JW Insider

I agree "shunned" is a term we Witnesses don't generally use, but a non Witness will know what it means in practice; that the person in question will be ignored, and avoided. This was clearly encouraged by the video, where the mother ignored her daughter's telephone call. What if it had been an emergency? 

There are, of course. There have been several references as late as 1989 that, as Witnesses, we are involved in a work that will end before the end of the twentieth century (before 2000/2001). This time prediction became obsolete only about 18 years ago, and the predictions for such a date continued until 1989. "Echos" of that prediction continued until about 1993. -- I grabbed the following from https://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/quotes/20th-century-2000.php
The Nations Shall Know That I Am Jehovah p. 216
"Shortly, within our twentieth century, the "battle in the day of Jehovah" will begin against the modern antitype of Jerusalem, Christendom." Watchtower 1984 Mar 1 pp.18-19
"Some of that "generation" could survive until the end of the century. But there are many indications that "the end" is much closer than that!" "Let Your Kingdom Come" (1981) p.102
But now in our 20th century, we have come to the time for harvest, "a conclusion of a system of things, and the reapers are angels"! Watchtower 1989 Jan 1 p.12
"He was laying a foundation for a work that would be completed in our 20th century."  
And there is still a more subtle kind of obsession among some brothers who think it is important for us to consider that we are "some 6,000 years" removed from human perfection in Eden. In fact it was the opening line of today's "Text."
*** Text for Friday, September 7, 2018 ***
We must consider that all of us are some 6,000 years removed from the human perfection that existed in Eden. Although the fact might be interesting, what is it that makes this particular number of years something that we "must consider"? There is nothing in the Bible, no evidence anywhere, that this particular number of years has any significance. Yet, most JWs are at least vaguely aware that it is used as a "sign" that we are deep into the end. We are led to believe that there is some kind of gnostic privilege that only Witnesses truly know the significance of. 
Yet there is only one reason why 6,000 specifically is considered. It is because, without any Bible evidence, we have taught that the 7th creative day should be 7,000 years long, and that Christ's millennial reign must punctuate this 7th creative day, and therefore begin 6,000 years after the creation of Eve in Eden.
Using the 6,000 years as a gnostic sign that the end is upon is has been part of the Watchtower's doctrines since the 1800's when the Watchtower first started to be published. The "Photo Drama of Creation" also made a point of showing how each creative day was 7,000 years long, and the 7th creative day would end with Christ's Millennium, and thus the Millennium had "dawned" at the 48,000th year from the start of creation, which had just passed in 1873. The end of the 49,000 years would start a Great Jubilee of perfection. None of this is Biblical, but pieces of it are still echoed in the focus on the idea that we are now "some 6,000" years after Eden, and that this is something we "must consider."
The "Proclaimers" book adds:
*** jv chap. 8 p. 104 Declaring the Good News Without Letup (1942-1975) ***
The Witnesses had long shared the belief that the Thousand Year Reign of Christ would follow after 6,000 years of human history. But when would 6,000 years of human existence end? The book Life Everlasting—In Freedom of the Sons of God, released at a series of district conventions held in 1966, pointed to 1975. The book "Life Everlasting" just mentioned had said on page 28 and 30:
According to this trustworthy Bible chronology six thousand years from man's creation will end in 1975, and the seventh period of a thousand years of human history will begin in the fall of 1975 C.E. . . . How appropriate it would be for Jehovah God to make of this coming seventh period of a thousand years a sabbath period of rest and release, a great Jubilee sabbath. . . . It would also be most fitting on God's part, for, remember, mankind has yet ahead of it what the last book of the Holy Bible as the reign of Christ Jesus over earth for a thousand years, the millennial reign of Christ. So, for as long as the idea is put out there that we "must consider" the significance of 6,000 years, it will always carry with it this same idea found in one of the Awake! articles leading up to 1975:
*** g68 10/8 p.14 What Will the 1970s Bring?
There is another way that helps confirm that we are living in the final years of this "time of the end." The Bible shows that we are nearing the end of a full 6,000 years of human history. That statement is meaningless unless combined with the non-Biblical gnosis about a conjectured 7,000-year-long 7th day.

