JW Insider

I don't know, but has it occurred to anyone that because the Romans were pagan, and it was the Romans who executed Jesus, that perhaps they may have used a pagan symbol, or at least the type of torture device that was popular in those days for THEM, and if the cross was what was popular in those days, then there is no reason why it couldn't have been a cross. Really, it is irrelevant whether it was a cross or something else since it wasn't Jesus or Jehovah who were deciding.

Actually, it is not known on the basis of current evidence. So it is really a hiding to nothing or, more graphically, like flogging a dead horse to try and prove definitively what the instrument was on the basis of current evidence. Heroic attempts however, and ingenious argument all round!!

As a Witness, I have realized that we JWs are just about the only group who are vexed about the seventy years, because there are very few others who have any kind of a doctrinal stake or tradition that requires a specific interpretation of the 70 years. Naturally, there are a variety of interpretations of any Biblical passage. Not all scholars and commentaries believe it was a full 70 years. Neither do we as Jehovah's Witnesses since we like to end it a year or two after 2 Chronicles ends it.
(2 Chronicles 36:20-22) . . .He carried off captive to Babylon those who escaped the sword, and they became servants to him and his sons until the kingdom of Persia began to reign, 21 to fulfill Jehovah’s word spoken by Jeremiah, until the land had paid off its sabbaths. All the days it lay desolate it kept sabbath, to fulfill 70 years. 22 In the first year of King Cyrus of Persia, in order that Jehovah’s word spoken by Jeremiah would be fulfilled. . .
We believe that the kingdom of Persia began in 539, but believe the 70 years ended in 537. We needed two extra years because we have a doctrinal stake in keeping 607 instead of claiming, for example, that the Fall of Jerusalem actually happened in 608 or 609. 70 years prior to the first year of the King Cyrus.
This is like the much bigger problem that scholars and commentaries and our own Watch Tower publications have with Isaiah's words about Tyre, already mentioned above, when Isaiah says that "Tyre will be forgotten for 70 years." But we, as JWs, don't believe it was a full 70 years that Tyre was forgotten. In fact, our publications indicate that it was a much shorter period.
*** it-2 p. 179 Kittim ***
Similarly, many from Tyre evidently sought haven in Cyprus during Nebuchadnezzar’s 13-year siege of Tyre, in fulfillment of Isaiah’s proclamation.
*** it-2 p. 1136 Tyre ***
Since the nations mentioned in the prophecy of Jeremiah were to “serve the king of Babylon seventy years” (Jer 25:8-11), this suggests that both the prophecy of Isaiah and that of Jeremiah related to Nebuchadnezzar’s campaign against Tyre. Also through Ezekiel, a contemporary of Jeremiah, Jehovah pointed to calamity for Tyre at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar. (Eze 26:1–28:19) . . .(Eze 29:17-20) According to the Jewish historian Josephus, the siege lasted 13 years (Against Apion, I, 156 [21]), and it cost the Babylonians a great deal. Secular history does not record exactly how thorough or effective Nebuchadnezzar’s efforts were. But the loss in lives and property to the Tyrians must have been great.—Eze 26:7-12.
When the Israelites returned from Babylonian exile, however, the Tyrians were able to assist in supplying cedar timbers from Lebanon for a second temple, and they resumed their trade with the rebuilt city of Jerusalem.—Ezr 3:7; Ne 13:16.
*** w77 7/1 p. 389 How History Was Written Centuries in Advance ***
Secular history reports that Nebuchadnezzar began a siege of Tyre sometime after destroying Jerusalem and the temple of Jehovah’s worship in 607 B.C.E. The Jewish historian Josephus, drawing upon Phoenician annals and other previously written history, states that Nebuchadnezzar’s siege against Tyre lasted thirteen years.
So if you have read this closely, and noticed the scriptures from Ezekiel you will see that the following secular dates would fit this 13-year period, when Tyre was forgotten. These particular dates can be found in many places. I pulled them from Livius.org based on an understanding of various chronicles and texts. http://www.livius.org/articles/person/nebuchadnezzar-ii/
598: Beginning of the siege of Tyre?
597: First capture of Jerusalem; king Jehoiachin is replaced by king Zedekiah
596: Campaign against Elam
595: Renewed campaigning in the west
587 (or 586): Second capture of Jerusalem; deportation of the Judaean elite
585: Peace with Tyre, after a siege that had lasted thirteen years
  Of course, you can just add 20 years to each of those dates to get the Watch Tower version of most secular dates in this period. Therefore 618 to 605 would be the Watch Tower dates of the same 13 year siege. Notice how this is completely contradictory to the claim made in the Insight book which claims it was started after the fall of Jerusalem when even our own date for it would have mapped to 618. .
*** w77 7/1 p. 389 How History Was Written Centuries in Advance ***
Secular history reports that Nebuchadnezzar began a siege of Tyre sometime after destroying Jerusalem and the temple of Jehovah’s worship. . .
And while we are on the subject, notice that Ezekiel can also help to date the fall of Jerusalem. Ezekiel dates his prophecies to the year of king Jehoiachin's exile, which started in 597 [617 Watch Tower]. This is why for example, our publications say the following:
*** it-1 p. 795 Ezekiel, Book of ***
In the 25th year of his exile (593 B.C.E.) Ezekiel had a remarkable vision . . . (Eze 40:1–48:35)
(Ezekiel 40:1) . . .In the 25th year of our exile, at the beginning of the year, on the tenth day of the month, in the 14th year after the city had fallen,. . .
and we know the end of the siege had to be completed in or before the 27th year because Ezekiel puts it in the past tense:
(Ezekiel 29:17, 18) 17 Now in the 27th year, in the first month, on the first day of the month, the word of Jehovah came to me, saying: 18 “Son of man, King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon made his army labor greatly against Tyre. Every head became bald, and every shoulder was rubbed bare. But he and his army received no wages for the labor he expended on Tyre.
Note that this, when combined with other Biblical and archaeological sources, also provides a bit of additional evidence for the 587/6 date for the fall of Jerusalem. The city had fallen in the 14th year, but it was now two years later when the Tyre siege had been put in the past tense in year 27, in the 16th year after the city had fallen. That siege ended in 585, putting a likely time for Jerusalem's fall in 587, no more than 2 years earlier.
The Watch Tower solved this particular "vexation" by saying that these 13 years of siege fulfilled the '70 years of being forgotten' referring to the 70 years for Babylon, even though it wasn't a full 70 years for Tyre itself. Isn't it amazing that this is the solution for Tyre? Yet we still hold out on Judah, even if it requires pseudo-archaeology to accomplish it.
(Jeremiah 25:11, 12) 11 And all this land will be reduced to ruins and will become an object of horror, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon for 70 years.”’ 12 “‘But when 70 years have been fulfilled, I will call to account the king of Babylon and that nation for their error. . .
In order to support our tradition about 607, we have gone so far as to mis-translate Jeremiah 29:10.
(Jeremiah 29:10) 10 “For this is what Jehovah says, ‘When 70 years at Babylon are fulfilled, I will turn my attention to you,and I will make good my promise by bringing you back to this place.’
The Hebrew in all our manuscripts says for Babylon, not at. Even the NWT translates the same Hebrew preposition as for elsewhere in such a situation, not at. Only here is it so important to mistranslate the Hebrew. And yet, oddly, we give it the meaning of "for" when similar language is used about Tyre. Also, only for would fit the previous mention of the 70 years quoted above from chapter 25.
This should give us an idea about just how vexed the Watch Tower has become over the 70 years. What's worse, is that Watch Tower publications don't even teach that exiles were in Babylon for 70 years. If we start from the first exiles, including Daniel, it could be upwards of nearly 90 years according to Watch Tower chronology, but this would make the 70 years with respect to Tyre a full 90 years long, not 70. If we start from the time the Watch Tower says that Jerusalem was destroyed, then those exiles from a destroyed Jerusalem could only have been "at" Babylon for 67 to 68 years. 607/6 to 539. Very vexing indeed in the Watch Tower's chronology attempts.
But it's not vexing at all if we look at the Bible and realize that, on this topic, the Bible has also been vindicated again by secular archaeology.

