JW Insider

Juan, take all the time you need. It's apparent to me that you are sincere and genuine. (All decisions are not based on logic, though all decisions are subject to logical analysis!) Even if we end up disagreeing, it won't be because you don't care. You care about me. That says a lot. I care about you too.

It's possible for JWs to unify around the ever-fallible governing body you've described so long as that governing body does not ask those governed to ignore soundly reasoned conclusions.
Early Christians were subject to being stoned to death. But early Christians never stoned anyone to death.

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

I appreciate that information. I've still heard it in a talk too, but I don't recall if it is any any of the latest outlines. I remember some bros in correspondence like Bro Malone and Bro Pritchard. I can't imagine their reaction to a memo that would say please don't quote any publications before a certain date unless you adjust the wording to such-and-such. It would have given away the "deceptive" use of the quotes when there was already an argument brewing over these statements in the early 80s in writing. I got the feeling that Service & Correspondence wasn't privy to all the arguing going on in writing.
I was nearby when I heard commotion that turned out to be Brother Greenlees yelling and throwing (slamming) a new summer convention publication down on the desk of one of the writers in an office shared by Bro Lengtat and Bro Napolitano. It wasn't specifically about this particular issue, but was partly over the fact that the publication didn't highlight the true importance of 1914 nor the visible Organization. The anger was also over the fact that none of the publications for that summer made these most important points and the fear (I think) that some might get the impression it was left out on purpose.  
I think that Service/Correspondence was mostly oblivious to these kinds of arguments. I don't know that for a fact, but there was a good amount of interaction between brothers in Writing, but I rarely heard about much face-to-face interaction between Writing and Correspondence except through question memos and then memos responding with "guidance" outlines. One brother, Pritchard, I think, said that he started out using the files to merely copy the previous letter on the topic, but that only someone else would send a memo request for updated guidance. I'm guessing that if there was a letter in the file on the topic, it could go back decades.
I have a feeling you know more about this process, so I'm hoping you'll clarify if you know.

I appreciate that information. I've still heard it in a talk too, but I don't recall if it is any any of the latest outlines. I remember some bros in correspondence like Bro Malone and Bro Pritchard. I can't imagine their reaction to a memo that would say please don't quote any publications before a certain date unless you adjust the wording to such-and-such. It would have given away the "deceptive" use of the quotes when there was already an argument brewing over these statements in the early 80s in writing. I got the feeling that Service & Correspondence wasn't privy to all the arguing going on in writing.
I was nearby when I heard commotion that turned out to be Brother Greenlees yelling and throwing (slamming) a new summer convention publication down on the desk of one of the writers in an office shared by Bro Lengtat and Bro Napolitano. It wasn't specifically about this particular issue, but was partly over the fact that the publication didn't highlight the true importance of 1914 nor the visible Organization. The anger was also over the fact that none of the publications for that summer made these most important points and the fear (I think) that some might get the impression it was left out on purpose.  
I think that Service/Correspondence was mostly oblivious to these kinds of arguments. I don't know that for a fact, but there was a good amount of interaction between brothers in Writing, but I rarely heard about much face-to-face interaction between Writing and Correspondence except through question memos and then memos responding with "guidance" outlines. One brother, Pritchard, I think, said that he started out using the files to merely copy the previous letter on the topic, but that only someone else would send a memo request for updated guidance. I'm guessing that if there was a letter in the file on the topic, it could go back decades.
I have a feeling you know more about this process, so I'm hoping you'll clarify if you know.

