Pudgy

In fairness, there is a 66 year difference in the quotes. Most things modify within a 66-year period, even when it means backing off a little. It’s a far cry from, ‘To each his own gods, o Israel!’ They still think it’s a good idea to pay attention to them, if not simply on the basis of headship and respect for love shown. As do I. I appreciate the modification, since I know I ought not feel disloyal if I don’t embrace every little thing.
I mean, really. Think back to 1957, when people readily complied with all things without complaint. Back when my dad would shear my hair like the barnyard animals he grew up with, leaving just a little tuft in the front like a hood ornament. He blew his stack when the Beatles came along and I tried to grow my hair one millimeter longer.

I'm with you. I don't oppose anything biblical. But we must take care not to frame a biblical statement as a "foundation" to include something that's not inherent to what the text actually says.
An example of this is the text of Genesis 9 where Noah is to told "Only flesh with its soul—its blood—YOU must not eat."
1) This was said of living animals that could be killed for food.
2) This was not suggesting that Noah could not make medicinal use of blood of these animals, so long as that medicinal use did not include eating that blood. (This was a real thing among the ancients!)
3) This was not said of animal carcasses found dead of natural cause, which are non-soulical. (This was a real thing among the ancients!)
4) This was certainly not said of transplanted human blood donated as a preventive or therapeutic medical purpose. (This was a real thing among the ancients!)
Our publications have applied a broad brush to the text when the text, as read literally, is said of a certain blood, which is blood of living animals. Out of respect for the life (soul) of an animal, an animal's flesh was not to be used as food unless the animal was killed, and in that case the blood of that killed animal was not to be eaten. To say the text means more is to transpose an idea onto the text.
 

I do not oppose anything, I just think it should be a conscience matter, purely because the scriptures you are talking about could be interpreted a few different ways, as has been shown.

I know.....

A statement I'll never forget reading for the first time is this:
"It is vital that we appreciate this fact and respond to the directions of the “slave” as we would to the voice of God, because it is His provision." (Ref https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1957446?q="the+voice+of+God"&p=sen
Somebody wants to be put on the same plane as the word of God. But then, I always thought that the voice of God was an inspired voice.
Yet:
"The Governing Body is neither inspired nor infallible." (Ref https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2017283?q=inspired+governing&p=sen
Wait. What?
Guess this means we should not respond to the "faithful slave" as we would to the voice of God.
Nothing like saying it like you mean it!
 

Unless  some of these materials are speculative, dogmatic, or going beyond what is written. 
"Make sure of all things, hold fast to what is fine"
"But let God be found true even if every man be found a liar"

…

😂I’ll do better on my next response. It’s difficult not following all these rabbit trails. I believe that fruitful authentic dialogue is focused dialogue. Be right back! 

He also admitted he was wrong and it seemed there was a bigger work that lay ahead that someone else other than he would address .
he never forced anyone to beleive his chronology…they could beleive or not beleive…he didn’t think any less of them…and he still considered them his spiritual brothers.

Honestly, only you know what that is supposed to be referring too.
 
It is true that Russell predicted Armageddon would come in 1914. I quoted his own publication to that end, for your sake. It's not my prediction. It was Russell's.

I want to add a thought regarding all this chronology discussion. 
Though there is plenty of history and documentation to know what was said, by whom, when, and whether it was true, false or subjective, this is material that for the most part is not really hurting anyone. Could it be misleading. Of course. Could is be misused. Yes. But for Christians who are supposed to live in a steady state of expectation is it really consequential whether something happened invisibly in 1914 or not? To me, though I know the subject area fairly well, it's something that I could sit and listen to without being too bothered.
It's other teachings that have had, and continue to have, a more direct and daily consequence to JWs that are far more important to me. We are all sinners, and our organization is no exception. We should all be grown Christians about that! What's important is looking to see where we can improve in our following of the Christ, and follow him closer. Jesus said he is the truth. So truth should be our aim.
Though we unavoidably have differences in personal conscientiously held beliefs, we can be unified in the common cause of always seeking what is true, whatever that is.