Born/raised in California. School and pioneering in Missouri. Bethel in Brooklyn. Got married and stayed around NYC and Boston [A D Little] for all my work post-Bethel. Worked in San Francisco and Paris for about 6 months each, too, but for same company.

Born/raised in California. School and pioneering in Missouri. Bethel in Brooklyn. Got married and stayed around NYC and Boston [A D Little] for all my work post-Bethel. Worked in San Francisco and Paris for about 6 months each, too, but for same company.

Actually there is nothing vexing about the seventy years from the perspective of the Bible and from the perspective of scholars. As you said:
Judah was just one of the nations that was to serve Babylon for 70 years. Tyre was another. Note what the Watchtower publications already figured out about the period:
*** ip-1 chap. 19 p. 253 par. 21 Jehovah Profanes the Pride of Tyre ***
Isaiah goes on to prophesy: “It must occur in that day that Tyre must be forgotten seventy years, the same as the days of one king.” (Isaiah 23:15a) Following the destruction of the mainland city by the Babylonians, the island-city of Tyre will “be forgotten.” True to the prophecy, for the duration of “one king”—the Babylonian Empire—the island-city of Tyre will not be an important financial power. Jehovah, through Jeremiah, includes Tyre among the nations that will be singled out to drink the wine of His rage. He says: “These nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years.” (Jeremiah 25:8-17, 22, 27) True, the island-city of Tyre is not subject to Babylon for a full 70 years, since the Babylonian Empire falls in 539 B.C.E. Evidently, the 70 years represents the period of Babylonia’s greatest domination—when the Babylonian royal dynasty boasts of having lifted its throne even above “the stars of God.” (Isaiah 14:13) Different nations come under that domination at different times. But at the end of 70 years, that domination will crumble.
This is exactly the same explanation of the 70 years that fits not just Tyre, but also the other "nations that will be singled out ... to serve the king of Babylon seventy years." And one of those other nations that Jeremiah mentioned was Judah. So do we really need two sets of measurements, or can we just accept that the Bible is correct?
*** w01 6/1 pp. 4-5 Whose Standards Can You Trust? ***
Just as Jehovah’s promises are reliable and unchangeable, so are his standards of right and wrong. Would you trust a merchant who uses two sets of weights, only one of which is accurate? Certainly not. Likewise, “a cheating pair of scales is something detestable to Jehovah, but a complete stone-weight is a pleasure to him.” (Proverbs 11:1; 20:10) In the Law that he gave the Israelites, Jehovah included this command: “You must not commit injustice in judging, in measuring, in weighing or in measuring liquids. You should prove to have accurate scales, accurate weights, an accurate ephah and an accurate hin. Jehovah your God I am, who have brought you out of the land of Egypt.”—Leviticus 19:35, 36.
Most of us learned that the march of world powers included:
Egypt Assyria Babylon between [612 - 539] or [608 - 539] or  [605 - 539] Medo-Persia Greece Rome The above quote from the Isaiah book says that the Babylonian empire lasted 70 years, the period of Babylon's greatest domination. We know that Assyria was losing it's grip between the fall of Nineveh in 612 BCE, and the fall of Harran in 605 BCE.The last powerful king of that monarchy was Ashur-uballit II from 612 to 608 BCE. Therefore the secular period of Babylonian hegemony, or period of their empire is exactly in line with the Bible period of 70 years.

