Pudgy

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. 

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.

Read carefully the following. Print it out if you have to .
What it is being admitting to is that the GB had been terribly WRONG since the time of Judge Rutherford, and persecuted the Brotherhood and exiled them and chastised them publicly and privately since then.
How many thousands, or tens of thousands of Brothers have been chased away AND had their lives ruined because they could not tolerate this irrational tyranny?

If the shoe fits.

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

Frankly Scarlett, I don’ give a damn!  
YOU made the assertions without proof, Georgie. 
 

The answer to that is simple to give. View all illustrations in WTJWorg publications. Angels have beards. Jesus has a beard. If Jesus and the angels are the image of the invisible God, then YHVH also has a beard.
Another reason for this is that no one from the WTJWorg Art Department has ever seen the angels or Jesus before and after he ascended into heaven, yet they portray them as if they saw them wearing beards.
So, the perception of the "guardian of the doctrine" and the artist set the rule.
WTJWorg publications have Jesus without a beard in the past and Jesus with a beard after doctrine have changed.
 

That is like saying you would only listen to KKK members if they wore fitted sheets.

The GB has allowed what the Bible has never forbidden. Truly unprecedented! GB's personal arbitrariness in forbidding believers to wear beards came because of the alleged alignment with the "heavenly chariot"??
Can anyone in their right mind believe this? As if to say, "The angels have started wearing beards, or have for a while, so it is time to level the playing field for JWs on earth too". 
How a GB member explains the turnaround in doctrine? Yes, you read correctly, this is about doctrine. Like every other instruction and order published in the WTJWorg.
So we have these elements that prompted the GB meeting and its discussion:
1. frequently asked questions about beards (implying that JW men want to be like people in the world who wear beards by choice) Why is this question important to JW men, anyway?
2. doctrinal change is related to the "scene of this world is changing" (i.e. adapting to the "low" standards of this "satanic" world, which is "getting "worse" by the day, is an acceptable price for the coexistence of "believers" and "non-believers") How about firm GB claims, "We shall never change" our doctrine/rule about this and that?
3. responsible people from politics and business wear beards (i.e. the external differences between those who "serve "God" and those who "serve "Satan" are to be eliminated)They compare themselves to the people of the "worldly elements" who, they say, will be destroyed because they are "God's enemies".
The instruction manual for the new doctrine reads:
A JW person should not take a stand for or against a new doctrine. Although some JWs have faithfully followed the former prohibition against wearing beards, no one should regret this today, because it is an indicator of spiritual immaturity. And most importantly, JWs should not have their own opinion on this new issue of beards, nor should they promote anything that contradicts the new GB instructions.
We can conclude that the elders should have prevented any promotion of beards in the past. From now on, they should prevent any attempt to promote the regular shaving of the beard.
We also conclude that this is just a preparation to finally allow the sisters to wear pants whenever they want.
 God bless you all with this new ...something.
 
 

George88; You OBVIOUSLY did not recognize that Stephen Lett gave as the reason  for the  change is that THE WORLD APPROVED.
Watch the Video.
Three times.

Read carefully the following. Print it out if you have to .
What it is being admitting to is that the GB had been terribly WRONG since the time of Judge Rutherford, and persecuted the Brotherhood and exiled them and chastised them publicly and privately since then.
How many thousands, or tens of thousands of Brothers have been chased away AND had their lives ruined because they could not tolerate this irrational tyranny?

George88; You OBVIOUSLY did not recognize that Stephen Lett gave as the reason  for the  change is that THE WORLD APPROVED.
Watch the Video.
Three times.

Read carefully the following. Print it out if you have to .
What it is being admitting to is that the GB had been terribly WRONG since the time of Judge Rutherford, and persecuted the Brotherhood and exiled them and chastised them publicly and privately since then.
How many thousands, or tens of thousands of Brothers have been chased away AND had their lives ruined because they could not tolerate this irrational tyranny?