In my own experience, I was born in '57, baptized 10 years later, and had to read the "Life Everlasting" book as one of the two books assigned for baptismal candidates, along with the "Lamp" book questions. I auxiliary pioneered for several months in 1972, and quit school to regular pioneer for 3.5 years from 1973 until leaving for Brooklyn Bethel, where I worked full-time for 4 years, and then part-time, on projects, for another two while going to college in NYC.
I give this portion of my "resume" only because I can speak to the experience of being baptized prior to 1975, and was part of the Bethel build-up from the influx of workers and financial contributions that Bethel received around 1975. I pioneered for several years both before and after 1975.
Your experience may vary, but I can still tell you pretty much what I was thinking just prior to 1975, because I had to clear my plans with my parents, my school, and two circuit overseers, since I quit school while I was still 15 to begin regular pioneering in 1973.

Don't mind the upvote.
I was very keen for the end to come in 1975 after learning the truth in 1971. My first shepherding call was from a brother who explained at length why he had cancelled all his insurances.
But this view only lasted for a few months because, (as I've previously stated), I was put wise by a very influential and respected brother who said he was not part of the 1975 club, as no man could possibly know the day or hour. Because this individual had made quite an impression on me in many other spiritual matters, I felt his reasoning to be pretty sound at the time, because I could never get my head around the date oriented mentality. It always made me feel uneasy, like something that you thought you ought to believe because of the sparkly eyed assertions,  but that just didn't have any substance. Now of course, I know better.
But there was no shortage of those who wanted to believe it although the platform promotion was consderably less intense where I was than in the USA. I can understand the "once bitten, twice shy" view of some skeptical ones today. And it's the same with the nodding, knowing heads today. They still make me feel uneasy. I just find the whole topic embarrassing. The best advice I ever got on this whole area was something an old missionary brother used he say to me in his heavy Scottish  accent "Your Armageddon came the day you dedicated your life to Jehovah, laddie. You can't take it back you know." or something like that.
Scripturally, 2Tim.4:2 seems most relevant here regardless of which area of the ministry it applies to: "preach the word, be at it urgently in favorable season, in troublesome season" and also Gal.6:10: "Really, then, as long as we have time favorable for it, let us work what is good toward all,"

In my own experience, I was born in '57, baptized 10 years later, and had to read the "Life Everlasting" book as one of the two books assigned for baptismal candidates, along with the "Lamp" book questions. I auxiliary pioneered for several months in 1972, and quit school to regular pioneer for 3.5 years from 1973 until leaving for Brooklyn Bethel, where I worked full-time for 4 years, and then part-time, on projects, for another two while going to college in NYC.
I give this portion of my "resume" only because I can speak to the experience of being baptized prior to 1975, and was part of the Bethel build-up from the influx of workers and financial contributions that Bethel received around 1975. I pioneered for several years both before and after 1975.
Your experience may vary, but I can still tell you pretty much what I was thinking just prior to 1975, because I had to clear my plans with my parents, my school, and two circuit overseers, since I quit school while I was still 15 to begin regular pioneering in 1973.

Several posts from some recent topics have veered into a discussion of 1975 (yet again). My personal concern about the topic is that, like others have just mentioned, I have also been seeing a lack of honesty about it from both JWs and ex-JWs/non-JWs. We shouldn't be as concerned about what others on the outside say, but perhaps we need to take another look at the accuracy of statements that we make ourselves, in our own defense.
To start, I would say that I agree that no Watchtower article or Watchtower publication ever said that the world was going to end in 1975.
But when we try to convince people today about what was really said back then, what is our purpose in only selectively choosing things that were said and printed in Watchtower publications? Is it possible to be dishonest by what we omit when we defend this topic?
*GA: The upvote is an artefact of this post when it was under another topic. You may wish to remove it from this topic.

I would say it was an unfortunate collection of events, that altogether gave the impression that the society was promoting 1975 as the date for Armageddon. There is no doubt that it was insinuated by some prominent speakers at conventions (in America mainly?) and also those who were "living out their last days of this system selling their houses so they could pioneer" were publicly praised, ( also in the KM). It is no different now, those who give their all in full time service are also praised today, however, those who did this a few years before 1975 was no coincidence, and I believe the praise was worded in such a way that it was no coincidence either. There was so much insinuation that went unchecked, that it was no wonder 1975 became a fact, instead of what it was said to be, a maybe. It didn't help that one of the prominent brothers said in reply to "is Armageddon coming in 1975?": "we're not saying, we're not saying" which sounds like: "well yes of course it is, but I don't want to sound presumptuous". And who could help but not get excited by that famous Charles Sinutko talk where the phrase "stay alive till 75" was coined.
All in all I think it has been a good lesson for most: know your Bible, and make sure of all things. And if your (Bible trained) instincts tell you something isn't quite right, then it probably isn't. 
 