Well, not really. In this system there is very little you can do without money. Even God's word recognizes that money is for a protection. I can see why such actions you describe would be prudent. If we take it to its grass roots, and remember Satan is the ruler of this system, then he could very well be using the world's systems (legal or otherwise) to incapacitate or halt the work of the Witnesses. To survive in this system, in the sense that the Witnessing work can carry on, you have to beat the system at its own game. So what you have said about the reasons the GB perhaps not wanting to participate makes complete sense, and I never thought about it that way. The problem some have with that is that they immediately assume "following the money" means someone is lining their pockets, sipping Sangria on a private island, while others are suffering.
 
P.S. Although brother Rook swears all the money is being pooled into HQ so that Br. Morris can buy a Rolex and Br. Herd his blingy cuff links......

Arauna:
Thank you for your honest and valid criticism .. every word you typed is valid. I am impressed, and at 70, and having "paid attention", not much impresses me.
Like I tell my wife, Susan, when she is right and I am wrong ... I do not mind at all when she is right .. but it embarrasses me when I am wrong.
... same thing with your coherent analysis.
I do recognize that Jehovah's Witnesses have the only true theology, even though the TRUTH is 15% of the billions of words spent, and opinion, and drivel, and irrelevancy clouds it, and creates enormous damage.
By people who suffer my rants I have had the accusation (paraphrased) "With what you know, and how you have been treated, how can you POSSIBLY still give your allegiance to that religion?".
I have resolved it in this way .... My allegiance is to Jehovah God, Christ Jesus, and the Brotherhood ... and I respect the WTB&TS for the very improbable fact that I stumbled across the Truth about God's Kingdom, so many years ago BECAUSE of the WTB&TS,   ... however I personally expect NOTHING from anyone. 
You cannot be stumbled if you have NO unreasonable expectations, and realize that we are all just big ugly bags of water with DNA ends that get shorter every year until we wrinkle up and die.
However, people with the very best of intentions have a HEAVY responsibility to do things RIGHT when they claim to be God's "Faithful and Discreet Slave", and command respect and obedience to their CULTURAL as well as Theological perspective.
November of 2015, everything we studied in the Ministry School, and the Watchtowers, and the Public Talks was on the topic of Justice.
I see the magnificent things the Brotherhood has accomplished but I also see a continuous string of injustices and cover-ups ... and the Society is paying the price for that now both in ruined reputation globally, and because they claim to reflect the will of God, which in many cases they do .. but the incompetence has gotten so bad that it has gotten silly, and embarrassing.
You can cover up a LOT with an unlimited supply of free money, and free labor ... but the damage grows and escalates, year by year by year.
We are not in Kansas, anymore, ToTo. 
The Internet has opened the whitewashed graves of those who have been cruelly treated .... by an institution with presumably the highest motives.
I have an advantage .... I was baptized in 1964, when the baptismal oath was "The Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit" .. so my allegiance is not to the Corporation or to the "Organization".  If you were baptized AFTER 1985, when the oath generally took it's current form .. you are STUCK.
if 85% of what we promote was not irrelevant drivel ... we would not have to knock on other peoples' doors  ...
THEY WOULD BE KNOCKING ON OURS!
If you don't think so .. just ask Caleb and Sophia.