I think I see where you might be coming from on this idea, and there appears, at first, to be a nice way to rationalize the idea that plasma is a smaller percentage and therefore could fit the idea, or connotation, of "minor fraction."
One could argue that Cryoprecipitate is only 1% of the total plasma. "Minor" fraction fits.
Then, Cryosupernatant is 99% of the total remaining plasma, because it is all of the remaining plasma. 99% doesn't sound good, but it's mostly water, right? Surely, there is nothing wrong with "water." Blood is mostly water, after all. And Jehovah never showed in his Word that there could ever be an occasion when water was so closely associated with blood, that it was appropriate to pour water out on the ground, right? (Yes, I'm thinking of David.)
(2 Samuel 23:15-17) 15 Then David expressed his longing: “If only I could have a drink of the water from the cistern by the gate of Bethʹle·hem!” 16 At that the three mighty warriors forced their way into the camp of the Phi·lisʹtines and drew water from the cistern by the gate of Bethʹle·hem and brought it to David; but he refused to drink it and poured it out to Jehovah. 17 He said: “It is unthinkable on my part, O Jehovah, that I should do this! Should I drink the blood of the men going at the risk of their lives?” So he refused to drink it.. . .
Besides, if water doesn't count, then why not accept plasma all at once without the water? Why say plasma is forbidden? Just remove the water and it becomes a minor fraction, as if water was its major fraction (95%) which has been removed. Of course, we can't because that would only highlight the total inconsistency of the entire fractured logic of fractions. If the water doesn't count, then the remaining plasma is likely being split up into 1 part non-water plasma and 4 parts non-water plasma. If water doesn't count, then this is a split of 20% plasma (cryoprecipitate) and 80% plasma (cryosupernatant non-water).
The logic of trying to make it look like 1% and 4% is tortured. Even if it were possible to extract a full 50% of the non-water plasma into a form of cryoprecipitate, the two acceptable parts would be at best, 50% and 50%. In reality one side would always be higher than 50%, even as much as 80%. So, the fact that both are acceptable still means 100% of plasma is acceptable, whether we think of the split as 1% + 99% or 50% + 50% or 20% + 80%. It always adds up to 100%.

This is not a natural breakdown. These are the four components that are of highest importance to those who separate and break down donated blood for medical purposes.
For the purposes of supporting life (while in the body), blood's major components are:
Water Oxygen Proteins Sugar Fat Waste From the perspective of someone who is injured the major components of blood become:
Neutrofils Lymphocyte antibodies Clotting Factors Platelets Volume From the Bible's perspective, blood has only one major component:
Blood As indicated by the Watch Tower publications, the most natural use of the term major components with respect to the volume (percentage) of blood, would be:
Plasma (55%) Blood Cells (45%) 55% + 45% = 100%. This is not just true of the Watch Tower publications. It's also true of the site you quoted:
The blood that runs through the veins, arteries, and capillaries is known as whole blood, a mixture of about 55 percent plasma and 45 percent blood cells.  - http://www.hematology.org/Patients/Basics/
The Watchtower agrees:
*** w90 6/1 p. 30 Questions From Readers ***
Human blood can be separated into dark cellular material and a yellowish fluid (plasma, or serum). The cellular part (45 percent by volume) is made up of what are commonly called red cells, white cells, and platelets. The other 55 percent is the plasma. This is 90 percent water, but it carries small amounts of many proteins, hormones, salts, and enzymes. Today, much of the donated blood is separated into the primary components. One patient may be given a transfusion of plasma (perhaps FFP, fresh frozen plasma) to treat shock. But an anemic patient might be given packed red cells, that is, red cells that had been stored and then put in a fluid and transfused.
The Awake! shows just how minor white cells and platelets are to the overall volume of blood by charting the same idea and showing that only about 1% of the total is platelets and white cells.
*** g90 10/22 p. 4 Selling Blood Is Big Business ***
The Main Components of Blood
 Plasma: about 55 percent of the blood. It is 92 percent water; the rest is made up of complex proteins, such as globulins, fibrinogens, and albumin   Platelets: about 0.17 percent of the blood   White Cells: about 0.1 percent   Red Cells: about 45 percent The Awake! got the percentage of white and red cells wrong. It's really about 3% white cells, therefore closer to about 41% red.
The breakdown into "four main components" is correct from the perspective of the preliminary treating and centrifuging of blood to extract its most valuable fractions (components). But it is arbitrary for the Watch Tower publications to use a breakdown that uses the word "major" to refer to the value of a component for its medical re-use, when the Bible says nothing about the value of transfused fractions. In the Bible, the entire volume of blood is important because it represents life.
 

