Anna

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.
 

Hey critical thinker, why are you on here?

@derek1956 Derek, I don't think anyone is squabbling here. Jack made it clear that he no longer believes the Bible and JW organization, so listening or not listening to any instructions big or small is irrelevant to him. As for me, I had legitimate reasons for not wearing my badge twice. What I was trying to point out was that it is up to each individual whether they wear one or not, just like it will be up to each individual whether they listen to some directive in the future. We are not robots, no one is going to MAKE us do anything now, or in the future. 

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.

Complete untruth that we MUST wear our badge out for dinner at a restaurant.
It is completely voluntary.

I am truly sorry you had that experience. I can see it has damaged you. You must realize though that most Jehovah's Witnesses have not had those kind of negative experiences and are well balanced and useful members of society. Also, most of them do not discuss these "issues" on forums like this, (notice there are only a handful on here) if they discuss them at all. Neither do they spread hate for apostates. 
Each human being is entitled to live the kind of life they believe is right, this includes Jehovah's Witnesses. And since they believe there is a creator who has given instructions on the best possible way to live, (since he IS the creator) they want to show him gratitude, and follow his advice. 

Hey critical thinker, why are you on here?

@Anna 
You got me!
Really it's because I have issues stemming from decades of mind control from the JW's.... So I am not a good example.
Other people should save themselves and future generations from this radioactive titanic religious cult if they don't want their children discussing whether they are allowed to wear beards in 50 years from now.
I would rather they study science, medicine or technology and actually do something to help mankind rather than spread hate toward apostates who don't agree with their version / translation of some 5,000 year old camel riding desert sands God's words to an extinct people.

Hey critical thinker, why are you on here?

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/

Soon we will have to ditch the business suit since it is becoming fashion relegated to lawyers, courthouses etc...
The most common "business suit' now is Khakis ....
I won't even mention the IT world.

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].

"That is if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again have food debris in my beard"

Of course there is nothing wrong with that kind of sentimental love. Since I came to America I  have noticed people are more apt at showing this kind of emotion, as opposed to the stiff upper lipped Brits. I had never seen brothers cry while giving a talk on the platform until I came here (usa).  There is a lot of sentimental love at assemblies for sure as well. People are dewy eyed during the videos, songs, and when saying good bye to the brothers and sisters they've met. Honestly John, you are poking holes where you don't need to as it is a non issue. JW's for the most part are an emotional bunch, that is why there is no need to give talks on how to show "sentimental" love!
However, the love we all need to learn is the principled kind. This is the love spoken about in Corinthians 13, and this is the love that is the theme of the convention. "Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous. It does not brag, does not get puffed up, does not behave indecently, does not look for its own interests, does not become provoked. It does not keep account of the injury.  It does not rejoice over unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth. Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous. It does not brag, does not get puffed up bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.  Love never fails.
Notice it says it never fails. Well romantic love can fail, so can sentimental love. You do not still "love" your ex wives do you, I didn't think so. Hovever, would you help one of them if they were in dire need and you were able to? That is principled love, AGAPE, the love described in Corinthians that doesn't always come easy to everyone and needs to be worked on. Hence the convention on that theme. If the whole world practiced that kind of love, there would be peace on earth. 

(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/

You have evidence for that?

Good observation there TT

Not even 17 yet, no hair on my face, but the freshman literally has a a beard and he is like 15. The dude's got a tree on his face jaja.

In my opinion, the "beard issue" was one of the stupidest stands that hung us up for far too long, and I am so glad to see that it has finally been addressed. I wish it had been done long ago. It caused loyal ones like Anna to go into contortions trying to explain it:
The verses of Paul and eating meat seldom applied in the U.S, from where I write. There would be a few off-the-grid places where they would, but mostly they did not. Paul was concerned about stumbling new ones and unbelievers. Mature ones would not be stumbled by his eating meat that had been sacrificed to an idol.
With beards, the situation was the complete opposite. New ones and unbelievers generally had no problem with them, but mature ones would balk. It made no sense.  Though nowhere forbidden by scripture or Bible principles, no "rule" was applied with more vigor than the "no beard" rule, and I am glad to see it go.
It is working out pretty much as I thought it would. It is gradual. Brothers progress to the point of qualifying for privileges, but there are some elder bodies who say: "Yeah, but he has a beard." "That doesn't matter," says the C.O, and the brother is appointed.

"That is if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again have food debris in my beard"

It's not so much about the traditions of men but more about not stumbling someone, the principle of which Paul spoke about in 1Cor 8:13. "That is why if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat at all, so that I will not make my brother stumble". Some communities really have something against beards, and others do not. Therefor it is up to the elders in each congregation and country to discern if a brother wearing a beard could somehow stumble someone, whether a JW or not. As Space Merchant said, a lot of it is down to culture and also down to respect for others. JTR shaved his beard off to make his dad happy. Nothing wrong with that. It's all about unselfishness really, and putting the other persons interest first. That is a Christ like trait. 

"But the one who has endured to the end will be saved". ( Matthew 24:13)

Someone dear to me got much mileage out of the expression: “Jehovah never lets you down. People let you down, but Jehovah never lets you down.”
This is a better take than on how another brother put it. His observation was meant to be cynical and humorous, and whether it was a factor or not, he didn’t stick with the faith”
”The truth is such a beautiful thing. It’s a shame Jehovah had to waste it on people.”
The two statements are not that far apart. The first simply implies an element of forgiveness that the other does not.

SOME congregations. We don't have a beard restriction. Neat, tidy, well-groomed, free of food debris, vermin etc. is important, but having one is personal.