Alphonse

Hadn’t thought of that. Even if Aaron had caught Moses’ flash of temper, he might have thought, ‘I owe him one.’

Actually, I found the book “Shepherding The Flock Of God“ to be quite valuable.
I found absolutely nothing wrong with it, having read every word from cover to cover, although the part dealing about brazen conduct was creepy and a catchall for anything the Elders didn’t like, like when you confronted them with overreach.
”Brazen Conduct”. (?)
What I did not like is that it was top-secret. What I did not like is that sisters were not supposed to know of it’s existence, or touch it..
How would you feel if you were dragged into court for some traffic offense or some criminal offense and you wanted to know what you were charged with, and the court or the police said I’m sorry I’m not allowed to tell you what law you broke or to know in advance what they are, and you’re not allowed to know how the proceeding is going to go against you.
SURPRISE!!
And if you’re convicted it’s roughly the equivalent of being executed, Because you’ll be evicted from the Congregation from which is the source of life.
Secrecy ALWAYS begets tyranny! 

Okay I get that bit now..thanks for the correction and over look any remarks concerning this….and I absolutely respect you and all the work you did within the org for Gods people …..as a side note we always call it a organization…I have never liked that  and I just call us Jehovahs people or family ….

Yes just like I just said.

You are living in a total fantasy construct Georgie, of ignoring actual historical developments and events that really happened, for irrelevant and immaterial theoretical concerns of things that might have been, and should have been, but didn’t.
Because your entire frame of reference is driven by agenda, and not reality … your entire perspective has little or no relationship with what is real.

Neither Steve Jobs nor Elon Musk would make the mistake of surrounding themselves with Yes-men. Each would depend on good minds around them to check their actions when it would be prudent to do so. Nevertheless, this is not a good example for the purpose you use it for, which reason will follow.
We're not talking about Jobs or Musk. We're talking about whether God expects unlimited obedience to subordinates that He (God) has put in place. In your example you've placed Jobs/Musk at the top. The one at the top in my biblical example is God; not Moses. Moses, though a God appointed spokesman, was not the top dog. The top dog was God. God punished Aaron for his passive support of Moses when he should have given that passive support. Aaron could have acted (respectfully if need be) to check Moses' action at Meribah had he appropriately prioritized his loyalties; his obedience.

Good comparison. 
Yes in the first instance, no in the second. Yes in the first because of headship. Adam had it. No in the second because Aaron did not.
I admit there’s an appeal to the #2 guy correcting the faux pas of the one who has headship. Trouble is, once it begins it never ends. Then, you soon discover that the #2 guy is overall less qualified than the #1–which partly accounts for why the #1 was appointed 1 to begin with.
Since you’ve presented an imperfect comparison, not so imperfect as to be sophistry, but imperfect nonetheless, I will too:
Do you think Steve Jobs’ or Elon Musk’s #2 person should have corrected Steve or Elon every time they impulsively fired someone? (Both of them fired many, often on a whim, often unjustly)
Bear in mind that Jobs gave you that iPad you’re writing on and Musk that Tesla you covet. 

Glossary
Misrepresentation
An untrue statement of fact or law made by Party A (or its agent) to Party B, which induces Party B to enter a contract with Party A thereby causing Party B loss. An action for misrepresentation can be brought in respect of a misrepresentation of fact or law.
There are three types of misrepresentation:
Fraudulent misrepresentation: where a false representation has been made knowingly, or without belief in its truth, or recklessly as to its truth.
Negligent misrepresentation: a representation made carelessly and in breach of duty owed by Party A to Party B to take reasonable care that the representation is accurate. If no "special relationship" exists, there may be a misrepresentation under section 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967 where a statement is made carelessly or without reasonable grounds for believing its truth.
Innocent misrepresentation: a representation that is neither fraudulent nor negligent.
The remedies for misrepresentation are rescission and/or damages. For fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation, the claimant may claim rescission and damages. For innocent misrepresentation, the court has a discretion to award damages in lieu of rescission; the court cannot award both (see section 2(2) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967). For more information, see Practice note, Misrepresentation and Practice note, Damages for misrepresentation: an overview.
https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/9-107-6848?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true
 