Several posts from some recent topics have veered into a discussion of 1975 (yet again). My personal concern about the topic is that, like others have just mentioned, I have also been seeing a lack of honesty about it from both JWs and ex-JWs/non-JWs. We shouldn't be as concerned about what others on the outside say, but perhaps we need to take another look at the accuracy of statements that we make ourselves, in our own defense.
To start, I would say that I agree that no Watchtower article or Watchtower publication ever said that the world was going to end in 1975.
But when we try to convince people today about what was really said back then, what is our purpose in only selectively choosing things that were said and printed in Watchtower publications? Is it possible to be dishonest by what we omit when we defend this topic?
*GA: The upvote is an artefact of this post when it was under another topic. You may wish to remove it from this topic.

@Space Merchant, @Anna @James Thomas Rook Jr., et al.
With near unanimous approval (thanks, Anna!) I have moved some of the portions of this topic that dealt with 1975 to another topic, here:
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/69838-1975-was-in-the-past-are-we-honest-about-it-today/?tab=comments#comment-106775
I think there was another post in another recent topic that I might move over there, too, because it also seemed out of place in its current location. A few of the responses here might not make perfect sense any more now that a few posts have been moved.

I'm sure @Jesus.defender meant to present a fairly comprehensive view of the issues that are involved. In some cases the issues are not Biblical, but they point out that Witnesses (or the WTS) have admitted to making errors of judgment in presenting vaccinations and organ transplants as unclean in God's eyes, and have changed their stand on those medical treatments. That's true, and although it might be evidence that we have been careless in our medical-related doctrines, it is not evidence that we are necessarily wrong in our stance on blood transfusion.
I think a better "outside" presentation of a practical, doctrinal Biblical discussion and then a slightly more scholarly Biblical discussion of the issues as presented by NON-JWs can be found in these places, respectively:
Must Christians Today “Abstain from Blood”?
Acts of the Apostles: Decree of the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) Part 1: The Literary Flow of Acts 15
Acts of the Apostles: Decree of the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) Part 2: The Decree’s Purpose
The first link ends up admitting that Christians should not eat blood. The last link says something interesting about the same question that James T. Rook brought up commenting on the possibility that Acts 15 might have had reference to bloodshed/murder when it said "Abstain from blood." The point is that several early Bible manuscripts of Acts left off "and from things strangled." Perhaps they (the copyists of Western Bible manuscripts) assumed that this was unnecessarily redundant if it was just another way of stating that an animal should be properly bled. But another assumption is that the manuscript copyists thought that it was problematic in that it interfered with the much more understandable position that James and the elders were stating something much more obvious: that Gentiles were being told that the most important things to remember were to abstain from bloodshed (murder), idolatry, and immorality.
Endnotes
15In some Western Greek manuscripts, the decree contains only three ethical admonitions: Avoid idolatry, blood (in the sense of bloodshed) and sexual immorality. This fits in with “the rabbinic tradition which considers the three primary sins of the Gentiles to be precisely idolatry, shedding of blood and immorality” (Stephen G. Wilson. Luke and the Law. [Cambridge: University Press, 1983], p. 80). However, Wilson also observes that “the Western version consists of such widely accepted ethical norms that a decree to this effect would be superfluous” (Stephen G. Wilson. The Gentiles and the Gentile Mission in Luke-Acts. [Cambridge: University Press, 1973], p. 188). All major English translations, including the King James and the NIV, use a Greek text with four prohibitions. The textual questions are discussed in detail in Bruce Metzger. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. (New York: United Bible Societies, 1971), pp. 429-433. ... 42Christians in the West would be less likely to know that strangled things were associated with pagan customs. Perhaps this explains why the word was omitted in the Western text.

