JW Insider

I need this in every day life :))) Memorized is hard task for me. 

Let's see...how do I make fun of this....
Just add a mushroom?
Yellow cake uranium?
But I think the woman in the center still doesn't know that she has just leaned her her head a little too far forward. The man standing behind her on her left seems to know, however.

@Jack Ryan said:How do you feel about being told that you MUST wear your badge even when out to dinner at night with your family after a convention?
Never happened yet. But if it did, I would take it off.

This had become a kind of cliche for experiences given from the assemblies. You would always hear someone say that they were learning about the truth, but that they had a beard and didn't like to dress in a suit and tie . . . and then . . . voila! . . . one day this person will show up at the Hall, and to everyone's surprise . . . he will be clean-shaven. The audience would even clap at this point, as if it were a bigger turning point than their baptism.
*** yb11 p. 117 Papua New Guinea ***
The next day, I arrived at the convention clean-shaven.
*** yb93 pp. 176-177 Honduras ***
The next day he was clean-shaven and had short hair! He asked for a Bible study, and a brother happily complied.
*** km 7/04 p. 1 par. 3 Imitate Jehovah’s Justice ***
To her pleasant surprise, the next day he was clean-shaven and had short hair! He asked for a Bible study, which a brother was happy to conduct, and progressed to dedication and baptism.
*** w12 4/1 p. 15 The Bible Changes Lives ***
. I quit overdrinking and taking drugs. I also cut my hair, shaved off my beard, and stopped dressing only in black.
*** w02 2/1 p. 27 Jehovah Taught Us Endurance and Perseverance ***
As they made spiritual progress, they came to their Bible study shaved, hair neatly combed, and wearing a shirt and tie in the middle of August—one of the hottest months in Greece!
I'm sure that most of us  know that the above examples are only a small sampling.

This had become a kind of cliche for experiences given from the assemblies. You would always hear someone say that they were learning about the truth, but that they had a beard and didn't like to dress in a suit and tie . . . and then . . . voila! . . . one day this person will show up at the Hall, and to everyone's surprise . . . he will be clean-shaven. The audience would even clap at this point, as if it were a bigger turning point than their baptism.
*** yb11 p. 117 Papua New Guinea ***
The next day, I arrived at the convention clean-shaven.
*** yb93 pp. 176-177 Honduras ***
The next day he was clean-shaven and had short hair! He asked for a Bible study, and a brother happily complied.
*** km 7/04 p. 1 par. 3 Imitate Jehovah’s Justice ***
To her pleasant surprise, the next day he was clean-shaven and had short hair! He asked for a Bible study, which a brother was happy to conduct, and progressed to dedication and baptism.
*** w12 4/1 p. 15 The Bible Changes Lives ***
. I quit overdrinking and taking drugs. I also cut my hair, shaved off my beard, and stopped dressing only in black.
*** w02 2/1 p. 27 Jehovah Taught Us Endurance and Perseverance ***
As they made spiritual progress, they came to their Bible study shaved, hair neatly combed, and wearing a shirt and tie in the middle of August—one of the hottest months in Greece!
I'm sure that most of us  know that the above examples are only a small sampling.