Public materials that are readily available and visible to any JW or non-JW (WTJWorg's official digital content website) when viewed with prior knowledge of the Organization, exhibit all of these elements listed in the definition of "misrepresentation."
Once again briefly. JW brother Joshua clearly used the term "blood transfusion". He should know about all those blood finesse. So, in my opinion, he deliberately omitted to explain in detail what WTJWorg means by the term "blood transfusion", what is blood and what is not blood according to the GB interpretation.
He had all the time in the world to explain it to reporters and listeners. Since he did not do it in the clear and only correct way (the bare truth), it means that he DECEIVED (intentionally) the public when he spoke about the freedom of decision of JW members about "blood issue". 
JW lawyers and JW members do a similar thing in many courts when they give written or oral testimony in which they use "theoretical warfare" methods. 
About "Shepherd" book. If that book is so "public", conduct a member survey and ask how many have read the book (JW men, women and children).
 

…. um …. the phrase is “theocratic warfare”, where you are allowed to lie if you believe the “enemy” does not need to be told the truth.…. and apparently that includes the Brotherhood when it is deemed we are not entitled to the truth …. the “Shepherding the Flock of God” Elders Handbook being the classic example.

The use of the "theocratic war" method falls under the INSTRUCTION that comes from the GB. The decision as to whether to use it is not a suggestion left to so called individual "conscience". 

… Being right covers a multitude of sins, a concept totally foreign to you.
An argument based only on bluster and bluff, as yours was, can be safely disregarded.
PLUS, If you read in Latin, everything sounds much more profound …..

The first resort of an incompetent is an ad-hominem attack based only on their disregardable opinion.
Every reply you give further destroys your credibility. 
 

And this is why we have the closed club, so we don't have to put up with many Allen Smiths with many problems, and his buddy George. Oh why, oh why, did I even start commenting here I ask myself.

What you're depicted here looks like a bifurcation to me, and, I think, a false one. The bifurcation is, essentially, either 1) your making your own interpretation or 2) you're not. I'll get back to this.
Your familiar with what internally we term "conscience matters". These are of things that are left to each person to decide without organized communal repercussion because different ones among us may legitimately hold different views on the same subject. Sometimes these different views might stem from different interpretations of information. But that's not always the case. Sometimes the difference in view is not because of an interpretation but, rather, because of a good solid logical argument. Logical conclusions are subject to veracity, but not interpretation. The conclusion of a logical argument is sound if its form is valid and its premises are evidenced. The level of veracity of a conclusion reached by a logical argument is determined by the strength of evidence for the argument's premises. The existence of "conscience matters" shows that different decisions can live in the same room.
So, back to my opening statement. The bifurcation you present is because there is an option other than simple interpretation. The option is making oneself accept conclusions of logical arguments, whether we like those conclusions or not. Logical conclusions have no bias, and are always falsifiable. I can say for certainty (because I've felt the pain!) that accepting certain conclusions has proven to be very hard, because of biases that I held. I have to force myself to accept a conclusion different than my preference because I couldn't deny the mathematical equation staring me in the face, especially after I verified its form and values over and over again to make sure. I was not submitting to what I wanted to accept (my preferential interpretation). I was submitting to something else.
Here's a scenario that's very real:
JW 1 conscientiously accepts multiple plasma exchange therapies with more than half his circulating blood replaced multiple times with cryosupernatant plasma donated by anonymous donors.
JW 2 conscientiously rejects multiple plasma exchange therapies with more than half his circulating blood replaced multiple times with cryosupernatant plasma donated by anonymous donors.
We respect both persons despite the fact that these two individuals hold diametrically opposing views on a life and death decision. We do this because both persons hold views that each had soundly reasoned to different ends based on premises applied within their respective logical arguments.
My point here when there are competing conclusions each of which is the result of a logical argument (in our case, as logical scriptural argument) then each conclusion should be respected, and the differentiation is not based merely on personal interpretation.
Christians are like anyone else. They need teachers. But teachers should teach us how to think, not what to think. If a teacher has a conclusion they think is solid the burden is on that teacher to demonstrate that conclusion is as sound as they would have us accept and act upon it. If they can't then they've failed as teachers, or we could have failed as students, or perhaps both have failed. But the burden is always on the teacher. Always. Of course, a student has a duty to learn as best they can. Otherwise they've cheated themselves.
Oh, and the two JWs above, they can remain unified in common cause despite their opposing differences, which is what unity is.
 