The society has wrapped a great deal of its theology around the year 1914. Even the 1919 teaching you allude to stems from the 1914 date. I won’t go into tremendous detail here, but it’s worthy of note what put legs on the teaching so that it got the traction it was assigned by the society.
In its 1993 brochure “Why Should We Worship God in Love and Truth?” there’s a chapter titled “Identifying God-Inspired Truth”. This chapter is primarily designed to steer individuals toward JWs as the source of ‘God-inspired truth’. Within that chapter the last section is titled “The Greatest Evidence of All”. There, being introduced as ‘the greatest of evidence’ is this paragraph:
Decades before World War I began in 1914, Jehovah’s worshipers were making known the significance of that year. The New York World of August 30, 1914, explains: “The terrific war outbreak in Europe has fulfilled an extraordinary prophecy. For a quarter of a century past, through preachers and through press, the ‘International Bible Students’ [as Jehovah’s Witnesses were then known] . . . have been proclaiming to the world that the Day of Wrath prophesied in the Bible would dawn in 1914.”8 Ever since the momentous events of that year, so accurately foretold in the Bible alone, the whole world system of things has been in its “last days.” (Ref https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101993129?q=%E2%80%9Cfulfilled+an+extraordinary+prophecy%E2%80%9C&p=par )
At the time, the article cited here published by The World Magazine really stirred tremendous interest in the teachings of Charles Russell. The article got prominent position on pages 4 and 17 of the magazine, and it feature one of Russell’s intriguing line graphs of the ages.
But do you see those ellipsis dots in the quoted paragraph? That’s the part left undisclosed, and I dare say more than 99 percent of the JW population today does not know what is undisclosed. The “extraordinary prophecy” that, according to The World Magazine, was fulfilled was that Russell and the early Bible Students had foretold that 1914 would see the battle of Armageddon.
The article in question is dated August 30, 1914. Hence at the time the publisher had no idea how 1914 would turn out. But we know today. We know for a fact that Armageddon did not occur in 1914, which is what Russell and the Bible Students had foretold.
What this means is:
1) “The Greatest Evidence of All” is based on a claim of fulfilled prophecy made in secular publisher in The World Magazine. This is what put legs onto the 1914 "prophecy". A secular publisher.
2) And, the “The Greatest Evidence of All” is no evidence at all about truth, because, as it turns out, prior to 1914 what Russell actually predicted for 1914 (Armageddon) did not come true. The would-be prophecy was false. So, something that we know was false is cited as 'the greatest evidence' for truth. That's a lot to take in!
That’s what the ellipsis dots camouflage. And it’s about a flagship teaching of the society.

Well … I will have to admit that I have never thought much about refusing blood for minor children and babies, only that when the issue came up for myself several times in the past it was the right thing for me to do, and because of it I defaulted to a much better quality surgeon that performed (to the best of my knowledge) perfectly, with no blood or blood fractions.
The first heart surgeon I called “Manny the Used Car Surgeon”, as he suggested he could operate on me using blood, but he would tell my family and congregation he didn’t.
He said this was standard for him.
I told him no blood or blood fractions under any circumstances and he looked at me like he didn’t understand English and said “Well, I’m NOT going to operate without blood!” I said “Well, that’s OK … I respect your conscience, but I expect you to respect mine”.  And I went by ambulance to a Heart Center 15 miles away, with six EMTs very busy keeping me alive, to where they WOULD operate without blood or blood fractions.
I woke up “20 years younger”.
Sometimes, yer flips yer coin, and yer takes yer chances. That was in 2010. I could just as well have bled out in 2010.
There is nothing that has ever lived that has not, or will not die …. including infants and children. Thousands die every minute.
Get used to the idea.
Don’t be such a Snowflake.
It’s the ONLY GAME IN TOWN.
Suck it up and keep going as best you can.
Cowards die a thousand deaths, the Valiant die but once.
…. and Jehovah can reverse that!

Of item 1, I'd listen to the man just like I would any other, to see if what he said conformed to sound reason (another phrase to mean conforming to conventions of logical construction). If his teachings (his conclusions) were soundly reasoned than I'd accept what he said as valid. The first thing I'd look for is whether a particular teaching is falsifiable. If it's not then that teaching needs some very extraordinary evidence. If it is falsifiable then I'd look to see what evidence supports each premise of his conclusion (his teaching).
Of item 2, they're only necessary for extraordinary claims. (See Ex 4:1-9)
Of item 3, yes, fallible but with two powerful things. 1) God's testimony in writing (the Bible) and in His creation all around me, and 2) a God-given brain capable of decision based on sound reason.
You've written a lot of words and I'm not sure why.
If a teaching comes from any man or group of men and it cannot stand up to sound scrutiny then it should not be accepted as a valid teaching.

The book “1984” was supposed to be a warning …. not an instruction manual.