We are here to assist each other and not be hypocritical in our love.  So we expose our bad sides when we are honest and way too often we may need adjustment - but this is good if we willingly adjust - because then we can be more pliable to be used by Jehovah and we improve as time goes by. We do not miss the mark as often!  LOL.
I use the words from the Bible when I say that a sweet fountain will not bubble forth bitter water all the time....  And sometimes we can come across as too critical and bitter and we do not allow the sweetness to bubble forth.
I had a friend like this in England.  She was too quick to see all the mistakes that everyone made and yet, ....    I learnt a lot from her about persistence under difficult circumstances. She did get some resistance from others because of this trait ... and I sometimes had to give myself a break from her because she was too much regarding her temperament to see the negative. On the other hand she was like a mother to me and taught me a lot.....
To influence others in an beneficial way we need to not be afraid to show our sweetness, to be perceived as weak and vulnerable.  We then are true towers of strength.  We can show empathy.
You have the experience of a lifetime.  I am sure you know a lot of positive things that other brothers can benefit from but you must gain their trust by allowing the wholesome, healing water to flow out of you.  Become a vessel for good use.  You seem to have the zeal! 
 
 

I agree, but what I would propose would still be incomplete in terms of encompassing so many different possible circumstances, and I don't really want to think about all these possible circumstances. Also, the ideas I would incorporate have mostly been discussed already, in a general way at least, and have mostly already been recommended by the courts in some form, too. If I have some time to fill some of the gaps, I might join a separate discussion about this. The gap I still have is in the nearly arbitrary age definitions that one might start out with. There is no Biblical definition of what defines a child vs young adult vs adult. But there are some common sense ideas, which will always be subject to exceptions. A congregation or any church institution should choose elders who have common sense, and therefore have the ability to make sensible exceptions when necessary. That's one of the reasons for the intended level of qualifications and life experience and other requirements for elders that is suggested in the Bible (Timothy, Titus, etc). We should never expect the Christian congregation to start forming legalistic procedures, but we should expect the Christian congregation to continue looking for ways to deal with every problem in the most loving and efficient way possible.
I'm not surprised, though. The sons of darkness may know more about taking care of such problems than the sons of light do.
(Luke 16:8) 8 And his master commended the steward, though unrighteous, because he acted with practical wisdom; for the sons of this system of things are wiser in a practical way toward their own generation than the sons of the light are.
In general, JWs are not lawyers, so we don't meet up with as many related cases as certain types of lawyers would. Even if we try to collect info on a lot of cases and put it in one place, we can't always have the expertise to make proper inferences about them. In general, JWs also do not work in law enforcement, social work, psychology, or other professional medical fields. So we don't necessarily have enough of those kinds of experts to call together into one place for the purpose of combining expertise through discussion in order to come to some helpful conclusions. Besides, among JWs, some of these persons would be women, and we are a patriarchal organization. There are people in authority in other places who have the power and resources to bring a lot more minds together. I have even heard that Barbara Anderson was asked to go to the Vatican because the Vatican was interested in what processes could be implemented to protect more victims.
Because of their experience, the ARC, for example, was able to point out several clear flaws in our sets of documents. Of course, finding fault is a lot easier than coming up with a comprehensive solution. And even a supposed comprehensive process solution doesn't mean it will really work all that well when imperfect people implement it.
And, yes, of course we should be more proactive in looking for ways to protect all persons, in all parts of society, even showing that we love our enemies.
I think the principle from Luke 16:8 might answer a portion of that question. I can also think of lots of other ways in which people who are "babes as to badness" might find themselves out-leveraged and shown up as weak in courts of law. It happens all the time. This is not a direct defense of the current problem however.
(1 Corinthians 14:20) 20 Brothers, do not become young children in your understanding, but be young children as to badness; and become full-grown in your understanding.
It's true that we want to represent ourselves in a manner worthy of calling ourselves "God's people." But it has never been true that "God's people" did not have weaknesses and faults.
I didn't assume it was mostly from the assistance of ex-JWs. I do sense some participation however.
He made some powerful and relevant points. But you are right. Shunning is practiced by some religions much more strictly than in ours. I don't see a Biblical requirement for shunning in the way many JWs still practice it. I think that, except for a few rare cases, the Biblical reasons given for shunning don't really apply to the types of persons that JWs tend to shun.

The average time between the abuse and the time of reporting that abuse is still about 30 years. So the kinds of forensics are quite different from a car accident, or what can be found in a "rape kit" for example.
 
I wanted to interpret that into the "circumstantial" evidence mentioned, too. Disappointing not to see this show up in documentation. Also disappointed to see so many "holes" in our own documentation that were so easily pointed out by the ARC. Also saw about three openings made in the Spinks/O'Brien testimony that could hurt us further. One was, of course, the huge discrepancy between in trying to define the age of "approaching adulthood" admitted to be 16-17 generally, then anecdotally to 15, and then later aligned with the age of baptism! It was fortunate that Stewart didn't realize that this places the age back to as young as 8 years old.
It adds an element that almost makes the congregational judicial matter moot. If the person is arrested and the matter becomes public, then there is already going to be a loss of congregational privileges. If there is a court case, how would it look if a judicial committee found the person "unchargeable" (not necessarily innocent) while the civil courts found him guilty. If the courts did not establish guilt, it is quite unlikely that the congregation could, yet we would be so wary of a repetition that the loss of position and privileges (along with probable monitoring to some extent)  would produce the appearance of guilt even if the accused were potentially innocent.

