James Thomas Rook Jr.

What?
Really?
Dialog?
........ never mind.

BTK46 :
I will give it a try, to summarize the dialect correctly .....

Your predilection for irrelevancy seems to have a New York, probably Eastern New Jersey flavor, tinged with a bit of Scottish Brogue, and a bouquet of Midwestern, but obviously fake woody attempt at John Waynism.
The Hollywood version, not the Texas version.
There is an overview of pronounced bluster that cannot be disguised, but it is clear you are not even trying, so that bespeaks a tinge of Masachusettsism, faintly reminiscent of Harvard Law School, or a very good imitation thereof. From the bouquet and aroma it hints of association with Warwick New York Lawyers.
Did I get that dialect right?
 

I don't think anyone was saying this was an issue.
Also, if you are insinuating that the command on blood should be obeyed because of health benefits, then you are missing the point entirely.
 

... and does absolutely NOTHING for the Society's  Credibility, which is in painfully short supply this past 50 years.

I am sorry, I realized it sounded like I was telling you what you should be thinking. There were a lot of people coming and going out of the house and talking to me, so I found it hard to concentrate, I changed the sentence around a bit and forgot to put the I back. It should have read " so I don't think..."

Of course the child has rights, and one of those rights is the right to live. I think I am beginning  to understand the angle you are looking at it from. Like what right do the parents have to say that a child is to die as a result of their (the parents conscience). It's complicated, because it's true that no one has the right to decide over the life (as in life or death) of another human. On the  other hand the parents are responsible in Jehovah's eyes to uphold the law.  I understand now why you brought up the parallel example with the pets. So in effect persons are upholding the law not only for themselves but also for others in their care, whether it be children or pets. (Or as you call it imposing their conscience). I can see that a part of the problem is that both children and pets are dependent on the adults and that both children and pets are not able to make informed decisions like the adults are, and therefor the adults in charge of them make the decisions for them.
But I think the main misunderstanding in our dialogue has been because we have both been approaching the issue from different angles, for example the Bible says children belong to Jehovah, and that they are merely in the parents care. So assuming Jehovah really means that the law on blood includes all forms of manipulation with blood, and all forms of ingesting blood whether by mouth or intravenously, what would HIS decision be regarding the treatment of the child?   In that case, aren't the parents merely trying to uphold what they believe would be Jehovah's decision, rather than anything to do with imposing their conscience onto a dependent child? So I think that's the angle I was coming at it from. But you were looking at it from the point of view of the rights of a dependent child (or pet) per se. Am I understanding it right?

That one little piece of logic makes it crystal clear that Jehovah's Witnesses management had it right to begin with, "no blood or blood fractions", but then they caved to rescue their money and real estate from lawsuits.
The Lawyers and Accountants are now running the show, and deciding what is proper theology, based on money.
We had it right .... and THEN, screwed it up.
Mammon would be pleased. (Matthew 6:24)

Any updates?

At that time, a wooden sailing ship, capable of global navigation and sailing, was an INCREDIBLY complex mechanism ... as high tech for that time as a Space Shuttle and associated technology is  (or was ...) for OUR time.

Disagree. Their say is the fact that their blood cries out from the ground over any injustice imposed upon them in this life.
(Genesis 4:10) . . . Your brother’s blood is crying out to me from the ground.
(Revelation 6:9, 10) . . .the souls of those slaughtered because of the word of God and because of the witness they had given. 10 They shouted with a loud voice, saying. . .
A sheep bleats and bleats to be saved after falling into a pit on the Sabbath. A strict Sabbath-keeper will sacrifice the life of that sheep by imposing his conscience over the life of that sheep.
(Deuteronomy 19:10)  In this way no innocent blood will be spilled in your land that Jehovah your God is giving you as an inheritance, and no bloodguilt will come upon you.
(Deuteronomy 27:25) . . .“‘Cursed is the one who accepts a bribe to kill [a soul of innocent blood] an innocent person.’ (And all the people will say, ‘Amen!’)
(Matthew 12:11, 12) . . .“If you have one sheep and that sheep falls into a pit on the Sabbath, is there a man among you who will not grab hold of it and lift it out? 12 How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! . . .
Herd of the Governing Body? He recommended that we go back and read "Angels & Women," a very interesting book from the 1870s/1920s that he found in the Bethel Library.
The only type of blood that we are "conscientiously" allowed to use without consequence is processed blood, fractions processed from whole blood. For human blood, processing is the only way NOT to misuse it. Also, notice that the article indicates that the only correct way for a pet to eat blood is if it "helps itself" to [whole] blood after killing another animal. A direct act by us makes us responsible. (My wife put up a bird feeder that inadvertently made it easier for our cat to kill and eat birds, but that is an indirect act, I think.)
*** w64 2/15 p. 127 Questions From Readers ***
for this would not be a case of an animal killing another animal and helping itself to the blood of that creature. No, this would be a direct act on the part of the Christian, making him responsible for feeding blood to a pet or other animal belonging to him.
As indicated above, when any of us use conscientiously "approved" blood products with or without insurance or tax based health care, we are "buying products where blood was . . . specially processed." No such products would be available to us if that blood had been properly poured out upon the ground.