Reminds me that the Bethel Elder who was also the head of Purchasing, at Bethel, and who worked for Dean Songer in 1979, suddenly came back from a two week vacation with a beard, very well trimmed, and short. He actually looked better with the beard, too. But everyone knew what would happen to him. For one thing, Dean Songer wore a crewcut and a thin black tie, so he always looked like one of those guys in the Houston control room during a Gemini or early Apollo flight.
An article had come out at (about) the exact same time that he grew the beard, which made him seem "rebellious" to most of us, including me. Although I didn't know him, and it might have easily been a coincidence, since the article was no doubt accepted for publication at least two months earlier. The article said:
*** g79 4/22 pp. 27-28 When Another’s Conscience Is Involved ***
The same counsel applies when it comes to wearing beards or certain articles of clothing. In some locations people still view beards as identifying rebellious elements in society.
It was too late for the next issue, but a month later, a small "Watching the World" item was included, that did not seem like a coincidence:
*** g79 5/22 p. 30 Watching the World ***
The U.S. Supreme Court recently let stand a District Court ruling that a supermarket chain has the right to maintain its “no beards” rule for some employees. A man who was fired for refusal to shave had brought suit. He said he has a skin disease common among black men that can result in irritation or infection when short hairs curl back into the skin. The District Court had ruled that “the grocery chain had a business purpose for the rule which overrode its slight impact on employees,” according to American Medical News.
The California State Senate has ruled that, in the Senate chambers, men must wear “appropriate attire,” including coats and ties. The senator who proposed the resolution declared that “appearances are important,” and that a certain amount of dignity was expected by the public. Certainly this is also true of those who profess to represent the highest Lawmaker in the universe, Jehovah God.
The newly bearded brother in question was not black, but at the time, at least one black brother (also an elder) was asking if he could grow a beard due to a serious skin condition from ingrown whiskers after a shave. It was already beginning to be allowed in congregations in the US for some black brothers, but that allowance was considered a slippery slope.
 

With all due respect, people should get their facts straight before they make a bold unverified statement.
When a person does that quite  often (without proper vetting their statements) then people will suspect EVERYTHING they say thereafter. That is why their overall credibility will and should suffer.
Think about it.
Just saying.
 
 

It is NOT a matter of conscience
... well, it depends on how far you want to work in the organization. Here in Spain the situation is as follows:
In many congregations one may serve as elder still wearing a beard, and therefore enjoy any other local privilege.
But that does not work for you in the neighboring congregation. It is usual for a speaker with a beard to inform when they invite him that he is wearing a beard, in case it bothers the conscience of the brothers of the congregation where he will speak.
At the circuit level, forget to have part from the platform (with beard). I know of a case that they interviewed a brother with a beard. The traveler (district) forced him to cut it if he wanted to go out in the next section. As he did not want to, they did not let him leave.
I think that in some circuit brothers with beards have served as ushers and other auxiliary works, but it has not been general. In the case of another circuit they asked the traveler about which males with beards could be ushers. Answer: "When you see one of Bethel with a beard, then. Meanwhile I do not want to be the first.
On a global level, have we seen a man with a beard in the broadcasting, or in the videos of the regional assemblies? Yes ... representing the role of non-believer, opposite husband or person in a bad spiritual state.
Result of all the previous thing: to take beard between us is a thorny subject, problematic, if you want to have to fully serve for others. If you settle for being "rank and file" maybe they do not mess with you.
If, when going to preach, people would say to me "can you wear a beard?" I will give you a short answer: yes, of course. The most extensive answer is the one I mentioned above.
A well-groomed beard in Spain is not at all a sign of rebelliousness or careless dress. The King of Spain has a beard. The previous prime minister too. When preaching, it does not attract attention.
Someone will say: "Videos and broadcasting are prepared taking into account the society or brotherhood of North America" To which I will reply that it is said again and again that the Governing Body intends an "international flavor" in our publications and videos, collecting scenes from everywhere, even the clothes. So, why is not it seen in the videos, or in the pictures in our magazines an elder directing the Watchtower study with a beard? Why are all seen with beards unbelievers? Why, when you progress, you see them shaving?
I find that it is a minor matter whether I wear a beard or not. That's why I will not leave it, to avoid more complications than the many I have in my life. But what is not a minor issue is that we are imposed the conscience of others
(2 Corinthians 1:24) “Not that we are the masters over your faith, but we are fellow workers for your joy”