Like I said, the solution to arguing this stuff in circles, is not to quit the discussion, but to argue in straight lines, in an ordered way. And usually it takes training to know how to do that, particularly, training in logic. I’m not going to claim having that. Without that sort of training, discussions will typically go in circles or move all over the place and down every rabbit trail. That's why a profitable discussion usually requires a trained guide or moderator, just as a profitable classroom experience requires a trained teacher. So whoever you guys think is more qualified take the lead. @JW Insider 😉
 
 

For full disclosure, at your first post, I almost immediately recognized that this would be your point of view even though you hadn't revealed it yet. I think you know what I mean, and I'll have to leave it at that. But I have no problem with questioning the validity of posts in the absence of concrete evidence. This is how I think all of us should think about most posts here. It's the nature of the media.
From what I could see, there were indeed persons at Bethel at that time who appeared to choose disloyalty to God (in favor of the Organization) and I worked very closely with one of them. The brother I am referring to above was NOT one of them. He found a way to be loyal to the organization and remain loyal to Jehovah. The brother I worked more closely with tried to punish him for it, but that punishment didn't really stick, as he continued to work for the Writing Department, remotely via Bro Swingle, and continued to write many of the Watchtower study articles long after he was dismissed from Bethel and given a special pioneer stipend to live on. In fact, a large portion of the Insight book contains articles that remain untouched from the way he wrote and edited them for the Aid Book. The Aid Book was once removed from the Watchtower Library, but has since won its place back into it (although mostly redundant with Insight).

For full disclosure, at your first post, I almost immediately recognized that this would be your point of view even though you hadn't revealed it yet. I think you know what I mean, and I'll have to leave it at that. But I have no problem with questioning the validity of posts in the absence of concrete evidence. This is how I think all of us should think about most posts here. It's the nature of the media.
From what I could see, there were indeed persons at Bethel at that time who appeared to choose disloyalty to God (in favor of the Organization) and I worked very closely with one of them. The brother I am referring to above was NOT one of them. He found a way to be loyal to the organization and remain loyal to Jehovah. The brother I worked more closely with tried to punish him for it, but that punishment didn't really stick, as he continued to work for the Writing Department, remotely via Bro Swingle, and continued to write many of the Watchtower study articles long after he was dismissed from Bethel and given a special pioneer stipend to live on. In fact, a large portion of the Insight book contains articles that remain untouched from the way he wrote and edited them for the Aid Book. The Aid Book was once removed from the Watchtower Library, but has since won its place back into it (although mostly redundant with Insight).

My comments here are not addressing whatever authority the governing body holds. 
 
My comments here are addressing whether there is a limit to obedience Christians are directed to show to those taking the lead as their teachers, including the governing body (note Paul’s use of “we” in his letter to Galatia)
Though “submit” is an act in relation to an authority, I believe Paul expressed a limitation to submission expected of Christians. 

Unity in common cause is not a result of uniform beliefs. Unity in common cause is a result of people working together despite holding differing beliefs. And, to be sure, among JWs there are very consequential beliefs that individual JWs hold differently from one another. In our literature these consequential differences are classified under a term we call “personal conscience”. 
 
Back to my contribution in this discussion, of Christians and those taking the lead as their teachers, either 1) there is a rightful limitation to obedience toward those teachers or 2) there is no rightful limitation toward those teachers. 

Motivation and intention are precursors to morality, but neither is a threat to sound conclusions. Sound conclusions are falsifiable.
 
An immoral thief can tell me it’s raining outside and his moral condition does not hinder the reliability of his assertion of rain, because his assertion of rain is falsifiable. All I need to do it look outside.
 
So it is with conclusions (teachings) alleged to be “scriptural”. Conclusions in conformance to known conventions of logical construction are reliable not because we do or do not trust a source but, rather, because they are testable. They are falsifiable.
 
The same men who acted as a restraint to wrong teachings also pleaded with fellow followers of the Christ to test what was taught. 
 