Under another topic, @James Thomas Rook Jr. brought up a question about what James (the brother of Jesus) and others in Jerusalem may have meant when they decreed: "Abstain from blood." (Acts 15:20) In this area of the site, it seems that we often point to breakthroughs in bloodless therapies, successful stories of surgery without blood, and now and then report on a death or lawsuit related to the Witness stance on the blood issue. However, we do not often discuss the Biblical viewpoint of the blood doctrine itself.
@Jesus.defender had started this topic in that direction, but makes several errors about the actual view of Jehovah's Witnesses. For example, we do not defend the view based on Genesis 9 and Leviticus 17, as claimed. They are used as "clues" but if it were not for Acts 15, we would likely think of eating and transfusing blood as non-issues.
I'll quote the primary scriptures we refer to with some context, but the entire context is extremely important here and these verses should really be read at least with the full chapters surrounding them:
(Acts 15:1-29) Now some men came down from Ju·deʹa and began to teach the brothers: “Unless you get circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.”  But after quite a bit of dissension and disputing by Paul and Barʹna·bas with them, it was arranged for Paul, Barʹna·bas, and some of the others to go up to the apostles and elders in Jerusalem regarding this issue. . . .  On arriving in Jerusalem, they were kindly received by the congregation and the apostles and the elders, and they related the many things God had done by means of them.  But some of those of the sect of the Pharisees who had become believers stood up from their seats and said: “It is necessary to circumcise them and command them to observe the Law of Moses.” . . . Peter rose and said to them: “. . .  And he made no distinction at all between us and them, but purified their hearts by faith. So why are you now making a test of God by imposing on the neck of the disciples a yoke. . . ?  On the contrary, we have faith that we are saved through the undeserved kindness of the Lord Jesus in the same way that they are.” . . .  After they finished speaking, James replied: “. . . God for the first time turned his attention to the nations to take out of them a people for his name. . . .   Therefore, my decision is not to trouble those from the nations who are turning to God,  but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from what is strangled, and from blood.  For from ancient times Moses has had those who preach him in city after city, because he is read aloud in the synagogues on every sabbath.” . . .  We are therefore sending Judas and Silas, so that they also may report the same things by word of mouth. 28 For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you except these necessary things: 29 to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols, from blood, from what is strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!” (Acts 21:11-32) . . .: “Thus says the holy spirit, ‘The man to whom this belt belongs will be bound like this by the Jews in Jerusalem, and they will give him into the hands of people of the nations.’” 12 Now when we heard this, both we and those who were there began begging him not to go up to Jerusalem. 13 Then Paul answered: “What are you doing by weeping and trying to weaken my resolve? Rest assured, I am ready not only to be bound but also to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus.” 14 When he would not be dissuaded, we stopped objecting and said: “Let the will of Jehovah take place.” 15 Now after these days we prepared for the journey and started on our way to Jerusalem. 16 Some of the disciples from Caes·a·reʹa also went with us, taking us to Mnaʹson of Cyʹprus, an early disciple at whose home we were to be guests. 17 When we got to Jerusalem, the brothers welcomed us gladly. 18 But on the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. 19 And he greeted them and began giving a detailed account of the things God did among the nations through his ministry. 20 After hearing this, they began to glorify God, but they said to him: “You see, brother, how many thousands of believers there are among the Jews, and they are all zealous for the Law. 21 But they have heard it rumored about you that you have been teaching all the Jews among the nations an apostasy from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or to follow the customary practices. 22 What, then, is to be done about it? They are certainly going to hear that you have arrived. 23 So do what we tell you: We have four men who have put themselves under a vow. 24 Take these men with you and cleanse yourself ceremonially together with them and take care of their expenses, so that they may have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know that there is nothing to the rumors they were told about you, but that you are walking orderly and you are also keeping the Law. 25 As for the believers from among the nations, we have sent them our decision in writing that they should keep away from what is sacrificed to idols as well as from blood, from what is strangled, and from sexual immorality.” 26 Then Paul took the men the next day and cleansed himself ceremonially along with them, and he went into the temple to give notice of when the days for the ceremonial cleansing would be completed and the offering should be presented for each one of them. 27 Now when the seven days were about to end, the Jews from Asia, on seeing him in the temple, stirred up the whole crowd, and they seized him, 28 shouting: “Men of Israel, help! This is the man who teaches everyone everywhere against our people and our Law and this place. And what is more, he even brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place.” 29 For they had previously seen Trophʹi·mus the E·pheʹsian in the city with him, and they assumed that Paul had brought him into the temple. 30 The whole city was in an uproar, and the people came running together and seized Paul and dragged him outside the temple, and immediately the doors were closed. 31 While they were trying to kill him, word reached the commander of the army unit that all Jerusalem was in confusion; 32 and he immediately took soldiers and army officers and ran down to them. When they caught sight of the military commander and the soldiers, they stopped beating Paul.
 
More of the context is provided for Acts 21, because it makes the situation very clear about how and why the decision from Acts 15 was so appropriate.

