Anna

"10 nipples will keep a flock of up to 40 chickens or 30 turkeys well hydrated"

Because they were understood (misunderstood) to be seditious by others. Later, the brothers regretted that they removed them.  The 1975 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses commented on the incident on page 119:
"After their trialsome period of 1917-1919, Jehovah’s people subjected themselves to scrutiny. Realizing that they had acted in ways that did not meet with God’s approval, they sought forgiveness in prayer repenting of their former course. This led to Jehovah’s forgiveness and blessing. One compromise had been the cutting of pages from The Finished Mystery, this to please those who had assumed the position of censor".
Something from waaaaaay back:
https://www.newspapers.com/image/?clipping_id=8633452&fcfToken=eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJmcmVlLXZpZXctaWQiOjM2NjY0NzE4LCJpYXQiOjE1NjQ0NTExNDcsImV4cCI6MTU2NDUzNzU0N30.DhXaQYCE8_uD4FDAtqv0kWp04J6hh_Iu6xawSYqKZ3o
 

"10 nipples will keep a flock of up to 40 chickens or 30 turkeys well hydrated"

Anna:
I see what you posted as after the fact spin.

.... a little souvenir from the early 1970's I keep as a memento of interesting times ... and to surreptitiously quick  flash when I show a traffic officer my drivers license.
The gold flash has gotten me out of seven speeding tickets, and I never asked for any consideration, and never gave any explanation.
My eldest son was stunned when I got stopped in a 35mph zone doing 57 miles per hour.. When we pulled off without a ticket he said "I gotta get me one of those!".
By the way ... the little red thingies are Chicken Nipples.  They sell them on Amazon.
.... really!

Then there's no need to worry is there?

I forgot to mention, that when he said he was going to destroy me, I first replied that he was welcome to try, and then etc.
Willy-Nilly, he abandoned the Truth about three years after that, and I am still here 45 years later.

This is why I prefer to be called just "Rook", (no first or middle name), or JTR ... to keep from being identified with the Apostle James, which would be a stretch of multi-dimensional proportions .... or with Sean Connery , the only REAL James Bond ...... I mean .... besides the Ornithologist ( Bird Watcher, for those in Rio Linda ...) named James Bond, from whom Ian Fleming  the author and creator of the James Bond Character took the name., who wrote several  books on birds that impressed Ian Fleming, also a bird watcher ... ....
Why do you think I got 18 chickens?
They are birds, and a lot cheaper than parrots.

                    Left to right .... 006, 007, 009

Super Chicken Intro.mp4

Yes, his last name is Bond

This is puzzling. Why should the plaintiff have the right to demand anything that had nothing to do with his case?
I wouldn't go that far.
I have no idea what John Redwood is talking about here. Perhaps I should ask him.
If elders became mandatory reporters, how would that affect anything? It would just mean that every future case, or suspicion of child abuse or accusation would be reported to the police. How would that be losing a tight grip on the elders?
It appears that the main reason for the appeal is that this would allow for non disclosure of historical cases, and hence limit law suits.

This is puzzling. Why should the plaintiff have the right to demand anything that had nothing to do with his case?
I wouldn't go that far.
I have no idea what John Redwood is talking about here. Perhaps I should ask him.
If elders became mandatory reporters, how would that affect anything? It would just mean that every future case, or suspicion of child abuse or accusation would be reported to the police. How would that be losing a tight grip on the elders?
It appears that the main reason for the appeal is that this would allow for non disclosure of historical cases, and hence limit law suits.

Wait a minute, isn't 539 BCE plus 70 years 609 BCE,? And then when we consider the actual return of the Jews to start re- building the temple as being 537 BCE and add 70 years it gives us 607 BCE....so .how does that go 20 years past the conquest of Babylon by Cyrus?

Well yes....funny....but I was being ironic when I said it 🙂

Why even admit the case of smoking and Christmas? Nobody was asking about it. It was not necessary for either of them to be mentioned. In any case, why ban Christmas and smoking at all if it meant losing members? Regardless of what period of time. Why was it wise to wait? Was losing members no longer a worry later on? Or was something else more important than losing members?
Both topics were mentioned in the chapter "Moral Refinements"

Thank you. It shows me a few important things, although Russell personally thought smoking was a filthy habit, had a "dim" view of it , and didn't think it brought God any glory, he did not insist on his personal opinion, banning others from smoking. Then later in 1935 the WT called it a filthy weed and banned it in Bethel but did not try to impose this on the congregations. It was obviously still not thought of as something worthy of disfellowshipping until 1973. So, they didn't know it was totally wrong until the 70's, not the 1800's as you suggested.
The same thing with Christmas.

Maybe they should have taken them off 😀

The Governing Body is not some infallible authority over us. Jesus and Jehovah do not give them direct revelations of what they should do or say. If that were the case, there would never be any error on their part. Jehovah and Jesus do not tell the GB that all Witnesses at conventions should wear their badges when out. Their direction comes from what is already in the Bible, and where there is no clear or direct Biblical support for or against, they can can make recommendations as they see fit in their opinion. However, they cannot (and should not) command anyone what to do. If they were to do that, they would be abusing their position, which is feeding the flock with spiritual food, which does not entail giving out commands based on opinion. The only justification for commanding anything is if it is a command in the Bible. The Bible does say "be obedient to those taking the lead". However, this is not an absolute. We know we would not obey anything that was contrary to the Bible. In saying "be obedient to those taking the lead", the assumption is that this would be something beneficial and reasonable and not against scripture.  I would say wearing name badges while out is reasonable. It advertises the convention, it encourages questions and conversation, and it's fun to see others out and about and see they belong to us. There is nothing odd about it. Perhaps also it helps the brothers and sisters remember who they are, in case they get a little forgetful....all these things are probably the most likely reasons for this recommendation,  BUT it is still an option whether one wears one or not. No one that I know of stresses about it either way. Some like to wear something more comfy than a suit and tie while at a restaurant, and some get positively worried about spilling something on their tie (my husband is one). The most obvious reason for changing into different clothes is that not everybody goes out to eat straight after the convention. Some go to their hotel to chill first. And no one chills out in their suit and tie. And to put the suit and tie back on just to go and eat out at a moderate restaurant could be a little odd. Plus it would be extra hard to get the kids back into their fancy clothes after they've spent an hour at the swimming pool..... So, no one I know of purposefully takes their name badge off, but if it so happens that they do get changed into something else, the name badge most likely doesn't go back on....

The Brothers in Mexico, specifically, the Sierra Madre Mountains had the same problem with badges we have ... people expected to see them all the time.

We don't need no stinking badges!.mp4

@Jack Ryan Not really dude. It's a matter of choice, no one his forced. 
No one is forcing you to eat coco puffs, wheaties or apple Jack's in the morning, you choose what to eat. True someone might tell you what is healthy or what is not, but at the end of the day hombre, it's a choice. 
 
It is high like Miami right now. It is my choice to dump bottles of water on my head and sit in the comfort of my own room with the AC straight blasting jajaja

@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.

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.
 
 

That's an easy one. I did not wear mine two out of the three days. And guess what happened? Absolutely nothing!
I think you are a little misguided there Jack. Do you really think that some elder is going to hunt someone down for not wearing a badge? If you really think that, then you have been damaged more than I thought. I am sorry and wish I could help.

I was wondering what she was pointing at

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.

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”