Where I am from the smiley face means sadness, so I was very confused and sad

Yes - sometimes people make the choices to stay in a marriage themselves (for the children or for some other reason) and then the elders get the "blame."  If her husband had an adulterous affair she had the right to divorce him but she may not have had the inclination to go the whole way - mental strength is needed to go through with this. Insecurity and lack of confidence and many other factors play a role in this. 
Often women cannot support themselves financially (she had many kids) or they have the "absolute subjection" mentality.  Remember that Ms Jackson is a product of the 1930s mentality (when she grew up).  In this time period when people divorced they were basically ostracized by family and society.... it was a no-no because it brought disgrace.
Older men from this era also have a "bunker" mentality - as someone named it above.  Many women suffered abuse up until the 60s.  Thereafter divorce was more prevalent.  I was a child in the fifties and remember well the attitudes of men and women. My grandmother divorced in the 1940's and she suffered tremendously because of this.  The 60s brought sexual freedom and more power to women because they did not fall pregnant (with new medication) and became more free.  More women were showing up in the work place as well. 
A few years back I went on a call with an Arabic sister and the student had been abused by her husband (gun threats involved)  and the police took him to jail.  This sister was 80 years old and with her Arabic background and her age, she was "a time capsule from the Palestinian values of the 1930s".  So she ignored the "other' Bible principles and was telling this woman to "withdraw" the complaint to police because the "husband" is your head and master. There was also evidence of adultery. 
Not only was this the worst advice but it could have erupted in more violence.   I went to and elder and asked his advice about this  - but the situation was too late to rectify... The case was already withdrawn and the man joined his wife at home again.  A little later, this man was put in jail - again - for putting a gun to his wives head.  The children had called the police. A restraining order was granted and later a divorce.... The single parent family are now thriving. Fortunately - no-one was hurt and this man later on turned out to be really vile. He was abusive to his children as well.
We must never "tell" our students what to do - or for that matter - anyone else (because we can face the consequences, be responsible,  if the wrong decision is taken..... and the Witnesses can get the "blame".  We show them all the Bible principles involved and help then to think things through.  If you do this - he may do that - if you do that - he may do this...or that may happen.... to give the student options. But they have to choose what to do themselves.... no matter how weak or lost they feel.
I enjoyed last weeks Watchtower study - because it taught us this fact: everyone must exercise their own free will - we cannot do it for them - no matter how well our intentions.  Jehovah knows the hearts. If a study, who is suffering violence, goes back to her husband it is not our place to judge her or give comment. Or if she decides to leave - it is also not our right to judge.... and all must be cautious to give the organization the "blame"  for other individual persons' actions and the decisions involved.
 
 
 

... JUST A NOTE ALLEN SMITH:
... for what it is worth, and certainly worth the price of electricity of a few photons on a screen ... um ... when someone defends a view that is completely contradicted by actual real world facts, and they are intelligent people, normally prone to use their intellect, as you are ... they have a choice .... change their viewpoint to reflect what is real .... which will almost always involve a great deal of anguish ... and consequences from those who hold the same irrational viewpoints ... or begin that slippery slope that leads to a fractured, and fragile mind.
As the group The Eagles sang in their incredibly perceptive song from the late 1960s or so, (paraphrased) ...
" ... Take it easy, take it easy ... don't let the sound of your own wheels, MAKE YOU CRAZY ..."
I have to daily remind myself of these things ... as the Universe will decide what is true .. and it is without mercy.
" There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." " — Daniel Webster
.
 
 

Then why act as though they do? 
 
I'm glad you feel that way, I hope others do as well. There is of course a significant difference between a serial unrepentant murderer and someone who just doesn't feel that the wt is God's org. 

@AllenSmith enough is enough with you guys here in JW land.... cease and desist.
I've warned you before to stick to the issues and leave the personal attacks elsewhere.
 

The Organization is currently implementing a plan to avoid the problem of Branch Coordinators, and Service Desk personnel having to be fired , or exiled to Pacific Islands when called before the Australian Royal Commission's Inquirys, as well as others that have embarrassed the Organization under oath.

The Organization always knows what is best .......

Agreed. 
Portraying abusers as sinister cartoonish boogeymen plants a preconceived idea of what predators are supposed to look like. I mentioned why this was unhelpful and misleading before.
The cartoon is aimed at children. 
What if Mommy and/or Daddy are the abusers? What does the cartoon advise the child to do then?
Well now, I see the scaffolding of a straw man forming in your imagining what kind of cartoon I would make. 
However, you have highlighted another unhelpful part in the cartoon that primes the child to think of the outside world as a scary place, when for abused children it's usually the home that's the scary place.
Better qualified people than I have already done so.
Compare the well-thought-out Fight Child Abuse YouTube channel, for example. Here's one of their videos:
Notice that they specify what 'safe' and 'unsafe' touches are, and who might give the child 'unsafe touches' ("someone you know or someone in your family") and that, rather than limit the disclosure to 'mommy or daddy' as with the Caleb and Sophia cartoon, they widen the child's options ("tell your teacher, or another family member"). There are no monster figures to confuse (or amuse) the child in this video. More could be said about how this cartoon differs in approach to the Caleb and Sophia one, but I'll leave it there.
Of course, I'm posting for the benefit of any interested readers. Naturally, I do not expect a calmly reasoned-out response from you @TrueTomHarley, although I live in hope. 
 