@George88 George, I can understand your perspective. I’m actually coming to the table with a stronger view than probably everyone here. I have said before that I do not trust the Governing Body because I think that the elders and overseers have better knowledge of doctrine and theology than other Brothers I respect in person and here on the forum. My experience has led me to believe that some Jehovah’s Witnesses have more in-depth knowledge of some topics and specifics than many elders, and perhaps even than some overseers and Governing Body members. But that is irrelevant. I trust the Governing Body because I believe its authority is God-given, not attained by human study or genius. Thus its authority is charismatic, not academic. And I believe that because it’s the only basis I’m aware of for distinguishing, in a principled way, between an authentic authoritative interpretation and human theological opinions. So I have chosen in good conscience to accept the Governing Body’s claim for itself. That means that, when a theological opinion of mine turns out to conflict with their teaching, I conclude that I’m the one who’s wrong, not the Governing Body. So they enjoy the presumption truth and my sincere efforts to assimilate their teaching
In light of your other comment:
The easy way to dismiss those who come to disagree with us is to chalk it up to something less than noble in them. The more appropriate, and charitable response is to address the reasons, evidence, arguments, etc., the other person give for *why* they think their position is true, and our position false. That's the essence of rational dialogue. But deconstruction is a kind of ad hominem (i.e. "you only believe that because you ..."), and hence it can be used both directions, with no progress forward toward mutual agreement. That's why it is better not to make use of deconstruction at all, and always assume (unless given good reason to believe otherwise) that the other person is motivated primarily by a desire for the truth.
But I understand your concern.  If I have a submissive attitude to a problematic teaching I will be willing to engage in further study of the issue with others here. Perhaps my questions are the consequence of poor education as a witness, and that is my fault not of others. If the teaching in question is in regards to matters of morality, than I should examine my conscience. This means asking myself some difficult questions regarding the nature of the difficulties I am having with a given teaching. Am I struggling with this teaching because I cannot discover in it the will of Jehovah,  or is it because this teaching, if true, would demand some real change?  Believe me that I constantly consider whether my difficulties lie not with a particular teaching but with the very idea of a teaching office.

I agree it is essential to scrutinize every post on this platform (or elsewhere), placing importance on scriptural support and principles above any biases or allegiances.

Speaking of loyalty and whether there is a rightful limitation to obedience toward teachers, the subject reminds me of the anointed position held by Moses. Moses was anointed to high position and Israel was supposed to obey him as God's spokesman.
But there was an incident at Meribah where the anointed of Jehovah overstepped. There was another person there by the name of Aaron. He observed what was going on. Aaron had a choice. He could just go along, or he could have spoken up and checked Moses for what he was saying. Because Aaron just went along, he was guilty of sin, with the result that he was removed from high office and prevented from entering the promised land. In that case, loyalty would have had Aaron recognize that obedience (whether passive or active) had an appropriate limit in relation to men (even a man known to be anointed as God's spokesman), and that his ultimate obedience belong to God.

Yes. What JW Insider points out is something known to me as well. I've had those discussion with decision-makers inside Bethel. Aside from that, there are persons who need what they think they have, even though what they have may not be what they think. At their age, I'd not bother them with something that could shake their world. But, on the other hand, we can't let those who may be weak keep us from sharing things for sake of learning and growing. Otherwise learning is stifled, which is never a good thing.
I've shared some views in this discussion. Whether others agree with them or not is of no concern to me, except to say if those views are wrong I want to know. But I'd look for logical refutation; not just statements of disagreement. I have no fear of being wrong. Again, if I'm wrong I want to know it. My faith is firmly planted, and it's not planted in trust of any men or group of men.

in the original context, the difference was that Angus Stewart asked "do you see yourself as modern-day disciples?" A lot of people use the term "Jesus' disciples" as synonymous with his original direct "twelve disciples." Of course, Bro Jackson could answer that the GB definitely see themselves as modern-day disciples. [Those taught by Jesus.] The GB also definitely see themselves as modern-day "sent-forth ones" which is the meaning of the word "apostles." And they do speak of themselves in several ways as a modern-day parallel to the apostles, or even as a kind of parallel to the small number of men who ended up writing all the books of the Christian Greek Scriptures. But Bro Jackson knew the danger of trying to explain these "parallels" to a non-JW so he steered clear of it by even pointing out that they, the GB, do not consider themselves to be the sole channel (mouthpiece) of truth today. Mr. Stewart had clearly been prepped with the knowledge that the Watchtower has many times pointed to the Watchtower publications and/or the Watchtower Society as the sole channel for dispensing truth today. This idea has been repeated very directly during the time of Russell, Rutherford and Knorr/Franz, but much more subtly in recent publications. 

I would participate gladly in an open-forum Biblical discussion about what we can learn from Paul's letter to the Galatians. If it can inform our modern day view of the GB that's fine, but I think the view of an ex-JW vs the view of a JW is going to be rather predictable on that count. Nevertheless, I'd say 'go for it.'