Reminds me that the Bethel Elder who was also the head of Purchasing, at Bethel, and who worked for Dean Songer in 1979, suddenly came back from a two week vacation with a beard, very well trimmed, and short. He actually looked better with the beard, too. But everyone knew what would happen to him. For one thing, Dean Songer wore a crewcut and a thin black tie, so he always looked like one of those guys in the Houston control room during a Gemini or early Apollo flight.
An article had come out at (about) the exact same time that he grew the beard, which made him seem "rebellious" to most of us, including me. Although I didn't know him, and it might have easily been a coincidence, since the article was no doubt accepted for publication at least two months earlier. The article said:
*** g79 4/22 pp. 27-28 When Another’s Conscience Is Involved ***
The same counsel applies when it comes to wearing beards or certain articles of clothing. In some locations people still view beards as identifying rebellious elements in society.
It was too late for the next issue, but a month later, a small "Watching the World" item was included, that did not seem like a coincidence:
*** g79 5/22 p. 30 Watching the World ***
The U.S. Supreme Court recently let stand a District Court ruling that a supermarket chain has the right to maintain its “no beards” rule for some employees. A man who was fired for refusal to shave had brought suit. He said he has a skin disease common among black men that can result in irritation or infection when short hairs curl back into the skin. The District Court had ruled that “the grocery chain had a business purpose for the rule which overrode its slight impact on employees,” according to American Medical News.
The California State Senate has ruled that, in the Senate chambers, men must wear “appropriate attire,” including coats and ties. The senator who proposed the resolution declared that “appearances are important,” and that a certain amount of dignity was expected by the public. Certainly this is also true of those who profess to represent the highest Lawmaker in the universe, Jehovah God.
The newly bearded brother in question was not black, but at the time, at least one black brother (also an elder) was asking if he could grow a beard due to a serious skin condition from ingrown whiskers after a shave. It was already beginning to be allowed in congregations in the US for some black brothers, but that allowance was considered a slippery slope.
 

The usual treatment of the subject follows the idea that it was just a natural part of the mid-to-late 19th century style for men.
*** g00 1/22 p. 24 A Close Shave ***
In ancient Greek society, beards were normally worn by all except the nobility, who were often clean-shaven. In Rome the habit of shaving seems to have started in the second century B.C.E., and for several centuries thereafter, a daily shave remained the custom.
With the fall of the Roman Empire, however, the beard once again prevailed, doing so for 1,000 years until the second half of the 17th century, when shaving became the vogue. The clean-shaven look continued through the 18th century. But then, by the mid-to-late 19th century, the pendulum began to swing the other way. Hence, photographs of C. T. Russell, the first president of the Watch Tower Society, and fellow Christian W. E. Van Amburgh show both men wearing stylish, well-trimmed beards that were dignified and appropriate for their time. In the early part of the 20th century, however, shaving enjoyed a resurgence of popularity that has endured in most countries to our day.
But here's is what those who were there at the time remembered about Russell and Rutherford. We already know that a cult had developed around Russell, and it included persons wanting to dress like him and look like him:
*** jv chap. 6 p. 65 A Time of Testing (1914-1918) ***
Others, on account of their deep respect for Brother Russell, seemed more concerned with trying to copy his qualities and develop a sort of cult around him.
This  example is A H MacMillan telling about Rutherford's ideas in 1918/1919, wanting to crush all this worship of Russell, when MacMillan still did not believe he could do it. (From Faith on the March, 1957, p.106. Further excerpts are included from later chapters.)

. . .

. . .

, , ,

. . .

I threw in a few more excerpts than I needed to, because it gives the correct idea that the primary way to push the Russellites out was to get them used to more humble and mundane types of preaching, similar to the way that colporteurs had been distributing the books from door to door, rather than only preaching as elders who would dress up in long black frock coats and beards and imitate the manners of C.T.Russell.
*** yb74 pp. 97-98 Part 1—Germany ***
But more equipment was needed. For that reason Brother Balzereit asked Brother Rutherford for permission to buy a rotary press. Brother Rutherford saw the necessity and agreed, but on one condition. He had noticed that over the years Brother Balzereit had grown a beard very similar to the one that had been worn by Brother Russell. His example soon caught on, for there were others who also wanted to look like Brother Russell. This could give rise to a tendency toward creature worship, and Brother Rutherford wanted to prevent this. So during his next visit, within hearing of all the Bible House family, he told Brother Balzereit that he could buy the rotary press but only on the condition that he shave off his beard. Brother Balzereit sadly agreed and afterward went to the barber.
*** yb75 p. 148 Part 2—United States of America ***
He says: “Modification of viewpoints respecting scriptures and matters of procedure seemed to be constant during these years. For example, it was in 1927. . .  For that matter, the year before, during the London, England, convention of May 25-31, 1926, Brother Rutherford spoke from the platform while attired in a business suit, instead of the formal black frock coat that had long been worn by public speakers among Jehovah’s Christian witnesses. Another change in viewpoint involved the “cross and crown” symbol [popularized under Russell's presidency].