 

I look forward to the time when this will not even be a collectors item any more!
The plastic weapons which people now print on 3D printers are putting more cheap weapons into the hands of criminals....yes, the world is really changing for the worse.  Soon they can make a movie about the wild west set in 2025.... when people draw weapons on each other to settle issues....

It was not correct, but I think it would be easier for him to give the impression that he was a doctor than it would have been for "Doc" Dixon. The heading on that particular JAMA article might have been easily misread, but the first footnote shows that his title is "Mr." not "Dr."
November 27, 1981 Jehovah's WitnessesThe Surgical/Ethical Challenge
J. Lowell Dixon, MD; M. Gene Smalley Author Affiliations JAMA. 1981;246(21):2471-2472. doi:10.1001/jama.1981.03320210037021 ... _________ From the Medical (Dr Dixon) and Research (Mr Smalley) Departments, World Headquarters of Jehovah's Witnesses, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, Brooklyn, NY. Reprint requests to Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 25 Columbia Heights, Brooklyn, NY 11201 (Mr Smalley).   I think it's easy for all of us to revert back to the shorthand of saying "allowed" or "sanctioned" when the full statement should include the idea of conscience or "personal decision." But the more I read in the medical journals where doctors, surgeons and medical researchers try to summarize their experiences with hundreds of JW patients, these professionals realize that the patients are often not aware of what their conscience allows until the "Church Council" lets them know if something is "approved" or not.
But most of the blood we consume in eating liver and lean meat (muscle tissue) is whole blood, not components or fractions, right?

“Although I was making every effort to write you about” when did Jesus secure full kingdom power… and lately my time is sparser than habitual, in spite of this I wish to point out several points about this serious matter.

First, thank you JWI for your investigation about blood, components, fractions and similar matters.
If I’ve understood well, JWI has a more serious or stricter view than many of us regarding blood utilization. I mean that many of us perhaps consider the use of some fractions. But JWI (and also James Thomas Rook Jr share this view, I think) point out the fact the Bible forbids BLOOD, without specifying little or much. Well, this is what I call it WHITE position. No pale grey, nor dark grey, but white. And this is fine. No one of us should think these brothers suffer from weak faith (oh, well, JTR does suffer high blood pressure!)

I must admit I’m not an expert in these matters. But, as my faith (and life) is involved, I need some level of knowledge, without which my position would seem fanatical to doctors or third persons.

By the way, I personally know brothers that when deciding about the chart in the KM about fractions and procedures they marked NO for everything. And others just the opposite.

 HYPOTETTICAL SITUATION IN THE HOSPITAL’S RESTAURANT

My wife is in the hospital room, waiting for some surgical intervention the next day. I had some difficulties with her anesthesiologist because her recommendation about the use of some blood’s fraction in the intervention. In spite of this, I feel very confident and take the opportunity to enjoy a big steak with salad.

While I’m eating alone in my table, the anesthesiologist approaches me and says:

 
·        “You’re eating more blood than your wife has not allowed us to use with her”

Don’t confuse the red juice in raw red meat with blood, it’s a muscle’s protein, the myoglobin.

 


HOW MUCH WHOLE BOOD AM I EATING WITH MY MEAT?

I’m not a specialist, so I’ve made some investigation. I’ve found this surprising data:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6495586?report=abstract

Exsanguination of animals at slaughter and the residual blood content of meat.

Abstract

About 40 to 60 per cent of the total blood volume is lost at exsanguination. The loss can be influenced slightly by differences in traditional slaughter techniques and is considerably reduced after cardiac arrest in sheep and cattle. Blood not lost at sticking is probably largely retained in the viscera rather than the carcase. The residual blood content of lean meat is 2 to 9 ml/kg muscle. There is no evidence that this amount is affected by different slaughter methods or that large amounts of residual blood influence the microbiology of meat.

And this more recent and very comprehensive source states in almost 20 ml/kg of hemoglobin in the meat, depending of the slaughter method.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4093272


If this is correct, in the slaughterhouse, during slaughter,

·        ONLY HALF OF THE BLOOD IS SPILLED!

·        ALMOST THE OTHER HALF REMAINS IN THE VISCERA

·        FROM 2 TO 9 ml/Kg REMAINS IN THE MEAT WE EAT (12-18 mg/kg hemoglobin according the second study)


CONSIDERATIONS

In the Moses’s Law, Jehovah didn’t forbid the use of viscera for feeding (I'm not sure regarding this)

·        (Lev 3:10, 11) “He will also remove the appendage of the liver along with the kidneys. And the priest will make it smoke on the altar as food, an offering made by fire to Jehovah.”
But Jehovah knew perfectly that in the viscera remained much blood of the animal. And these weren’t forbidden nor for Jews nor for Christians.

And, regarding lean meat, we can conclude, obviously, that Jehovah knew some blood remains in it. In spite of this fact, His own Son ate meat, as we do.

All of this make me think that our position about blood fractions have some logical.