@Srecko Sostar I'm really trying to understand where are you coming from and what is the point of all your post. Maybe @JW Insider or @Anna can help you on this topic because I'm speaking for myself in hopes that it might give you some help or insight.
As I see it, the gospels indicate that Jesus was intent upon choosing 12 followers in imitation of and continuity with the ethnic structure of the Hebrew nation. Hence, he is seen to be launching a new Israel. He is portrayed in the historical texts as investing these officers with his own divine power, commissioning them to teach in his name, and promising to send them divine help to carry out this task. Nowhere does he tell any of the twelve to write, nor does he write anything himself. In fact only 3 or 5 of the 12 actually do write anything (depending on scholarly debates). Instead the one and only earthly program he seems to have set in motion is the establishment of a Congregation. Following the divine teaching method of embedding revelation within a cohesive historical community (the sheltered environment of Hebrew society and culture), he reshapes ancient Israel. Instead of initiating a religion solely based on scriptures, he establishes a global community that allows divine messages to spread worldwide while preserving their essence. 
As I already mentioned to you, a large part(not all) of those who claim to be Christians, including JWs, and the lady of the video you shared (JW Research Rose) all work under the same principle. The principle is that the Christian religion is to be learned by interpreting the sources independently of the claims of any particular church/congregation, so that one must pick or find a church/congregation on the basis of that interpretation. The differences arise from differences about what the relevant sources are, and about how they are to be interpreted. But the principle is the same. 
The point is, that a large part of those who consider themselves Christian whether they are part of a church or not, have a perpetual openness to discovering new biblical and theological arguments to take us back to what the first century congregation itself actually thought. (Restorationism) So to claim that something can be settled by biblical and theological arguments seems to be incompatible with that interpretative framework itself. 
Here's an excerpt from a JW historian that traces the Watchtower roots, taken from his introductory chapter from Separate Identity: Organizational Identity Among Readers of Zion's Watch Tower: 1870-1887. Volume 2. Culture and Organization. I think @JW Insider disagrees with some minor points but generally agrees with the summary:
 
The Roots of Watch Tower Belief
I do not have space to fully examine the millenarian antecedents of Russell's belief system. So what follows doesn't even qualify as a survey; it is the briefest of 'tastes' - a short essay on millennial thought up to the Russell era. I will take you no further back than the 16th Century. I will focus on British and American millenarianism. There were similar systems in Europe, but Russell's acquaintance with them was slight. He came to German millenarianism through Seiss, whose references to it are few and indistinct. There were French, Swiss, Polish, Bohemian and Italian believers, but we think Russell knew next to nothing about them.

Before I proceed I should note that Russell's prophetic views are not the only part of his doctrinal set with roots in the colonial era. His rejection of the Trinity connects directly to the Colonial Era and early Republic Era belief of non-Trinitarian Congregational churches in New England and anti-Trinitarian agitation among British clergy. The latter was common enough that William Lyford [c. 1598-1653], a Puritan clergyman, wrote The Plain Man's Senses Exercised to Discern Both Good and Evil primarily to refute prevalent non-Trinitarian belief.