The usual treatment of the subject follows the idea that it was just a natural part of the mid-to-late 19th century style for men.
*** g00 1/22 p. 24 A Close Shave ***
In ancient Greek society, beards were normally worn by all except the nobility, who were often clean-shaven. In Rome the habit of shaving seems to have started in the second century B.C.E., and for several centuries thereafter, a daily shave remained the custom.
With the fall of the Roman Empire, however, the beard once again prevailed, doing so for 1,000 years until the second half of the 17th century, when shaving became the vogue. The clean-shaven look continued through the 18th century. But then, by the mid-to-late 19th century, the pendulum began to swing the other way. Hence, photographs of C. T. Russell, the first president of the Watch Tower Society, and fellow Christian W. E. Van Amburgh show both men wearing stylish, well-trimmed beards that were dignified and appropriate for their time. In the early part of the 20th century, however, shaving enjoyed a resurgence of popularity that has endured in most countries to our day.
But here's is what those who were there at the time remembered about Russell and Rutherford. We already know that a cult had developed around Russell, and it included persons wanting to dress like him and look like him:
*** jv chap. 6 p. 65 A Time of Testing (1914-1918) ***
Others, on account of their deep respect for Brother Russell, seemed more concerned with trying to copy his qualities and develop a sort of cult around him.
This  example is A H MacMillan telling about Rutherford's ideas in 1918/1919, wanting to crush all this worship of Russell, when MacMillan still did not believe he could do it. (From Faith on the March, 1957, p.106. Further excerpts are included from later chapters.)

. . .

. . .

, , ,

. . .

I threw in a few more excerpts than I needed to, because it gives the correct idea that the primary way to push the Russellites out was to get them used to more humble and mundane types of preaching, similar to the way that colporteurs had been distributing the books from door to door, rather than only preaching as elders who would dress up in long black frock coats and beards and imitate the manners of C.T.Russell.
*** yb74 pp. 97-98 Part 1—Germany ***
But more equipment was needed. For that reason Brother Balzereit asked Brother Rutherford for permission to buy a rotary press. Brother Rutherford saw the necessity and agreed, but on one condition. He had noticed that over the years Brother Balzereit had grown a beard very similar to the one that had been worn by Brother Russell. His example soon caught on, for there were others who also wanted to look like Brother Russell. This could give rise to a tendency toward creature worship, and Brother Rutherford wanted to prevent this. So during his next visit, within hearing of all the Bible House family, he told Brother Balzereit that he could buy the rotary press but only on the condition that he shave off his beard. Brother Balzereit sadly agreed and afterward went to the barber.
*** yb75 p. 148 Part 2—United States of America ***
He says: “Modification of viewpoints respecting scriptures and matters of procedure seemed to be constant during these years. For example, it was in 1927. . .  For that matter, the year before, during the London, England, convention of May 25-31, 1926, Brother Rutherford spoke from the platform while attired in a business suit, instead of the formal black frock coat that had long been worn by public speakers among Jehovah’s Christian witnesses. Another change in viewpoint involved the “cross and crown” symbol [popularized under Russell's presidency].

(Colossians 3:21) 21 YOU fathers, do not be exasperating your children,. . . (Ephesians 6:4) 4 And YOU, fathers, do not be irritating YOUR children, . . . And when threatened with discipline as a pre-teen, how I loved to respond with: "Father, stop exasperating me!!" It worked especially well at meetings.

(Colossians 3:21) 21 YOU fathers, do not be exasperating your children,. . . (Ephesians 6:4) 4 And YOU, fathers, do not be irritating YOUR children, . . . And when threatened with discipline as a pre-teen, how I loved to respond with: "Father, stop exasperating me!!" It worked especially well at meetings.