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"

Thank you for the comments  @Anna The Bible is a holy book, but it is also a dangerous book, because if you don't interpret it correctly, you can be led into false beliefs. I could point to some groups where you would agree that their misinterpretation of Scripture has led to their spiritual destruction. 
@Many Miles I do not believe that for us (Witnesses) authority is identical to truth. Authority is moral power to which submission and obedience is due from those entrusted to it. But when I submit (so long as agree), the one to whom I submit is me. In other words, reducing authority to truth (or agreement by those under authority that the authority is speaking the truth), conceptually eliminates authority. That doesn't entail that every authority has equal authority. As Witnesses, we obey the rightful ruler of our country, but only under God's greater authority. If the president asks us to do something that violates our conscience, or would require disobeying Jehovah, we must serve God rather than men, because God is greater in authority than any creature. But, that doesn't entail that we must submit to the government only when we agree with the civil law or only when we agree that it is good for our country. We might think some laws are bad, but, so long as they do not require us to violate our conscience or the divine law, we must submit to them, because of their authority.
The authority of Scripture is authority with respect to divine revelation. The authority of the Governing body, is interpretive authority with respect to that revelation. These are two different types of authority. They do not compete but complement each other and are mutually dependent according to Witnesses. Witnesses believe that Christ has given divinely appointed men the authority of stewardship and the gift of explaining the Scriptures to His Congregation. So for a Witness the correct way of approaching Scripture is to learn and study it as informed by the guidance of the Congregation. 
That is the choice for a Witness, either they are going to trust and follow Christ by following a divine appointed authority that interprets the faith or follow Christ by determining for themselves and relying on their own judgment on how it is to be interpreted. The Witness who wants to subject the interpretive authority of the governing body to some other interpretive authority to hold them accountable is actually saying whether they realize it or not that they want the Governing body to be accountable to their own interpretation of scripture. This Witness is taking that authority to themselves. And that is another way of showing that the requirement is in essence a denial of their own need for a Governing body.
Some have been concerned that this amounts to authoritarianism. But we all (insiders/outsiders) have to understand the nature of the authority a Witness believes has been given to the Governing Body. If that wasn’t the case, to whom do they wish to make the Governing body accountable? For a Witness there is no higher interpretive authority on earth than the Governing body of the Congregation. So the idea of subjecting the Governing Body to something else presumes that there is something else on earth that has greater interpretive authority than the Governing Body.
So let me ask you guys, I'm assuming we are all Witnesses @Anna @xero @Many Miles @JW Insider   I think we are coming up against the common problem encountered when the authority argument is pressed to its last frontier. Namely, given that the fallible individual (us) must ultimately be the one to make the authority choice, it would seem that whatever authority is embraced will necessarily be tainted with the corruption of our fallibility and choice. If we claim that the Congregation is our authority, but we pick it as our authority, and retain it as our authority, on the basis of their agreement with our own judgment, then performatively they only have semantic authority (is our authority in name only) and is not functioning as our authority.
The apparent incoherencies start to appear when a Witness asks, if a fallible interpretative authority can bind the conscience?... let me explain. Witnesses are called to train or inform their conscience. Part of informing their conscience is coming to understand that the governing body has been divinely appointed as the teaching authority of the Congregation. So thru reason after examining the evidence (history, prophecy, other marks and signs) they come to have moral certainty that this authority comes from God, and that Jehovah has a Congregation, and that Jehovah's Witness are the Congregation Jesus established. So they enter and join this community of faith. A faith which is communicated in part in propositions. Propositions which are professed, believed and shared by its members. These propositions they appeal to, are revealed in Scripture and have to be interpreted by someone if they want to understand their meaning and assent to it. So there is no other way. For JW's it is reasonable to accept the Governing Body’s teaching authority when they interpret scripture because they believe they share the authority of the elders and apostles of the Jerusalem Council in the first century. They also believe they share the assistance of the holy spirit promised by Jesus which would guide them to the truth which gives them reason for confidence in their guidance of the Congregation. This makes it reasonable for Witnesses to be disposed to accept their teaching authority even when it is not infallible because their teaching enjoys the presumption of truth. So far as their conscience knows and understands that the Congregation has divine authority then their conscience tells them to submit. If a Witness doesn't believe the Congregation has divine authority then their conscience is not bound to follow it.
Now the question is if they can extend this binding of the conscience to particular doctrines that have been settled by the Governing Body for the past 100 years. 
Of course the teachings or claims to authority of the Governing Body to make sense they have to be reasonable and consistent and faithful, but their authority does not come from the strength of the arguments, or because Witnesses happen to agree with that teaching, or because it makes sense. If that were true, their teachings would have no more claim to their assent than it does to anyone else outside of their religion who happens to read their teachings on their website or publications.
So once a person locates, identifies and enters the Congregation, a shift takes place. Meaning their reason submits to this divine authority, where their reason no longer remains the ultimate judge concerning the truth of what the Governing Body teaches. Of course Witnesses search the scriptures, but not to determine whether their doctrines are true, but to seek to understand how they are contained and presented in scripture.
The reason I say this is because the Governing Body doesn’t seem to agree that the apostles anywhere in scripture exhorted other Christians to test the authority of the apostles against their own subjective interpretation of Scripture. (1Th 5:21; Ga 1:7-9; 1 John 4:1; Acts 17:11)
What I'm trying to get at is this. On the one hand JW's have a perpetual openness to correct their understandings of doctrines that deal with faith and morals as the discovery of new biblical arguments overturn current understandings. But on the other hand they are commanded to submit and obey to current teachings. If that is the case, there has to be a way to be able to distinguish between:
Beliefs(teachings/doctrines) that express what is revealed in scripture, thus an interpretation with divine authority.
and
Beliefs(teachings/doctrines) arrived by mere fallible human inferences or a human way of interpreting them.
This seems to create problems:
1) All of the Governing body's conclusions will remain fallible and provisional amounting to mere opinions.
2)If the Governing Body is fallible, and thus could always be wrong, then the assent witnesses render to their teachings are always tentative and subject to substantive revision.
3) It follows that they know next to nothing with any certainty.
4) They can never know with certainty if what they are having faith is a true expression or a true interpretation of scripture.
5)If the Governing Body is fallible how do Witnesses distinguish mere human opinions as opposed to a divine interpretation and how can they have faith that the interpretation is divine revelation?
So ultimately, the problem is if it’s possible for Jehovah’s Witnesses to exercise faith in the interpretations of the Governing Body if the five points above are true?
Do you guys agree with this assessment or is there another Framework the Congregation is operating under?
 
