Anna

I had to point out that a painting of the oracle of delphi wasn't appropriate at a kingdom hall.

It sounds like you are applying "conscience" to very mundane matters of getting along with others. You are then generalizing these mundane things so that they might apply loosely to matters of spirituality and "sin." Nothing wrong with that of course. It's also what many of Jesus' illustrations and parables do.
But the mundane matters in themselves are not about conscience. If a brother wants a grey carpet in the new Kingdom Hall, and you want a beige carpet, it is not a matter of "conscience" for you to say OK to the grey. It's just a mundane decision. There are no grey areas of right and wrong -- unless it's a very cheap carpet.
Our KH once had wallpaper in the bathrooms with a light fleur-de-lis pattern. Someone mentioned the political, religious, even possible Trinitarian associations, but he was not in the least personally offended; he just wanted to show off his knowledge of history. Since no one else really cared, the COBE decided that when it came time to change it someday, they'd remember not to repeat the pattern.

JWI - The connection w/conscience is the business of going along with a brother or a group. I always ask myself, "What's the harm in going along w/what appears to be a wrong idea? If it's just me "being annoyed" and everyone appears to be amenable, then I go along. Yes, I make a bit of noise w/regard to my objections, but I figure that if it's really important, Jehovah will correct it.
Even at work sometimes you have to let people screw up when you really do know better. This way they actually learn. You can't be constantly "steadying the ark", like uzzah.

This final sentence should have ended with a question mark but did not. 
I’m stumbled.

I liked your KH building experience. We've all had that experience when we would have made different decisions if we were in charge, and then we are glad we weren't.
But I can't seem to fit your musing on conscience into what I thought was the most common use of the term "conscience" in the Bible. Of course, it might be right anyway, depending on what you mean by consequences. For example:
Let's say that you would love the experience of eating roast beef a couple times a week, but depending on your location (and your time in history) the only viable source is the meat shop just outside the local pagan temple where they sacrifice animals and then sell the meat. In this case, the consequence of eating meat is something you would want to experience, but perhaps you'd rather not experience the consequence of spiritual brothers and sisters who react to your attitude by:
their own revulsion that you would dare be associated with idolatry. talking behind your back and gossiping that you are not a serious Christian because you would dare go against the counsel of the Jerusalem body of elders who declared that you should not eat meat that had been sacrificed to an idol. their being shaken in their faith or even stumbled that you would do this openly in front of them and even defend it as no big deal (because idols are no big deal). Or perhaps you are not truly convinced in your own mind that eating meat sacrificed to an idol is OK. Therefore you think it might be a sin, and are therefore going to suffer the future consequences of judgment against yourself for continuing in sin.
This is probably the way most Witnesses look at blood-sourced medical therapies. Most Witnesses will accept the full range of "allowed" blood products (smaller fractions) that the WTS has identified as OK "if your conscience allows it." What the WTS has currently identified as "not allowed" (whole and larger fractions) are not considered to be a matter of conscience. They are simply not allowed without the potential consequences of disfellowshipping.
But as regards the "conscience" matter of those allowable fractions, the Witness wants the consequences of the therapeutic medical advantages including longer and healthier physical life in this system. You will not be gossiped about behind your back nor will brothers and sisters be shaken in their faith by your decision to take these blood products, because there is trust in the WTS decision that you have made a decision that properly falls under the range of decisions that are allowed by your own conscience. One could argue that this really has nothing to do with conscience, and comments from HLC elders (including one of my cousins) would appear to bear this out.
There have been several comments in this thread where the subtext, at least, shows that we might be confusing conscience at times with guilt or "reasonable" choices regarding sin, or just "reasonable" choices regarding not wishing to offend people.
It occurs to me that the apostle Paul would rather eat vegetables (instead of meat) in front of brothers who might be offended/stumbled. Yet he was willing to write a letter that publicly declared that it was OK to eat meat sacrificed to an idol. Which is worse, eating in front of one who might be stumbled, or writing a letter that offends 10,000 brothers who might be stumbled at hearing your flippant attitude about meat sacrificed to idols.

Long ago I was on a committee to explore building a new Kingdom Hall. A brother as you describe, also on the committee, carried on and on about how we would put a baby changing table in the men’s room! Why should it be just sisters who have to change the infant? Times were changing! Equal work for all! And it was not just work, it was part of the privilege of rearing children—spread the joys and the drudgery evenly! It shouldn’t only be the sisters who have to.....” He discussed brands, the fold=down type, which were sormewhat new at the time. On and on he went, so enthusiastic.
For crying out loud, we hadn’t even located land yet!

Finally you are talking sense.
I am starting to foam at the mouth all over again.

Having viewed a few down-in-the-weeds threads, like the one on 607 it's clear that some people can't let well enough alone. Like even mentioning 607 could spawn another 100 unnecessary responses.

I don't think I wish to be responsible for transporting people, for several reasons, so that would suit me, but I would like to see other members in person from time to time.

Interesting. I like Zoom meetings across the board for many reasons. But no KH? I can see KH and Zoom or some other video platform, but no KH from our end sounds a bit odd. Circumstantial imposition like Russia I can see as time goes on, but voluntarily? That would be a game changer.