I did have a good childhood. My mum was baptised when I was 6. I still remember celebrating our last Christmas and birthday. Since then I didn't miss either of them one bit. I guess I was lucky to have a mum who although very spiritual, was also very balanced, and had her own mind. We never missed one meeting unless sick. We were regular in service. We really lived the "truth" which included having fun. So yes, my childhood was pretty cool. Of course when I hit teenage-hood I balked at some things, and the only thing that worked was not what my mum said, it was not what the elders said, but it was what the Bible said. I could not argue with the Bible. Mum figured it out real quick so as long as she could support anything with scriptures, I was good with it, albeit a bit reluctantly sometimes.
As regards very strict upbringing, I guess you mean where the parents are unreasonable and rule the house in a kind of dictatorship rather than a Christian way. Most of the kids brought up that way are no longer JW's. And in some cases neither are the parents. The funny thing is, they blame the org. but the org. has never endorsed unreasonable parents, on the contrary, all the publications out there, for children and teenagers and parents encourage reasonableness and are full of excellent advice. In fact here is the latest magazine about rearing children. If you find anything wrong with it let me know: https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/awake-no2-2019-jul-aug/

don't put any food in your mouth

This is pretty sad. I think a lot of it had to do with the more Anglocentric makeup of the GB in past years. The motive of giving the appearance of unity is not a bad one. Our styles of dress reflect our unity of worship. It's nice to be able to drive through a neighborhood or even visit another city and recognize Witnesses from quite a distance away. But now, there is more concern for writing counsel that advises an entire world of customs. There is a need to generalize the counsel since every country gets the same counsel.
A lot of people think that Rutherford started the no-beard policy as a control measure to make sure that the Russellite cult was weeded out from among the Bible Students. My great grandfather was among the Chicago Bible Students who had many beard-growers because they thought so highly of Russell, who wore a beard. He was well-known in Russell's circle of associates, but would not have "advanced" under Rutherford if he did not cut his beard.

This is pretty sad. I think a lot of it had to do with the more Anglocentric makeup of the GB in past years. The motive of giving the appearance of unity is not a bad one. Our styles of dress reflect our unity of worship. It's nice to be able to drive through a neighborhood or even visit another city and recognize Witnesses from quite a distance away. But now, there is more concern for writing counsel that advises an entire world of customs. There is a need to generalize the counsel since every country gets the same counsel.
A lot of people think that Rutherford started the no-beard policy as a control measure to make sure that the Russellite cult was weeded out from among the Bible Students. My great grandfather was among the Chicago Bible Students who had many beard-growers because they thought so highly of Russell, who wore a beard. He was well-known in Russell's circle of associates, but would not have "advanced" under Rutherford if he did not cut his beard.

This is pretty sad. I think a lot of it had to do with the more Anglocentric makeup of the GB in past years. The motive of giving the appearance of unity is not a bad one. Our styles of dress reflect our unity of worship. It's nice to be able to drive through a neighborhood or even visit another city and recognize Witnesses from quite a distance away. But now, there is more concern for writing counsel that advises an entire world of customs. There is a need to generalize the counsel since every country gets the same counsel.
A lot of people think that Rutherford started the no-beard policy as a control measure to make sure that the Russellite cult was weeded out from among the Bible Students. My great grandfather was among the Chicago Bible Students who had many beard-growers because they thought so highly of Russell, who wore a beard. He was well-known in Russell's circle of associates, but would not have "advanced" under Rutherford if he did not cut his beard.

