TrueTomHarley

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.

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.

No need to get too technical here. It is enough for the phrase to stand for one’s guiding focus on life, as the Temple was for Jews.
The aggravation I face is that I only have to breathe an expression like “Temple of God” and Witness reliably jumps in with:
and this is generally followed by pages and pages of diatribe which always come down to her same regular conclusion:  that she represents a truer anointed than the ones that Jehovah’s Witnesses focus upon. Been there, done that (1000 times) I just didn’t want to go there yet again.
Yeah. That’s pretty much the point I was making. Again, no need to get too technical here.

I liken making that “journey of discovery” to assembling the 1000 piece jigsaw puzzle and reproducing the mountain vista on the box cover. Having done this, you are pretty much immune to the critic who comes along later and says you did it wrong. You are especially immune if that critic’s own puzzle lies boxed and unassembled on his closet shelf.
And when you are cruising down the highway at 60 MPH, you are pretty much immune to the atheist on the radio telling you that your car doesn’t run.

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.

Biddy: Thanks for that.  It encouraged me a LOT .. and I am very hard to encourage.

OMG, you two stop!

You certainly do come out of your hole to prognosticate a lot.

Well, I am in the U S, not Britain. It does not happen here, though there probably are youngsters who will run away from home, and afterwards present it that they were thrown out, as explained in my post. And I am dubious that it happens where you are, John. You do not come across as the most rational of commenters. Rather, you come across as pretty unhinged.
If someone has the time, find the discussion—it would be somewhere in the 1991 WT, I think—dealing with how parents would treat a disfellowshipped youngster. The consideration that is posed is to determine whether that person an adult, capable of being self-sufficient, or whether he/she is a child. In the latter case he or she would not be asked to leave.
It is in print. Go find the contrary, if you think it exists. It doesn’t.

No. The apostates back then were the ones who brought in the immortal soul teaching, as well as the Trinity. The governing arrangement then, as now, stayed true to scripture.
Besides your statement the end is a long long ways off, have you now come to embrace the Trinity and hellfire for the miscreants?
Witness, too, cheered this statement. Is she also a Trinitarian and hellfire advocate?

No. It is a must-avoid.
Actually, it is sort of cute. It is not a must-see, but it is a movie you would probably enjoy.
We have some good friends in that circuit, who tell us
A) that there is a congregation in Punxsutawney, and 
B) you never saw such a tacky place in your life, with every interest imaginable cashing in on the legend.

So, it is now a crime for literature to reflect the morality of the Bible?

This does not happen.
I would not say that it never ever happens. It may. It is a big world with many people and you never know what individuals might do. But no way would it ever be sanctioned by the organization. Nor is 6 an age that I have ever heard of for someone being baptized. Again, it may have happened, but I know of no examples. One of my kids wanted to get baptized at 10, and was advised to wait. (and was bummed about it) However, another was baptized a 9–something which was most unusual, but not unheard of. I think the tendency is to recommend more years of age today—mid teens is what I typically see.
More likely the case presented is the 15 year old running away due to an atmosphere he/she thought too “restrictive” and then retroactively spinning it as being “kicked out” of the home. Kids locking horns with parents and running away from home is a theme almost as old as time. In this case her parents following the lead of the organization is presented as the trigger—and may actually be the trigger—but it is always something. It is not new.
Malcontents complain at great length over the video shown at a convention of a teenaged girl “kicked out” of her house for immorality. Were they to be more honest, they would acknowledge that 
1) she ran away from home,
2) her parents did not want her to go,
3) (admittedly speculative) she thereafter represented the situation as being “kicked out” due to the repressive rule of the Governing Body. (Actually, the girl of the video probably did not, because she did return, but many girls of reality do just that.)
It was so with a star witness at the Russian trial that resulted in a countrywide ban. She complained of the oppressive tactics of the organization. When asked to give an example, she offered up her being ejected for her “not officially sanctioned” relationship with a man. Here she is “shacking up,” an action once universally condemned by most of society, and virtually ALL of religious society, and she spins it as a philosophical disagreement with the Witness organization!
Adhering to Bible moral standards on matters of sexuality was once commonplace, and what the video portrays would have once been spun as “tough love.” 
I have been going through a Great Courses series on CD lately. The narrator (Prof Patrick Allitt) observes that in 1960 a child out of wedlock was an absolute shocker to general society. Fifteen years later it was commonplace. Those condemning the video are essentially those condemning a traditional generation for not more quickly falling into line with the “new morality”—spinning it as a conflict with the Witness organization, when in actually it is a conflict with the morality of the Bible.