Dateline: Saturday,  September 1, 2018

WARWICK NY — Special Assembly Representatives of Jehovah’s Witnesses at their new World Headquarters, known as “Bethel”,  reported being surprised at Saturday afternoon’s session when they were directed to the  newly constructed balcony entrance for seating.
“We normally get there early so we can sit as close to the Governing Body as possible,” Assembly Delegate  Stephen Lett, Jr.  told reporters. “We were all like, ‘What’s going on?'”
They did not have to wonder for long.
Governing Body’s Helper Alan Cage, dressed in costume as a  regular person  took the stage under a single spotlight, and after some coy banter, he reportedly announced that it was “Baptism Saturday,” but that this was “not your Mama’s Saturday afternoon  Assembly baptism!”
 At this cue, a giant  four story high spiral water slide, stretching from the balcony down to the on-stage baptismal pool, was unveiled from behind a large curtain, to thunderous applause from assembled delegates.
Children as young as four years old, who had been ushered single file to the new entrance were directed one-by-one into the orange spiral sliding board and, with a push, sent hurtling toward baptismal pool, answering the two baptismal questions as they increased spiral velocity “Yes!” and “Yes!” . Jehovah’s Witnesses Elders  in wet swimsuits and white t-shirts asked the questions as they whizzed by to the pool below.
Anthony Morris III, one of eight Jehovah’s Witness Governing Body members wearing a leopard skin spandex leotard emblazoned with large white  initials TPT,  architect of what has been dubbed by Bethel insiders as “Splashdown  Saturday.”  told reporters “The water slide is fun for the little kiddies, but the whole reason we did this is to get the most number of people baptized in the least amount of time possible.” 
“ … we can’t count some of these baptisms because someone didn’t  say “yes” to the baptismal questions, or because someone’s head wasn’t completely submerged, then what’s the point?”
In the dry-off area next to the baptismal pool, a group of dripping four to seven year old children were being dried off behind a screened area with sacramental pillow cases  from the Bethel Laundry
At publishing time, the  JW.ORG  website reports that the church has broken its own record for the most baptisms in a single Saturday afternoon.
 
 
 
… my apologies to  “The Onion”
 

Several posts from some recent topics have veered into a discussion of 1975 (yet again). My personal concern about the topic is that, like others have just mentioned, I have also been seeing a lack of honesty about it from both JWs and ex-JWs/non-JWs. We shouldn't be as concerned about what others on the outside say, but perhaps we need to take another look at the accuracy of statements that we make ourselves, in our own defense.
To start, I would say that I agree that no Watchtower article or Watchtower publication ever said that the world was going to end in 1975.
But when we try to convince people today about what was really said back then, what is our purpose in only selectively choosing things that were said and printed in Watchtower publications? Is it possible to be dishonest by what we omit when we defend this topic?
*GA: The upvote is an artefact of this post when it was under another topic. You may wish to remove it from this topic.

I'm pretty sure this is just a data anomaly, but if you check the use of the word ("with quote marks around it") as found in full text searches of many thousands of books available in Google Books (through 2007), it would (at first) appear that the Watchtower was using it even before it was widely found outside the Watchtower:

But that was my mistake. That was just with quote marks around it; otherwise it was apparently used since the 1800's.

By the way, those Watchtower numbers are just the Wt magazine alone. I notice that it was used almost as often in the Yearbooks, 27 times since 1970. It's especially frequent in personal experiences where a person says they "recognized the ring of truth" after reading one of our publications.

@TrueTomHarley, It's the end of the service year. If you rush, you might be able to get this experience into the next Yearbook. ?

@TrueTomHarley, It's the end of the service year. If you rush, you might be able to get this experience into the next Yearbook. ?

Whilst not exclusively a WT magazine expression, it seems to have been used there fairly consistently in a similar context since March 1st 1951.

Not a problem. I notice the same issue with a lot of threads that just seem to include the assumption that we must be totally wrong about an issue that isn't implemented well (or consistently), when the actual fix does not require throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Of course, if someone found an old Watchtower that recommended that we start literally disfellowshipping babies by throwing them out with the bathwater, then I would think it's time to scrap the whole doctrine and start over from scratch.

Put the 'haterade' down, folks.  Children need all the love they can get, Especially in these times.  One should NEVER do wrong for wrong, so to speak...Especially when it comes to loving children in these "Historical" Times that we live in .  Especially now.  

Talks we'd like to hear at the 2019 Convention

@James Thomas Rook Jr., I'll be happy to start a whole new topic on the subject if you promise not to fill it with too many cartoons.