It was that week that I had to stay in bed, up in Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania. They had a VCR/DVD player that only had one movie on it. So I ended up watching Bill Murray in Groundhog Day about 30 times in one week.
Or maybe that was just a dream. . . . Or maybe I just made this up. . .😉

This is pretty sad. I think a lot of it had to do with the more Anglocentric makeup of the GB in past years. The motive of giving the appearance of unity is not a bad one. Our styles of dress reflect our unity of worship. It's nice to be able to drive through a neighborhood or even visit another city and recognize Witnesses from quite a distance away. But now, there is more concern for writing counsel that advises an entire world of customs. There is a need to generalize the counsel since every country gets the same counsel.
A lot of people think that Rutherford started the no-beard policy as a control measure to make sure that the Russellite cult was weeded out from among the Bible Students. My great grandfather was among the Chicago Bible Students who had many beard-growers because they thought so highly of Russell, who wore a beard. He was well-known in Russell's circle of associates, but would not have "advanced" under Rutherford if he did not cut his beard.

This is pretty sad. I think a lot of it had to do with the more Anglocentric makeup of the GB in past years. The motive of giving the appearance of unity is not a bad one. Our styles of dress reflect our unity of worship. It's nice to be able to drive through a neighborhood or even visit another city and recognize Witnesses from quite a distance away. But now, there is more concern for writing counsel that advises an entire world of customs. There is a need to generalize the counsel since every country gets the same counsel.
A lot of people think that Rutherford started the no-beard policy as a control measure to make sure that the Russellite cult was weeded out from among the Bible Students. My great grandfather was among the Chicago Bible Students who had many beard-growers because they thought so highly of Russell, who wore a beard. He was well-known in Russell's circle of associates, but would not have "advanced" under Rutherford if he did not cut his beard.

Of course, there was that "God-damned" snake in the grass back in Eden. It was cursed to crawl on the ground and lick the dust with its [forked] tongue.
Then there were those pigs that allowed themselves to be possessed by demons, and were driven to commit suicide.
Certain animals might have listened to communication from God to be able to receive a name from Adam. The same could be said for the animals that listened to communication from God to get on Noah's ark. Or for ravens to find Elijah to bring him food. Or, perhaps even a big fish who nearly snacked on Jonah. And there's that special relationship between Jehovah and Leviathan and Behemoth.
God gives animals "meat in due season" (food at the proper time):
(Psalm 104:27) . . .All of them wait for you To give them their food in its season. And a donkey evidently saved a man's life by ascertaining an invisible angel.
On a serious note, I think most people agree that many persons have an unbalanced view of pets. But it's also easy to get unbalanced in the direction of disdaining pets and animals. Remember that Jehovah himself rejoices at his works which obviously includes his many interactions with animals according to the context of Psalm 104. 
(Psalm 104:28-31) . . .What you give them, they gather. When you open your hand, they are satisfied with good things. 29 When you hide your face, they are disturbed. If you take away their spirit, they die and return to the dust. 30 If you send out your spirit, they are created, And you renew the surface of the ground. 31 The glory of Jehovah will last forever. Jehovah will rejoice in his works.

To me, 1 Tim 6:20 seems more related to the so-called knowledge that comes from inside the congregation, because this would be consistent with the prior context of 1 Timothy. The idea of falsely called wisdom from the outside is referred to especially in the first three chapters of 1 Corinthians, which @Outta Here referred to. Not that the idea is wrong, but bringing up 1 Tim 6:20 in the context of something that the JW Organization should be particularly good at seems wrong to me. That's because I believe it refers to something that SHOULD be a pet peeve of every Witness about a particular habit of the Watchtower writers that continues to get us in trouble.
We very often, historically, have made claims about certain interpretations of the scriptures that are completely unnecessary, and which turn out to be things that we end up dropping when the contradictions to actual events or other scriptures become too untenable to stretch belief any further. I could relist every single teaching which has had to be updated to make this point.
But each of those interpretations was treated as knowledge when it was taught. Even though they turned out to be false, and required updating. Just because we like to avoid the word false, and call it "refinements" or "increasing light" changes nothing about the falsehood of the previously called knowledge.
But spiritual food does not have a shelf life. Those false teachings were never spiritual food to begin with. There has NEVER been a reason to turn a specific interpretation into "knowledge."

Turns out to be much more interesting than the premise. Also, I think it will help make sense of my post.

Turns out to be much more interesting than the premise. Also, I think it will help make sense of my post.