So, it is now a crime for literature to reflect the morality of the Bible?

This does not happen.
I would not say that it never ever happens. It may. It is a big world with many people and you never know what individuals might do. But no way would it ever be sanctioned by the organization. Nor is 6 an age that I have ever heard of for someone being baptized. Again, it may have happened, but I know of no examples. One of my kids wanted to get baptized at 10, and was advised to wait. (and was bummed about it) However, another was baptized a 9–something which was most unusual, but not unheard of. I think the tendency is to recommend more years of age today—mid teens is what I typically see.
More likely the case presented is the 15 year old running away due to an atmosphere he/she thought too “restrictive” and then retroactively spinning it as being “kicked out” of the home. Kids locking horns with parents and running away from home is a theme almost as old as time. In this case her parents following the lead of the organization is presented as the trigger—and may actually be the trigger—but it is always something. It is not new.
Malcontents complain at great length over the video shown at a convention of a teenaged girl “kicked out” of her house for immorality. Were they to be more honest, they would acknowledge that 
1) she ran away from home,
2) her parents did not want her to go,
3) (admittedly speculative) she thereafter represented the situation as being “kicked out” due to the repressive rule of the Governing Body. (Actually, the girl of the video probably did not, because she did return, but many girls of reality do just that.)
It was so with a star witness at the Russian trial that resulted in a countrywide ban. She complained of the oppressive tactics of the organization. When asked to give an example, she offered up her being ejected for her “not officially sanctioned” relationship with a man. Here she is “shacking up,” an action once universally condemned by most of society, and virtually ALL of religious society, and she spins it as a philosophical disagreement with the Witness organization!
Adhering to Bible moral standards on matters of sexuality was once commonplace, and what the video portrays would have once been spun as “tough love.” 
I have been going through a Great Courses series on CD lately. The narrator (Prof Patrick Allitt) observes that in 1960 a child out of wedlock was an absolute shocker to general society. Fifteen years later it was commonplace. Those condemning the video are essentially those condemning a traditional generation for not more quickly falling into line with the “new morality”—spinning it as a conflict with the Witness organization, when in actually it is a conflict with the morality of the Bible.

No. It is a must-avoid.
Actually, it is sort of cute. It is not a must-see, but it is a movie you would probably enjoy.
We have some good friends in that circuit, who tell us
A) that there is a congregation in Punxsutawney, and 
B) you never saw such a tacky place in your life, with every interest imaginable cashing in on the legend.

There was never a time when they were not allowed. Who's going to 'not allow' them?

Oh, very well. Sign up for her as your ‘anointed’ source, if you like.  You two deserve each other.

You are getting close......awfully close. In fact, close enough. I will solve this baby for you.
Put your ear down to the turtle very very close and say just the right words, and he will explain the overlapping generations to you.

You are getting close......awfully close. In fact, close enough. I will solve this baby for you.
Put your ear down to the turtle very very close and say just the right words, and he will explain the overlapping generations to you.