Expect noting from anybody, and you will seldom be disappointed.
"Murphy's Laws" have many variants .... Murphy's Laws for Combat, Murphy's Laws for Table Manners, Murphy's  Laws for Babies with Poopy Diapers, Murphy's Laws for Business, Murphy's Laws for Engineers, etc.
Learning many of these as might apply to your lifestyle is a way to have realistic expectations.
Fortunately, Mr. Google can help you with that.
Good mental health BEGINS with seeing the world, and the things in it, as they REALLY are ...... not how we WISH they would be.
 
 

WE have the exact same understanding on that issue.
... and except to learn how to diagram sentences, which has served me well my whole life,  I did not even pay attention in English Classes.

It is revealing to me that those who taunt us endlessly over just how “inspired” are the ones at the helm today seem to take for granted that there should be ones who are that way. It gets even more crazy when words such as “infallible” are thrown in. “Perfect” is even worse. 
“Look at what Brother Jackson said,” they gloat. “Guess he’s not so infallible after all, is he?” they say. They take for granted that for the Christian life to have validity in modern times, there should be ones who ARE infallible, who can and SHOULD spoon-feed members, so there is a lessened need for faith, and hopefully (from their point of view) none at all.
These ones wouldn’t have lasted two minutes in the first century, when the ones taking the lead were manifestly not that way. A local speaker with a dramatic flair enacted a fictional encounter from back then with an irate householder, a forerunner of today’s “apostates.” “What! You’re going to tell me about love?” he tells the visiting brother. “Look, I was there at that meeting of Paul and Barnabas after John took a leave of absence! You see those two kids there? [motioning to his young children playing on the floor] They do not fight as I saw those two grown men of yours fight! Why don’t you learn love yourself before you come here to lecture me about it!”
For that reason, I shy away from such loaded words as “infallible.” Maybe the insistence on infallibility is a holdover from the Catholic Church, which for centuries insisted that the Pope was that way. “Inspired” will also blow up in your face, because you end up doing backflips in translating just what the word should effectively mean now—or even then, when the “leading men” fought like kids. (I even put the word “apostates” in quotes, increasingly, because it comes in many varieties and it means different things to different people.)
It is enough to say that the written record, which includes the dealings and interactions of imperfect ones at the first-century helm, is deemed “inspired.” “All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness,  so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.” This is so even though it includes the account of Peter’s astounding cowardess (given his leadership role at the time) of changing his association once the Jewish-based brothers came on the scene—before they did, he mixed freely with the Gentile-based Christians; after they did, he “withdrew” from them.
It is still “inspired.” It is enough for us to go on. It is enough to make us “fully competent” and “completely equipped for every good work.” Even though it includes the blunderings of the “uneducated and ordinary” ones that were the leaders back then—and the leaders today hold to that pattern—that is still the case. It is not at all what Srecko or John thinks it should be—a true “anointed” to wipe away every tear and smooth the path, (sorry, Witness) removing all pebbles so that the people of God can sail along blithely without really having to develop faith. 
 

I may have weighed in too quickly on this one, without having read the whole context, just like the ol pork chop says I do. 
Like Herod, I was in “a fighting mood” at the time. Unlike Herod, I have the worldnewsmediaforum as an outlet whenever I am punchy like that. That way I don’t have to go shooting up any public place, which is all the rage in these insane days.
Since the JWI comment immediately follows mine, and then your remark,  I am not sure if I have made a faux pas or hit a home run, but I will cover myself in any event.

I expect that we are just on two different wavelengths here. I'm also guessing that I see more that's right in your answer than you will see in mine. These are just opinions for consideration, even if they seem to get a bit too serious.

Perhaps it can be said in this way.
When JW members defending "the truth", in such or similar issue, inside own private or congregational circle than they are proud on temporary doctrines.
But when JW member have to defend some sorts of practice before "worldly people" (for example, not pick up the  phone to dfd daughter or let baby to die because of blood and fraction policy)  caused by accepting official doctrines and interpretations of Bible verses, then i can be sure how some shadow of shame is possible to come on face of some (maybe not all) JW's. Perhaps some very good observer and reader of micro facial expressions, mimics and gestures, would be able to see that. And even that same JW member would feel some sort of short term discomfort.

The Bible clearly states that not everyone should be teachers ....

Like when you flush a dead goldfish?