My vision is that the G.B. Please note that the format that we have followed for decades is not the only one. I mean: since there were 3 big annual meetings in Israel, we had three big meetings -assemblies-.
Kissing, hugging, touching, "sniffing" us is biblical and appropriate. But during the week the meeting ends late, the children have to go to school early, they have to have dinner ... Well, why not the meeting during the week for zoom, and the face-to-face weekend, at the k.h.?
Large assemblies could be made voluntary. Brothers eager to meet others, to meet, to embrace, to take photos, to meet potential future spouses... These meetings could be prepared and voluntarily attended (as now international ones)
But those of us who want to listen, learn, those of us who do not have much money, or many children, or sick family members, and who attend an assembly lasting several days involves a great effort and small returns (in terms of learning), because we could have those assemblies in the zoom format, for several weekends, like lately.
It follows from the above that all assembly halls could be sold. Send home hundreds of brothers who are employed to support them. Save thousands of hours of volunteer work preparing assemblies worldwide, save money ...
To keep it short: we would use the best of both worlds. Face-to-face + zoom.
(Sometimes I ask Jehovah to "enlighten the C.G. on this - sure, but I suppose that many, many factors escape me ,,,)

BTW I hate the zoom crap. I want to feel the breath and spittle of the speakers on my face.

As an aside, here, I keep hearing more talk that the WTS is transitioning to no more KH at all, just assembly halls and larger conventions perhaps. It's not just us, but churches, too, have spoken about the success they have had with Zoom in terms of attendance. I fear that it would be a losing decision about the KH's if this rumor is true, but attendance numbers on Zoom have normalized and even risen for some churches.
For us, I fear that less physical gathering would result in more drifting, too much video content, less local participation and enthusiasm. Even --dare I say it?-- more marriages to unbelieving mates!

Crickets on how the weirdos in their basements eating Christ-Chex and baying at the moon are going to preach the good news of Gods Kingdom to the whole world.
All joking aside, I just don't see how it can get done unless you have an organization w/resources and a world-wide reach. This means you have to get serious not only about doctrine, but your methods of propagation. Too little attention to doctrine is an issue, as well as too little attention to its methods of propagation. Not saying anything specific means that you aren't serious, but that (being specific and serious) can land you in trouble as you overstep when you do say something specific.
Take the Catholic Church. Now it's doctrines are easy to blow away in the main, however they have attended to their own propagation w/in their organization. You see this w/any number of protestant groups as well. However to the extent that the reasons for not being Catholic aren't accentuated as highly important, to that extent to survive they have to be ecumenical and in so doing further undermine the arguments for their own existence. We see mega churches spending very little time w/doctrine and all about becoming a "full service" church w/lots of activities. These then stand for very little as well and then it becomes a competition to see which can provide the "best service" and this invariably revolves around personalities. The ministers in these necessarily balk at providing any serious discipline as these are being paid to serve. So of course there's going to be little in the way of discipline.
Then you have the weirdos who want to have a belly-button gazing form of Christianity which is all about the self - a spiritual narcissism and these can find any number of other weirdos to hang out with online and discuss 1st world issues.
None of these are going the right route. The message is garbled. Not so w/JW's. In fact as not-camera-ready as the GB obviously is this underscores the fact that this organization is dedicated to the message and avoiding the splintering which can occur if steps aren't taken to reign in people (like myself) who love to speculate. Nope, it's not about the personalities. They have taken steps to ensure the continuance and the propagation of the faith. Practical steps.
Right now the growth really appears to be in non-english speaking countries and in and among people who are much less privileged than those of us in the west. These are apparently quite happy w/the message they're receiving and it shows.
Ask yourself how many you imagine can even begin to wrap their minds around the arguments relative to 607 vs 586 BCE and lunar eclipses and the like. Like none. These are satisfied w/the basics and maybe we ought to ask ourselves the same questions. What are the real reasons for our gripes? (we've all had them) Then ask yourself "Is this important to the brothers and sisters in the third world countries or is this just me being impatient?"
 

I just keep wondering why you are here.....

To the best of my knowledge it is. Of course if you consider JWI, TTH, Xero and me apostates then I guess in your over imaginative mind it is not...

You are talking about JWtalk, and yes, I think he would get kicked out pretty soon.

To the best of my knowledge it is. Of course if you consider JWI, TTH, Xero and me apostates then I guess in your over imaginative mind it is not...

The point is, @César Chávez, why would anyone think it in the first place. It is well-known JW HQ does not endorse any site.

Witness, no one in their right mind is going to get together with a handful of people online or in someone's garage and imagine that what they are doing there has anything to do with preaching the good news of God's Kingdom to the remotest part of the earth. That requires organization, a world wide organization.
Hanging out w/a tiny group of people just feels creepy and weird. I'd imagine the next step in that group would be for the cyanide koolaide to come out at some point.

Is JWI a Watchtower lawyer?
No. But maybe he should be.
”Oh, for crying out loud! Will this closing argument never end? Give him whatever he wants! I hope to see my wife and kids again this side of Biden’s term!”

I wouldn't think so. I'm pretty sure that no one from the mother ship is concerned about what goes on here. They have better things to do.

None of this is true at all

None of this is true at all