I know the person very well who made the claim, but I was not a part of that particular conversation. I only repeat it because I already knew this to be pretty much the way the brother felt at the time -- on shunning the elderly and on shunning disfellowshipped family members.  I admit that I don't know about his viewpoint on blood, although this was stated at a time when the WTS was clearly relaxing our stance on blood therapy. And I mentioned his position of authority within the organization at the time because it should be obvious that anyone who is given the responsibility to speak for the organization to the public on such issues is trusted to have considered our Bible-based based position on those issues, and be able to defend what we believe is Jehovah's viewpoint.
So, I guess I was hoping that anyone could easily read between the lines and know that I was trying to say the following:
I have anecdotal evidence on this topic about a person who was trusted with the responsibility to consider and defend how vital it is for worshipers of Jehovah to stay separate from the world -- and even such a person realized that we are bringing a lot of this shame on ourselves, on our own organization, by overplaying the hand that Jehovah gave us to follow. In the past, I heard a person in a similar position at Bethel make the same case about no longer forbidding family birthdays, weddings, funerals, bar-mitzvahs, etc., when these are held under another religious "roof." His idea, right or wrong, was that these situations made us more accessible to our extended family members and provided unparalleled opportunities for witnessing. (He held that a very high percentage --he would say "most"--of the persons who become Witnesses after a study with us, even those initially met in door to door, already had a positive connection to a friend or relative who was a Witness.) This brother might have been wrong, of course, on both ideas. Just as the brother I first spoke about above might have been wrong.
When I first heard this, I thought he was right about shunning as I had already been involved in caring for Percy Harding, mentioned earlier. I did not think he was right about blood, and this surprised me at the time, but it made sense considering the changes we were then making to our blood policy. But even the primary Bethel blood-doctrine expert who once handled most of the public discussion on blood for the WTS has now evidently changed his mind about our stand on the blood issue. (I'm speaking of Brother G.Smalley, still alive, not Brother F.Rusk who died a couple years ago, and who handled public questions about blood policy before G.Smalley.)

Idiots and idiotic rules exist in every society. Here in Zagreb, one baker freely shared to poor people the excess of bread and rolls that he did not sell on that day in front of his workshop. Inspectors punished him for $ 5,000 for that. Namely, the law says that unsold bakery products must be thrown into the garbage????!!! Common sense tell me where are you living?!
https://www.vecernji.hr/vijesti/pekar-qenaj-koji-dijeli-besplatno-kruh-nakon-kazne-ponos-hrvatske-46041

I know the person very well who made the claim, but I was not a part of that particular conversation. I only repeat it because I already knew this to be pretty much the way the brother felt at the time -- on shunning the elderly and on shunning disfellowshipped family members.  I admit that I don't know about his viewpoint on blood, although this was stated at a time when the WTS was clearly relaxing our stance on blood therapy. And I mentioned his position of authority within the organization at the time because it should be obvious that anyone who is given the responsibility to speak for the organization to the public on such issues is trusted to have considered our Bible-based based position on those issues, and be able to defend what we believe is Jehovah's viewpoint.
So, I guess I was hoping that anyone could easily read between the lines and know that I was trying to say the following:
I have anecdotal evidence on this topic about a person who was trusted with the responsibility to consider and defend how vital it is for worshipers of Jehovah to stay separate from the world -- and even such a person realized that we are bringing a lot of this shame on ourselves, on our own organization, by overplaying the hand that Jehovah gave us to follow. In the past, I heard a person in a similar position at Bethel make the same case about no longer forbidding family birthdays, weddings, funerals, bar-mitzvahs, etc., when these are held under another religious "roof." His idea, right or wrong, was that these situations made us more accessible to our extended family members and provided unparalleled opportunities for witnessing. (He held that a very high percentage --he would say "most"--of the persons who become Witnesses after a study with us, even those initially met in door to door, already had a positive connection to a friend or relative who was a Witness.) This brother might have been wrong, of course, on both ideas. Just as the brother I first spoke about above might have been wrong.
When I first heard this, I thought he was right about shunning as I had already been involved in caring for Percy Harding, mentioned earlier. I did not think he was right about blood, and this surprised me at the time, but it made sense considering the changes we were then making to our blood policy. But even the primary Bethel blood-doctrine expert who once handled most of the public discussion on blood for the WTS has now evidently changed his mind about our stand on the blood issue. (I'm speaking of Brother G.Smalley, still alive, not Brother F.Rusk who died a couple years ago, and who handled public questions about blood policy before G.Smalley.)

Most of what I'm sharing here is taken from one of the books by R.Franz. I can only corroborate a small part of it. At any rate, it looks like R.Franz admits that he was asked to write both the first defense of the bad policy and the later correction.