ARBITRARINESS

I must admit that our position about the four main blood components (forbidden) and the other minor ones (allowed according the conscience of each one) is arbitrary. Would have been perfectly possible to determine the white/black not focusing in the importance of the components (plasma, red cells, white cells, platelets) but in the percentage of these fractions related to the whole blood. But this is incongruous. As JWI perfectly explains in his post (and with charts!) if I admit albumin (4% of plasma) or immunoglobulins (3% of plasma), I admit more proportion of blood that when I refuse platelets.

I recognize that, at some point, the GB could reconsider this incongruence and change the KM chart. In the meantime, this position is not going to make sin against God’s law about blood. It remains to me avoiding albumin, immunoglobulins and other fractions. The problem is the opposite: perhaps I would admit platelets if the focus was different. Here we are with another “vaccination” issue!

God grant them wisdom!!

 
 

@Melinda Yet, Scripturally, it is also our duty to fight against error and strongly entrenched things, and to point out where tradition has made the word of God invalid. The Watchtower might be perfectly correct in this area. Yet, if the Watchtower is speaking twisted things in this area, is it really our duty to obey it, or is our duty to obey God as ruler rather than men? As you reminded us, Eve was perfect and yet was still seduced by false reasoning. But the word of God is alive and exerts power. If it happens to break down false human reasoning, this is not our fault. It is our Christian duty to be noble-minded and question all reasoning to test it against God's word, otherwise we are trying to please humans. Isn't this the lesson that Paul wanted us to learn from Galatians and 1 & 2 Corinthians?
I'm reminded of words recently attributed to Voltaire, but closer to words from a more modern writer: "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."
There is a certain kind of fundamentalist thinking that shifts one's loyalties to the humans that we credit for bringing us into all truth, even if they brought us into most truth. It's the Bible, the product of Jehovah's holy spirit, that brings us into all truth.
For example, there are those who read the following verses:
(Luke 10:19) Look! I have given you the authority to trample underfoot serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing at all will harm you.
And also the following verses:
(Mark 16:17, 18) 17 Furthermore, these signs will accompany those believing: By the use of my name they will expel demons, they will speak with tongues, 18 and with their hands they will pick up serpents, and if they drink anything deadly it will not hurt them at all. They will lay their hands upon sick persons, and these will become well.”
And the experience of Paul:
(Acts 28:3-6) But when Paul collected a bundle of sticks and laid it on the fire, a viper came out because of the heat and fastened itself on his hand. 4 When the foreign-speaking people caught sight of the venomous creature hanging from his hand, they began saying to one another: “Surely this man is a murderer, and although he made it to safety from the sea, Justice did not permit him to keep on living.” 5 However, he shook the creature off into the fire and suffered no harm. 6 But they were expecting him to swell up or suddenly to drop dead. After they waited for a long time and saw that nothing bad happened to him, they changed their mind and began saying he was a god.
And Paul's counsel:
(1 Corinthians 4:16) I urge you, therefore, become imitators of me.
Putting all that together, some small "Christian" denominations thought it was incumbent upon them, therefore, to show they had the faith to handle snakes and suffer no harm. Some died, but the common fundamentalist thinking structure did not allow that problem to change their mind. In fact, it makes people dig in their heels and become even more dedicated to the idea. Some of them, we suppose, could even claim that the medical community learned more about venom and treating snake bites due to their efforts. Perhaps the sacrifice of a few led to saving many more people from snakebite.
Yet, all that one needed to do was notice that the passage in Mark was not supported from the earliest manuscripts, and to think about the spirit of the Bible, rather than specific passages without their context, in order to break down this dangerous practice.
Edited to add that this wasn't directed specifically at you Melinda, but to an argument I heard recently about how non-blood therapies have now saved more people than ever died from lack of blood therapies, or even directly from blood therapy deaths through error, contamination, etc.

The problem is that our publications have made use of the ambiguity. The publications have made use of the fact that the major/minor distinction refers to the size of the breakdown in fractions, based on the KM chart which highlights the "minor" percentages after breaking down blood into 4 "major" fractions. But one of those so-called "minor" percentages is 33% of a "major" component. (And one was 99% and therefore left off the "approved" list even though it was approved.)
At the same time one of the "major" components, platelets, was only considered to be 0.0017 of the total volume of blood. That's 0.17%.
Therefore, by Watch Tower definition, a MINOR component can be 99% of 55% of whole blood (cryosupernatant), or 33% of 45% of whole blood (hemoglobin), and yet a MAJOR component can be as little as little as 0.17% of whole blood. Here is a visual chart showing just how much of whole blood can be an acceptable minor component compared to an unacceptable major component. The acceptable amount of the total blood is in RED:
The following, then is the unacceptable portion of whole blood because the very tiny small red portion of the total line is a MAJOR component:
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The following large red portion is an acceptable portion of whole blood, even though it is over half of the total blood volume, because it is a MINOR fraction:
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This kind of arbitrary play on words is hypocritical. Note a recent Watchtower's comments:
*** w01 6/1 pp. 4-5 Whose Standards Can You Trust? ***
Would you trust a merchant who uses two sets of weights, only one of which is accurate? Certainly not. Likewise, “a cheating pair of scales is something detestable to Jehovah, but a complete stone-weight is a pleasure to him.” (Proverbs 11:1; 20:10) In the Law that he gave the Israelites, Jehovah included this command: “You must not commit injustice in judging, in measuring, in weighing or in measuring liquids. You should prove to have accurate scales, accurate weights, an accurate ephah and an accurate hin. Jehovah your God I am, who have brought you out of the land of Egypt.”—Leviticus 19:35, 36.
 