@xero It seems our epistemological stance is exemplified in the words of Martin Luther at the Diet of Worms:
"Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason. I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other, my conscience is captive to the Word of God."
Luther’s statement captures the very essence of our religious epistemology and his claim that his conscience was “captive to the Word of God” meant in actuality that his conscience was ultimately bound by his own interpretation of Scripture. 

Anna,
First of all, you are a welcome breath of fresh air in this discussion. I want to thank you for that.
Now to your comment,
Yes, of course. But recall that when the early apostles issued their decision that mentioned blood it was in response to an influx of Gentile worshipers of God becoming followers of Christ. The Gentile Christians, like Cornelius, were being taught they needed to abide by Mosaic Law. The apostles said, no. But there were certain things that all Christians, including the Gentile Christians, needed to abide by, all of which predated Mosaic Law.
Regarding blood, our publication United In Worship of the Only True God says it best,
"The decision of that governing body did list as “necessary things” certain prohibitions that were in harmony with that Law, but these were based on the Bible record concerning events that predated the Law. So there was not an imposing on Gentile Christians of a responsibility to conform to the Mosaic Law or some portion of it but, rather, there was a confirming of standards recognized prior to Moses." (Ref https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101983099 )
Back then, there were Jews familiar with Mosaic Law who converted to Christianity, and there was Gentiles who became Christians. Those Jewish converts knew that, under their former religion, Gentiles were free to eat the meat of animals found dead of natural cause, which flesh was unbled. In fact, those Jewish converts knew that, under Mosaic Law, they were free to sell Gentiles that sort of unbled flesh specifically for purposes of eating that unbled flesh. (Ref Deut 14:21)
Gentile descendants of Noah who were worshipers of God, like Job, Elihu and Cornelius, were never under Mosaic Law, but they were bound to keep the law issued to Noah. But they knew keeping the law to Noah required that they abstain from eating the blood of animals still alive or of the blood of animals they killed to use as food. (Gen 9) They knew that blood obtained from killing an animal represented that animal's life. In recognition of that they were to abstain from eating that blood, the blood from killing. However, other than abstaining from eating that blood they were free to use it otherwise however they wanted. Also, they knew that taking a man's blood in murder meant they would forfeit their own right to life. This is what Gentile Christians and Jewish converts to Christianity knew about blood that applied to everyone.
These Jewish and Gentile Christians lived mostly an agrarian life. They knew about killing and slaughtering animals, and they knew about eating animals found dead of natural cause.
When it came to the substance of blood, as I said before, they would never have seen four components. They would have observed whole blood and two components of serum and clot. This is all they could have seen because this is how blood separates in nature.

