Alphonse

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?

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.

It's alarming to witness someone so ready to defend something trivial by embracing exaggerated claims. I would argue that the truth lies somewhere in between the culture of past and present, and it's up to us to use our common sense to see through the distraction of the disgruntled. The truth is not always black and white, and it requires a thorough examination of the facts deciding who is on the right side is essential. I strongly believe in religious freedom and oppose any form of oppression that restricts people's worship. Unlike the Vatican, which seemed to endorse the death penalty in the past for those who interpret scripture differently just like the British suppressed religious freedom and then were willing to kill their fellow Christians over it, I'd advocate for a more tolerant approach. However, getting into arguments over insignificant things like beards seems rather trivial and immature. Let's leave that type of thinking to schoolchildren and focus on the true matters that make a difference.
When I read the Constitution without inserting my opinion, it becomes apparent that it offers a valuable opportunity to grasp the exact wording and the intentions of the founding fathers.

Apostates always highlight trivial matters. It's interesting to see if witnesses accept the exaggeration. I often ponder why many in the Catholic faith prioritize being clean-shaven over traditional practices. What was once respectable in the past is now deemed acceptable in the present.
A: First of all, there is at present no law in canonical discipline which forbids beards, so our reader can be tranquil as to the legitimacy of the practice. With respect to local laws there are some religious orders which recommend that its members either shave or, on the contrary, have a beard.

https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/beards-and-priests-4752

We are all guests here.
If you were a guest in my house, and acted belligerent, snotty, insulting, unpleasant, argumentative or snide …. or for any reason whatsoever, real or imaginary, I did not consider you presence welcome, you would find yourself out on the street zip quick.
Complaining that I am not “fair” would have no audience or consideration. Complaining that my motives are “because I did not LIKE you” would be correct. 
The owners and moderators here have every right to run the show any way they see fit.
I used to have my rants deleted regularly … and I took no offense or umbrage … because it’s THEIR forum.
They do not represent themselves as Agents of God.
 

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.

Your perspective is simply incorrect. In the past, this might not have been a topic of conversation, but times have changed. The way people perceive a respectable appearance has evolved from being an issue to being a norm. Is it fair to solely blame the worldview for this shift?
Your choice of the word, "tranny," to describe the agreement between fellow believers seems rather inappropriate. However, it is important to note that the Watchtower takes the matter of global trends and styles very seriously. When Jehovah's Witnesses present themselves to the public, they do so as representatives of God. I'm curious, are you suggesting that God is a tyrant?   The decision by the GB most likely stems from the need for a level playing field, as other countries do not have a problem with beards. It may have become an issue when witnesses noticed different cultures sporting beards at international assemblies. Now that the playing field is level, why should anyone care?

Do you believe that everyone in Jesus's time, including the apostles, had beards? This idea seems irrational.
The power of the Holy Spirit rests solely with God, who grants it. Neither the Elders nor the Governing Body have the power to bestow the Holy Spirit upon anyone. Any belief otherwise is mistaken. Therefore, this cynical view is flawed.

The difference is that God did not declare that organs were precious to him and provide rules for their use. 
There is not even a stated objection to straight cannibalism ! None whatsoever!
Jehovah DID declare that blood was precious to him, and in addition to SPECIFIC rules, the respect for honoring his jealous possessiveness of blood is a common CONSISTENT theme that runs throughout the Old and New Testament.
THAT is the difference!

Fair is a place where you eat corn dogs and ride a ferris wheel.

Now, now—not so prickly, if you please. It is not so much an insult as it is a request for clarification. Have you ever befriended anybody online? Even fine Xero you appear to find fault with.

I apologize. You just sounded pompous at the time. (Sorry most of the time) Besides "the taking of offense it what rests in the bosom of the stupid ones." Ec. 7:9

What?

And yet here you are

Interesting what nonsense exists in the minds of fellow travelers.

At one time I held a similar view. But, unlike you, when pressed to defend my position I found it impossible without invoking provisions of Mosaic law, which was a law that never applied to anyone other than either natural born Jews or individuals who for their own reasons decided to convert to Judaism. But aside from natural born Jews, God never required anyone else to submit to provisions of that law and, to the contrary, the whole time He was accepting worship of persons outside Judaism who feared him and worked righteousness. Hence what James presents I can see only through the lens of standards predating Mosaic law that would have applied to everyone. There is no standard predating Mosaic law remotely suggesting the substance of blood should be treated as a sacred substance. Just think about that carefully, especially in regard to what was said to Noah. There is, for instance, no pre-Mosaic law standard suggesting it would have been wrong to transplant blood for medicinal purposes to either treat or prevent a health condition, and even in ancient times blood was useful for both and was used for both.

A teaching could be wrong because it's unsound.
A teaching could be wrong because it's false.
Though both are wrong, the latter would be more wrong than the former.

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.

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.

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.

He’s not disfellowshipped.

You gave me an excellent new perspective through the example of Aaron and the Golden Calf and the Stockholm Syndrome.
That is why I commented before that the spiritual condition of JWs is in great danger.
They agree to have Modern Aaron (GB) tell them who and what YHVH is. They have come to love their Kidnappers, they depend on their words so much and most JWs cannot leave them, cannot escape.