any reason why you wouldn't."
Wayward Pioneer Brothers returning from vacations who had  beards were observed slaughtering their foes by generating and hurling searing hot orbs of fire, or freezing enemies to death with deadly cold-breath abilities.
According to the full results of the study, available at Warwick Bethel website:   JW.org/donations/accounts/internal_audits/lawyers/ bankruptcy/beards, , subjects who shaved their beards immediately lost their powers, and "also looked really childish and dumb."
(Edited for clarity and readability)

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.  
 

That’s why I sell Pudgycoin, in a ten pound box! 
Perhaps you could sell your books by weight?
 

Did you know that at an intersection with 4-way stop signs, where two cars arrive at the same time, the man with the larger beard has the right-of-way ?

All of that nonsense is why I cannot attribute common sense honest motives to the new “beards ok” change.
It’ somehow has to be motivated by money.