...
Oh, I dunno, Billy.
Sometimes when my mind wanders to evil things, I think about Adolph Hitler, sometimes to Donald Trump, sometimes even to how you are doing ... and sometimes even to that spawn of Earthly Evil, Watchtower Lawyers, who pervert Justice in order to win their cases, as documented in many court transcripts.
Think of those court transcripts as scripts for the diabolically challenged.
Of course, with the  posting of your devil emoticon, and how you process logic and reasoning skills, it's clear you don't need them.
However, you could probably use a self-help book for the satirically challenged.
You might enjoy this video of a Watchtower Lawyer explaining how we DO NOT SHUN disfellowshipped members, which ( and this is a VERY important point ...) because he truly believes this HE IS NOT A LIAR, but what he is saying itself ... is a bald faced lie, distorted by WDS.

1161273524_JehovahsWitnessOrganizationRedefinesShunningtoFalsely.mp4.85f4c020c9531a829adfda4cd5d6d92f.mp4

Br. Herd's comments are something to do with his age
As GB member and in a special position as one who Take a Lead of God's People on Earth, Br. Herd obviously, in that particular moment when gave this speech, was not Led by Spirit or  Guide by Bible and Angels .... but he was Led by his Age. :))
Another thing. While reading comments, one think, one thing, came on my mind. About not going to army service and "learning to fight". I made parallels with another sort of "weapon, gun". That is words. It looks to me, because people can "learn" good and bad things, it is not always good to send people in school to learn how to read and write and giving talk. :))) Because sometimes, when some of such people wrote and/or said something from position of Teacher (spiritual in our example) then he can make more "killings"(spiritual stoning) than some soldier on battle field.   

If you cannot forgive your enemies, the most you should do is forget them.
Torturing them is cruel, unfair, and barbaric for enemies ... and MORE so for your own family!
I should know ... I am a self proclaimed Barbarian, and I know about such things.

It is my considered opinion, BTK46, that the corruption of that scripture is YOURS.
The Truth is not a license to slice up your family members, fathers, daughter, sons, mothers, etc, and cut their tongues out with shunning ...  it is an advisory that those on the OUTSIDE of the Christian Congregation will wage war against you with both figurative and literal swords ( or bayonets and rifles, etc....) .... much as is the case in how we are being currently treated by the Russian Federation, with their police power to enforce their edicts.
That scriptural advisory is a warning to us about what to expect, and why.  It is not a license for disrespecting your Mother and Father, and abandoning your Family for their  reasons of conscience, for in doing so you show that Love Always Fails, when confronted with the option of revenge and vindictiveness, and cruelty for the sake of consolidating assumed authority in order to suppress rebellion.
It does NOT suppress rebellion ... it just creates bitter enemies where before there was none before, and fills them with a terrible resolve for being cast off and treated unfairly, and with contempt.
Disfellowshipping is necessary ... but HOW it is currently done is like being hit hard with a felt lined silk glove, with a steel fist inside.
Remember ... it's the ENEMIES swords we need to be aware of ... not our own.
We today do not have the right to stone someone to death ...or maim and cripple them the way we do it now.

First of all, understand that I have nothing against gun ownership. I have nothing against hunting, animal control, target practice, or even self-defense with whatever weapon is appropriate to the defense of my family. I don't own a gun, and probably never will, because I think the likelihood of needing one in this particular time period in the United States is very low. Also, I am not trained in their use, and could just as easily produce a tragedy under the same stressful circumstances that might require one. Trained police often kill innocents. Part of this is the fact that a person who has a gun tends to think he needs it more often than people who don't have guns. 
That said, I have a constitutionally supported reason when I say it doesn't matter what the constitution says or even exactly what it meant when it was written. That's because even if we understand it perfectly, a nation is free to change it. This is what amendments are in the first place. Some nations have done well to completely change their constitution. Rip up the old one and start over. You already understand well that our constitution was written by and for landowners. Many parts of it were also written specifically to permanently remove and reduce the perceived political power of poor whites, poor blacks, poor native Americans, etc.
So when I say it doesn't matter, I mean that it can lawfully be updated according to its own constitutionally provided processes. This is good when parts of it appear obsolete or unjust. It's not likley that ALL of it will ever be seen that way, but the State has such power, if done in a careful way acceptable to "the people." (And "the people" include many more voices than were intended in the first ratification of amendments using the term.)
We can know the mind of some of the framers by reading the Federalist Papers, and reading the comments and explanations of their actions when serving in office. The strength of the Federal government in the US itself is quite different now than what was originally intended.
One might be afraid of what stupid people will do when they realize they have the power to change the constitution, but it's not written in stone. Checks and balances were added to keep a government as conservative and stable as possible, avoiding wholesale disruption, but it's as fluid as "the people" will allow under those constraints.
 

And yet, here you are. Face it, you’re a bad, bad boy! 🤣

On the contrary, the org should value the people who can respectfully discuss and critically examine doctrine like what is done here...Berean-like ones that test out the expressions they hear against the Bible. Instead, direction is not up for debate and people are told to even submit to “illogical” direction from the organization. So what the org will become is a bunch of yes-men who don’t know how to think for themselves.

...
With the gaping holes and three arms, I suppose not.