I remember having to tell a young woman that her dreadlocks weren't in keeping with the field ministry, that it was associated with Rastafarians and all that related to the same. She wanted to get baptized and the body left it up to me to explain to her the whole thing. I was annoyed at having to deal with being the congregation fashion coordinator on two counts: 1st that people couldn't read the room and conform to somewhere in the middle and 2nd that I had to enforce something that was a personal choice people were making. I did it thinking to myself that these kinds of people would likely have argued with Moses about circumcision, when there is zero explanation in scripture as to the reasons for it being a requirement other than Jehovah saying "because I told you to". I see both sides of these things. On the one hand, it's nice to have an external sign of people who could be troublemakers, on the other hand "Really? I have to deal with beards, and other fashion concerns? Don't we have bigger fish to fry?" Then I see it all as some kind of useful social exercise. It forces me to think about the benefits and hazards of conformity, and what standards to use, and balancing the differences. When we choose to look different from those we have social bonds with, we are sending messages. There's a whole social science dealing with these "semiotics". Are we Jehovah's Christian Witnesses? Then what does that look like? How does it act? Does it look like seeking it's own personal advantage? Does it look like lording it over the brothers and sisters in telling them what to do with regard to personal matters? Nature identifies juveniles by the way that they look when they are young, vs when they become mature. What do mature people look like? Do they wear themselves out over fashion? 
I remember one elder before my appointment asking me whether I wondered why I wasn't appointed as an elder yet seeing as how I'd been a regular pioneer and servant for almost ten years then and was regularly giving talks outside the congregation. My response was "I imagined it was because Jehovah decided it wasn't the right time". I never asked, because I cared, but I didn't care either if you know what I mean, it's not like I didn't have things to do. The only things I didn't have to do looked more like the annoying things like judicial committees with people who can't take hints from the Bible about how to behave themselves. His reaction was a bit surprised, but then I could see that he needed to give me some counsel so I relented and he went on. 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 job with the next publisher.
 
Anyway, I'm rambling now....

I just found the remark about keeping up with Jehovah's chariot a little strange, and not quite sure what was meant by that.
"All of us need to remember that the earthly part of Jehovah's organization is always striving to reflect the heavenly part-to keep up with it, as it were. Remember how fast the chariot in Ezekiel's vision moved? Like flashes of lightning! (Ezek. 1:14) Any who seek to run ahead of that chariot, trying to force change prematurely,.."
It is obvious that the no wearing beards policy was never from Jehovah in the first place,, obviously not as he created men with the DNA to grow one. 
But somehow we have now compared this new decision  to the issue of circumcision in the 1st Century. Jehovah also created men with foreskins, but he was also the one to give the law about circumcision. But he never gave a law about needing to be clean shaven. That was a purely a man made law. So how was that trying to keep up with Jehovah's chariot and striving to reflect the heavenly part? Are they saying they failed in this regard? I think I would have probably left that part out....

I think I missed the point at first when I heard Brother Lett say this: Others might feel disappointed, saying, in effect, ‘I supported the policy about grooming for all those years. Now I feel let down!’ But is either reaction appropriate?
My first thought was the brother(s) who had to dismiss a brother at Bethel in 1979. The young brother was a Bethel elder, loved by everyone because he always seemed humble and ready to help in any way. He was counted on for a lot of accounting tasks, and Bethelite vacation days, and he was also in charge of requisitions for the purchase of non-Society books that Bethelites would order for their own personal libraries. (I got Josephus and Matthew Henry and Barnes' Notes and a few other books through him.) He came to breakfast one day with well-groomed but obvious weekend-length whiskers, not just "5 o'clock shadow." I remember thinking that he better go back to his room after breakfast to shave before going to work. He didn't, and he must have been called to ask what he was doing, because he was dismissed from Bethel immediately.
I imagined the disappointment and pain of the elders or committees that had to dismiss such a well-loved brother. I think it was Dean Songer who dismissed him, and Songer was probably the cleanest cut man at Bethel with a short 1960's NASA/FBI crewcut. He might have dismissed him with pleasure, but I thought of him anyway as someone who might have been disappointed in losing such a great asset to the Society.
Of course, if you were a brother, usually black, who could show medical or visible evidence of skin bumps and bleeding after each shave, you already had a reprieve. They had "skin in the game," but they would more typically suffer the loss of it, and surreptitiously touch up their wounds with bloody tissues at breakfast so that the scabs would be dry throughout the day.    

Obviously because he was 6'5!

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.

The reason I endured all that is that this was being multiplied all over the Earth by Brothers everywhere and I could not cave in on this issue.
…. but I look at the price I paid, and it bankrupted me.

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.
There was not.

One of the two pictures of Brother Lett above is not real. I just told an AI program to add a beard. It might be what Brother Lett would look like if he led by example, as in:  "As you see how their conduct turns out, imitate their face." 

My mum and I were trying to imagine some GB members with a beard, and we decided, nah, brother Lett wouldn't suit one, and here, this proved us wrong, it actually really suits him! 

WOW!
I suppose in the interest of unity I should have tolerated during my entire adult lifetime, which is almost over, the unrelenting discrimination, ostracism, alienation, by the Elders, over and over and over in “the little back room”, being shunned and rejected by the Congregation brothers and sisters, in EVERY Congregation where I had a beard (… except ONE near Pittsburgh, PA, in 1977-1978), and having been sent home in bitter tears when I showed up for field service at a grocery store parking lot rendezvous for having a beard.
In the interest of unity, I should overlook and forget the 60 continuous, unrelenting years of boneheaded stupidity that made my life defensive and hard, denying me opportunities for service and Christian fellowship, and the life distorting, crippling, crushing loneliness I had to endure, each and every day.
Oops!
Silly me.