Moreover, if they really wanted to pump everyone into fever pitch, as John charges they do, they would not have let 1Thess 5:2-3 go unmentioned during last week’s assigned Bible reading—the verse about “whenever they are crying ‘peace and security.’ They would have hyped it to the heavens. Instead, they let it pass unnoticed.
I think they are sailing a “steady as she goes” course among treacherous waters, doing their best not to overhype nor underhype. I just don’t like to second-guess their every move. Everyone knows what a pain a back-seat driver is. I don’t want to be one.
Does John want to go back to what he once was doing, reasoning that it is enough to know that the end is “out there somewhere?” This course I believe we are “not allowed” to take—not by the GB, but by Jesus, if we would prove ourselves faithful to him. Does John point to things he thinks the GB does wrong? (Does he ever!) I note how Miriam and Aaron began to speak against Moses on account of his Cushite wife—and how Jehovah really, really didn’t like that, and He let them hear about it. This was so even though Moses actually did have a Cushite wife.
As much as it is good to roam history in the spirit of “he who does not know history is doomed to repeat it,” it is probably one of those things we are just going to have to accept that we do from time to time. The presumed motivation for so searching past publications is so that we do not yet again emerge with egg on our face when something doesn’t turn out as anticipated. I think it is fair to assume that we may—for the alternative is to forget all about “keeping on the watch”—the opposite shoal, which is even more dangerous than the one we are trying to navigate.
To the extent that the intent is to appear “respectable” by never again having to backtrack on prior expectations, I think the intent is misguided, though certainly understandable. Paul was described as a “pest” who was leading a “sect.” Witnesses today can expect no more. Christians then were considered the “offscouring” of the earth. Witnesses today can expect no more. 
What we have on this site is multiple players trying to make the case that the doers are doing it wrong—overlooking the fact that in most cases they themselves are doing nothing. Witnesses just have to accept that it will be that way. Malcontents and renegades will pick up the same refrain as you-know-who, the one who “accuses our brothers day and night before our God.”

WILL YOU STOP SNORING SO LOUD!? I CAN’T HEAR MYSELF THINK!
You know, the more I think about it, the more I think John is right. Yes, I will backtrack some.
I now think that the end is probably a long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long long ways off.
Tennis, anyone?

Moreover, if they really wanted to pump everyone into fever pitch, as John charges they do, they would not have let 1Thess 5:2-3 go unmentioned during last week’s assigned Bible reading—the verse about “whenever they are crying ‘peace and security.’ They would have hyped it to the heavens. Instead, they let it pass unnoticed.
I think they are sailing a “steady as she goes” course among treacherous waters, doing their best not to overhype nor underhype. I just don’t like to second-guess their every move. Everyone knows what a pain a back-seat driver is. I don’t want to be one.
Does John want to go back to what he once was doing, reasoning that it is enough to know that the end is “out there somewhere?” This course I believe we are “not allowed” to take—not by the GB, but by Jesus, if we would prove ourselves faithful to him. Does John point to things he thinks the GB does wrong? (Does he ever!) I note how Miriam and Aaron began to speak against Moses on account of his Cushite wife—and how Jehovah really, really didn’t like that, and He let them hear about it. This was so even though Moses actually did have a Cushite wife.
As much as it is good to roam history in the spirit of “he who does not know history is doomed to repeat it,” it is probably one of those things we are just going to have to accept that we do from time to time. The presumed motivation for so searching past publications is so that we do not yet again emerge with egg on our face when something doesn’t turn out as anticipated. I think it is fair to assume that we may—for the alternative is to forget all about “keeping on the watch”—the opposite shoal, which is even more dangerous than the one we are trying to navigate.
To the extent that the intent is to appear “respectable” by never again having to backtrack on prior expectations, I think the intent is misguided, though certainly understandable. Paul was described as a “pest” who was leading a “sect.” Witnesses today can expect no more. Christians then were considered the “offscouring” of the earth. Witnesses today can expect no more. 
What we have on this site is multiple players trying to make the case that the doers are doing it wrong—overlooking the fact that in most cases they themselves are doing nothing. Witnesses just have to accept that it will be that way. Malcontents and renegades will pick up the same refrain as you-know-who, the one who “accuses our brothers day and night before our God.”

And it is enough to know that He won’t get around to it for a long time—it is “a long ways off.” That way, hit the ‘snooze’ and catch a few more zzzzz’s
’Keeping on the watch’ is a bear.