@Melinda Yet, Scripturally, it is also our duty to fight against error and strongly entrenched things, and to point out where tradition has made the word of God invalid. The Watchtower might be perfectly correct in this area. Yet, if the Watchtower is speaking twisted things in this area, is it really our duty to obey it, or is our duty to obey God as ruler rather than men? As you reminded us, Eve was perfect and yet was still seduced by false reasoning. But the word of God is alive and exerts power. If it happens to break down false human reasoning, this is not our fault. It is our Christian duty to be noble-minded and question all reasoning to test it against God's word, otherwise we are trying to please humans. Isn't this the lesson that Paul wanted us to learn from Galatians and 1 & 2 Corinthians?
I'm reminded of words recently attributed to Voltaire, but closer to words from a more modern writer: "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."
There is a certain kind of fundamentalist thinking that shifts one's loyalties to the humans that we credit for bringing us into all truth, even if they brought us into most truth. It's the Bible, the product of Jehovah's holy spirit, that brings us into all truth.
For example, there are those who read the following verses:
(Luke 10:19) Look! I have given you the authority to trample underfoot serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing at all will harm you.
And also the following verses:
(Mark 16:17, 18) 17 Furthermore, these signs will accompany those believing: By the use of my name they will expel demons, they will speak with tongues, 18 and with their hands they will pick up serpents, and if they drink anything deadly it will not hurt them at all. They will lay their hands upon sick persons, and these will become well.”
And the experience of Paul:
(Acts 28:3-6) But when Paul collected a bundle of sticks and laid it on the fire, a viper came out because of the heat and fastened itself on his hand. 4 When the foreign-speaking people caught sight of the venomous creature hanging from his hand, they began saying to one another: “Surely this man is a murderer, and although he made it to safety from the sea, Justice did not permit him to keep on living.” 5 However, he shook the creature off into the fire and suffered no harm. 6 But they were expecting him to swell up or suddenly to drop dead. After they waited for a long time and saw that nothing bad happened to him, they changed their mind and began saying he was a god.
And Paul's counsel:
(1 Corinthians 4:16) I urge you, therefore, become imitators of me.
Putting all that together, some small "Christian" denominations thought it was incumbent upon them, therefore, to show they had the faith to handle snakes and suffer no harm. Some died, but the common fundamentalist thinking structure did not allow that problem to change their mind. In fact, it makes people dig in their heels and become even more dedicated to the idea. Some of them, we suppose, could even claim that the medical community learned more about venom and treating snake bites due to their efforts. Perhaps the sacrifice of a few led to saving many more people from snakebite.
Yet, all that one needed to do was notice that the passage in Mark was not supported from the earliest manuscripts, and to think about the spirit of the Bible, rather than specific passages without their context, in order to break down this dangerous practice.
Edited to add that this wasn't directed specifically at you Melinda, but to an argument I heard recently about how non-blood therapies have now saved more people than ever died from lack of blood therapies, or even directly from blood therapy deaths through error, contamination, etc.

I agreed with almost everything you said, too. But it struck me that the above quote was backwards. We have to practice what is mentioned in the following scriptures, and note what is mentioned in the article. (Not the other way around.)
Also, I was thinking about what the process is behind the Biblical counsel "do not be quickly shaken from your reason." This is the exact danger I mentioned earlier about how everyone was against all forms of organ transplant --and we were sure we had good reason for this-- but then, as quickly as a new article came out, every one of us was quickly shaken from those reasons, and most of us instantly accepted the new reasoning. We all believed we were using a Bible-trained conscience when we refused blood in all forms, even fractions. But then we were quickly shaken from our reason so that most Witnesses suddenly began accepting fractions. If we can be so quickly shaken from our reason, then we must not be following the Bible's counsel to question in order to make sure of all things. Therefore, it must not have been our own conscience in the first place that was real the reason behind our reasoning.
I think that most of us, at least at some point during our spiritual growth as Witnesses, would read that sentence just quoted, and instantly see it only as a warning not to spend time listening to anyone who says something that might point out a flaw in the teaching that currently comes from the visible organization. In context, this is exactly how the Watchtower is applying the idea. But we have to be careful that we don't use two sets of scales. What if the Bible has already answered the questions about blood fractions, for example, but we keep listening to subtle arguments and specious reasoning about blood fractions? What if we have become bloodguilty by accepting these subtle arguments and specious reasoning? What we have accepted, in general, might be perfectly good reasoning, but what if it isn't? What if it isn't questioned, precisely because we are always so quickly shaken from our reason every time a change is made?
Edited to add: I included the following comment, but it kept getting merged/attached with another post. I'm editing it back here:
I know what you mean. I over-reacted. I didn't think you had in mind exactly what I thought others might take from it.