Anna,
I'll say the same thing to you that district and circuit overseers have said to me, and at least one who used to be at Bethel, lyman Swingle. It's brave of you to openly state what needs stating. Of course we all know our Master, the Christ, did  this. He was disfellowshipped the old fashion way for doing it. But he spoke what needed to be said nevertheless. None of use are greater than our Master.
Given the above, I'm not expecting more in the way of response. I will say that I agree with you that the whole thing should be left to each person's conscience. If folks want to believe something is of the Bible that they can't prove true from the Bible, well that's their business. But these should never take it upon themselves to force that view onto others without being able to prove the position true to he extent they want to enforce it.
As for dangers of blood transfusion, yes there are dangers. But there is such a thing as bleeding to death. That's real! Very real! In medical cases of severe anemia often the only thing that will prevent death is transfusion of packed red cells. In my case, I'd only accept transfusion of a product rendered from blood if that was the best available option.

What is our scriptural basis for refusing transfusion of products rendered from blood?
Our organization’s policy regarding blood is to disassociate (effectively: disfellowship) fellow JWs for accepting transfusion of whole blood, or any of the products known as red cells, white cells, platelets or plasma. On the other hand, we are not to disassociate/disfellowship fellow JWs for accepting any other products rendered from blood, such as hemoglobin, albumin, cryoprecipitate or cryosupernatant plasma.
ONE ASPECT OF THE POSITION
We have these two items of response and discussion:
Item 1: When asked by an elder why we would disfellowship/disassociate a JW for conscientiously taking a transfusion of a blood product like white cells but not for taking a product like cryoprecipitate, the society’s response was to say ‘while both may affect the life of the individual, both whole blood and major components (meaning red cells, white cells, platelets and plasma) carry nutrition to the body, and it is this aspect of providing nourishment that links blood transfusion with the biblical prohibition.’
Item 2: To another elder who asked a similar question, the response was to say “In weighing matters scripturally, the “slave" has decided with good-basis that blood's four primary components-plasma,-red cells, white cells, and platelets-should not be used. That is how unfractionated blood components settle out naturally. In its still unbroken-down state, each separated primary component, regardless of its respective percentage of whole blood, can still represent basically what blood as a whole symbolizes: the life of the creature.”
The problem with these two items of response is that both are inconsistent with facts on the ground.
Regarding item one above, it leverages the biblical statement to Noah about eating blood of animals killed to use them as food. (See Gen 9) The problem is, it is well known that transfusion of red cells offers no nutritional support. None. To be clear, if a patient was transfused with red cells for nutritional support, they would die of starvation. On the other hand, and ironically, if a patient were transfused with cryosupernatant plasma it would offer a decent measure of nutritional support. This makes our position self-contradictory.
Regarding item two above, it leverages what we find in the natural world. (See Ps 19) The problem is, it is patently false to say blood settles out naturally as plasma, red cells, white cells and platelets. First of all, there is no instance in nature where this is true. None. In nature, when blood settles out, it settles out as two components, not four. Those two components are serum and a clot. Second, were it true that blood settles out naturally as plasma, red cells, white cells and platelets, we’d all be dead. This is because our blood is designed to clot if it is not circulating. If it does not clot then even small abrasions could lead to death because we’d bleed out. So this idea is just flat out false.
If there exists a scriptural premise for us TO disassociate (effectively: disfellowship) fellow JWs for accepting transfusion of whole blood, or any of the products known as red cells, white cells, platelets or plasma, but NOT TO disassociate/disfellowship fellow JWs for accepting any other products rendered from blood, such as hemoglobin, albumin, cryoprecipitate or cryosupernatant plasma, please steer me to it.