I thought long about that comment. My story is no more and no less a story about a boy who was raised to respect truth.
Many generations of my family have been associated with JWs, even before JWs were a thing. My paternal side goes back to Russell.
I was raised to trust the society. So that's what I did. And, that was my mistake. 'Do not put your trust in nobles, nor in the son of earthling man, to whom no salvation belongs.' I should have listened to that with more care than I did.
When it came to the society's blood position, when I was baptized I trusted that someone higher up and smarter than me understood the details, and I trusted them.
Way, way later down the road, I found out the society could not and would not answer for important underpinnings of its position on blood. This was the case regarding physiological aspects of blood as a substance, and medical aspects of transfusion medicine. This was also true of biblical statements regarding blood, and particularly as it relates to Noah. Ultimately, what lit me up to take a closer look at this whole thing were things I read in our own publications. I realized the scriptural truth of the whole thing was already spelled out in our literature! So I showed it to the society. Crickets.
Compare these two articles:
Here: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1983290
Here: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101983099
In the second article, pay careful attention to paragraphs 7 and 8. Very close attention, as you look back over the first article linked above. This material was all published in the same year. None of it is the result of "new light" that changed. Remember there are biblical characters who worshiped the only true God who were never under Mosaic Law. Men like Noah, Job, Elihu and Cornelius. These latter had to obey the decree issued to Noah. But not to the different standard issued to Jews under Mosaic Law.
Those internal articles are just the tip. 
People are still dying over something that should be left for each person to decide on their own, without religious coercion of being potentially shunned.
In the end, my story doesn't and shouldn't matter. What matters is truth.
 
 

With the “Bruen” decision of 2022 the United States Supreme court  FINALLY got it right about the 2nd Amendment “.. the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. Partisan agendas had corrupted this simple edict of law since 1791.  For over 200 years this had been a hot topic of discussion, and thousands of unconstitutional legislations that subjected men to tyranny and imprisonment. In over 200 years this issue has flip-flopped thousands of times from one irrational excess to another.
In similar manner the scriptures, as a theme that runs throughout the Bible, shows through little snippets the respect God demands for blood … which he holds to belong to him, representing the life of all living things … which HE is the source of.
The last thing the Bible has to say about this is the simple directive “abstain from blood”, but it sums up a common theme that runs through the whole Old and New Testament.
Carrion with the blood could be given or sold to non-Jews, but not eaten by Jews.
They were expected to be a holy people.
If you along a roadway find someone who has been chopped to pieces … perhaps some fingers or pieces of a torso or skull, can you legitimately make the claim these fractions of a body are no longer human?
No.
A dead fractional human, but even a fingerprint is a human fingerprint. Even a single hair is a HUMAN remains. I have opened graves where the only thing left was hair, and metal coffin handles.
We treated those woodland graves with deep respect,  and relocated them as if they were 100% intact.(We were building a housing subdivision).
Once blood is created in an air-breathing animal, it belongs to Jehovah God, and we are allowed to use as food the body that made it. 
If you disassemble a firearm and acid off the serial number it does not cease being a firearm.  If it was EVER A GUN, it does not lose that identity by being fractionated.
Neither does blood.
 
 

I have found that explaining the obvious to the agenda driven is a waste…. believe what you want.

Your entire arguments are made attacking premises that I never made, and have wandered afar.
 

…
 

Here's a lesson in logic:
Premise 1: Adam is given vegetation to eat.
Premise 2: Adam eats vegetation.
Conclusion: Adam is prohibited from eating biological fat.
Question: Based on the premises offered, is the conclusion of this argument valid or invalid?
 

I want you to look back on your own personal life, for as long as you have lived, and also look back to all the friends you have ever known, all inclusive.
Add to that to everybody you’ve ever passed on the sidewalk going to and from anywhere.  
From your personal experience, added to the personal experience of everyone you have ever met, how many people in total have ever gone to the grocery store or by any other means purchased Carrion?
Carrion being defined as animal life that has died of its own initiative with no help from mankind.
….. Carrion being defined as animal life that has died of its own initiative with no help from mankind.
ZERO?
… and that is the only point worth making. All else is manufactured stretch.…. and that’s the fact, Jack!
 

I know, these kinds of questions are very uncomfortable. Because whatever answer the interlocutor gives, it will get him into trouble. :))
 
 

Jehovah said animals have to be bled andthe blood returned to the Earth.
That’s it.
He did not say compress the meat.

Kosher meat is meat that has been prepared in accordance with Jewish dietary laws, or kashrut. To be considered kosher, the meat must come from certain animals that are considered clean according to Jewish law, such as cows, sheep, and chickens. Additionally, it must be slaughtered by a trained Jewish individual in a specific way to minimize cruelty and ensure proper drainage of blood. The meat should also be inspected for any imperfections or injuries that could render it non-kosher.
Finally, it should not be mixed with dairy products, as mixing meat and dairy is generally prohibited in kosher dietary laws.
Prayer has nothing at all to do with MAKING meat kosher, it’s AFTER it is slaughtered that a blessing is asked from God on the already kosher meat.