That's an interesting view. Let's take a closer look at it.
The society holds a religious position that we should "treat life and blood as sacred".
In logical form that looks like:
A = C
B = C
hence A = B
In mathematical form it would look like this, as an example:
2 + 3 = 5
1 + 4 = 5
Hence 2 + 3 = 1 + 4
In written form it looks like this:
Life equals sacred
Blood equals sacred
Hence life equals blood
From a theological perspective there's a huge problem with that notion in terms of our blood doctrine. Here's the problem:
Jesus said, "No one has love greater than this, that someone should surrender his soul in behalf of his friends."
So humans have explicit permission to donate their own life to help safe the life of his friends.
If we have explicit permission to donate our life to save life, and if blood equals life, then we have explicit permission to donate our blood to save life.

I listened to the PR representative of JWorg in India who was interviewed after the explosions at the Congress in which 3 people were killed and many wounded.
Several things stand out.
-He, Joshua David, says that JWs love the country they live in. He says; "We love India". This is the first time I have heard such a thing from the mouth of a JW. Saying it publicly like this speaks about a new twist on WTJWorg public policy and propaganda.
-He says that the core messages when JWs preach is to explain to people why there is so much suffering and why God allows suffering. On the contrary, according to the JWorg page, it is said that one message is core, and that is; "In fact, we may summarize the core message of the Bible this way: Jehovah sanctifies his name by means of the Kingdom ruled by his Son and restores righteousness and peace to the earth.
- https://www.jw.org/zib/search/?q=core+message
-His explanation to the public regarding the attitude of JW believers towards the doctrines of the Organization/Bible is worrying. From his explanation, one gets the impression that there is a great deal of individual freedom and decision as to which doctrines and instructions an individual JW will choose to follow or not to follow. He mentioned that this also applies to blood transfusion.
-When it comes to the hymn, he says that the JWs stand during the hymn. He did not delve into all the possible versions that are explained on the website about it. -https://www.jw.org/en/library/books/School-and-Jehovahs-Witnesses/Flag-Salute-Anthems-and-Voting/
All in all, this representative of WTJWorg in India is really misleading about some important things about the Organization and the position of followers inside this religious system. From the article I found on the official site that explains the flag and anthem and how JW adults or JW children behave in a variety of situations, it doesn't say at all that it is left to their personal decision, but rather everything is elaborated in quite a bit of detail as expected from JW how to react and behave without any other choice or conscience involved. Because JW conscience have to be trained by organizational rules of WTJWorg.
-----------------------
 The next thing I noticed was from an article that, among other things, includes an interview with an eyewitnesses to the event who was at the Congress and has been a JW since childhood. One is named Prakash and other is Poly. “
What is preached in Church doesn’t often match the Bible,” said Poly. He, too started questioning his beliefs and turned to the Biblical text for guidance. After learning more about the Witnesses from his wife and daughters, he decided to formally join." 
His statement is identical to the one Geoffrey Jackson made before the ARC in 2015. It is also regarding some of the posts on this forum regarding WTJWorg doctrinal things and the opportunity for members to personally test and question them.
Prakash said ; “We’re a peaceful community, and we don’t blindly follow rules — we do what is best for us and for God.”
How contrary to this; “All of us must be ready to obey any instruction we may recieve whether these appear sound from a human standpoint or not" -Watchtower Nov. 15, 2013 pg. 20
 
The curious thing is that neither in the case of the attack in Hamburg nor here in India did I read in the JW official news that the perpetrators were ex-JWs.
link to article - https://theprint.in/india/no-birthdays-no-blood-transfusions-jehovahs-witnesses-have-a-committed-way-of-life/1829912/
link to video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoU9Apc_Oj0
 
 

Asserting I've misused scripture is not evidence I've misused scripture. All you've offered here is an unevidenced assertion. That's called opinion. Opinion is not refutation.
 
This asserts that post-flood text of the Law of Moses suggests what pre-flood  humans could have eaten. If that's your position then you are forced to accept that the text of Deut 14:21 provides explicit permission for non-Jewish descendants of Noah (like Job, Elihu and Cornelius) to freely eat the flesh of animals dead of natural cause.
 
Laughably, your assertion above proves my argument is true. (i.e., Deut 14:21 et al.)
The argument I've made remains, and it's here waiting for refutation:
 

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?