Anti-Trinitarian thought persisted despite attempts to quell it. Watchtower writers suggest that, among others, Thomas Emlyn stands in the history of their faith. Emlyn was republished in America. There is no proof that Russell read any of his work, though he may have come to Emlyn through reading Gibbon's Decline and Fall.  Samuel Clarke's Boyle lecture on the Trinity found a place in American libraries; Priestley's multivolume work on the Trinity was circulated in America and extracts from it and his catechism were summarized in tracts and the catechism was published entire in 1810. William Jones The Catholic Doctrine of a Trinity, written to counter anti-Trinitarian agitation in Britain, was republished in 1816. In America, in the aftermath of the Great Awakening, many of those influenced by it rejected Trinitarian doctrine, some becoming Socinian and others adopted Sabellianism or Arianism. New Light rejection of Trinitarianism was still an issue in the 1820s, and the issue persisted into the 1840s. Grew and Storrs both rejected the Trinity. We cannot suggest that Russell derived his Subordination doctrine [a non-Trinitarian belief system similar to Arianism] from Adventism. When some Adventists entered the discussion, they did so as part of a far larger trend.
The belief, characteristic of Watch Tower adherents, that Bible reading was obligatory and that it was meant to be understood by the average reader extends backward to 17 Century Separatist and Puritan England. So too does Russell-era Watch Tower belief that the proper form of church governance is congregationalism. Conditional Immortality doctrine, the belief that immortality is a gift from God not an inherent right, finds its origins in an ancient past, and, as it came Russell, in the reformation era. The belief that God directly intervenes in the life of Christians came to Russell, in America with the earliest European settlers. It was as strongly-held in Russell's as it was among the Jamestown colonists (1607), the Pilgrim Separatists (1620) and the Puritans who followed. We see it in Russell's supposition that his meeting with Wendell was only seemingly an accident. We see it in the pages of Zion's Watch Tower when new adherents believe Watch Tower tract or an issue of the paper falling into their hands was an act of divine providence.
Both in Britain and in the American colonies that 'marvels' portended divine messages was a strongly held belief. In the pre-scientific era, a strayed horse, a comet, a cloud's shape, were all messages from God. Tall tales of marvels were persuasive political and religious arguments. The Gospels say that Jesus predicted a proliferation of earthquakes as a peculiar sign of the last days. In the pre-scientific era this Biblical statement was combined with lack of knowledge, resulting in all earthquakes being seen as the impending apocalyptic judgment or as God's warning to a wayward people. Charles and John Wesley saw the London, Lisbon and Boston, Massachusetts, earthquakes of the 1750s in this light, writing hymns and preaching sermons to that effect. Rationalism started to prevail in the last third of the Seventeenth Century, but the belief in divine providence persisted and persists still. We see it in the pages of modern Watchtower publications when an adherent is convinced that God guided them into the light of truth. (And in fact, we cannot gainsay God's guidance or his answers to prayers without repudiating the New Testament.) In Russell's experience we see this in his narration of a fall on the snow which he attached to a moral lesson, and we see it in his belief that all Christians received guidance through divinely inspired dreams.
Colonial era almanacs were willing to credit astrology even while promoting religion. These found their counterpart in A. D. Jones and Russell's willingness to credit astrology even while - in Russell's case - seeing it as a tool of Satan. The tension between Separatist and Puritan seeking holiness and the Church of England's expectation that all submit to its ritual dedicated to Christ or not, spilled into the 19 Century. Puritan insistence that the church was for the holy only -committed, obedient Christians- is the background to Russell's criticism of morally compromised churches. Ultimately this derived from New Testament doctrine. Christians are to be holy as God is holy. (I Peter 1:16) There is, Paul writes, no room within Christian ecclesias for unrepentant, unregenerate sinners. This tension expressed itself in Watch Tower and Plymouth Brethren belief and in that of conservative American churches and non-conformist chapels in the United Kingdom. While Russell's connection to his Anglo-American heritage is largely ignored by writers, these connections are as important as the millennial heritage from which his belief system truly came.

Russell-era meeting format derives from colonial-era structure, sometimes modified to accommodate groups who lacked leadership. The Russellite Prayer, Praise and Testimony meetings come from non-conformist belief systems. Opportunities, sometimes rare and occasionally more frequent, to testify to one's faith and to an incident of Divine Providence, gave colonial-era believers a sense of unity, of belonging to the Body of Christ. Russell's persistent condemnation of creeds and sectarianism derives from the same source. It can be traced to the Reformation Era and its aftermath. Writers and surviving sermons from that era often condemn divisions and false teachings, frequently focusing on the identity of the prophetic Babylon the Great and identifying her daughters as sects infected with false belief and false practice. For instance Benjamin Keach [1687] identified Babylon the Great as the Catholic Church and her harlot daughters as in a "spiritual sense ... unclean Communities". In America after the French and Indian War [Seven Years' War], sectarian divisions were seen as harmful to the cause of Christ. This did not lead to unity or suspension of creedal belief but to a semblance of peace between denominations. Post-Revolution commentators continued this. The Catholic Church retained its status as mystic Babylon; denominational Protestant churches were Babylon's harlot-daughters.

Radical Pietists immigrated to America from Britain, Germany and Switzerland, settling in Pennsylvania, New England and South Carolina. They were distinguished by a rejection of sectarianism. In Britain the Village Itinerancy Society was founded in 1796 by laymen who believed that the Millennium impended and that "what the nation needed was an undenominational, and by implication, unordained army of itinerants charged with the awesome responsibility of bringing God's pure word, undefiled by party or sect to a 'perishing multitude." Closer to Russell's day Philip Schaff and John Williamson Nevin, then both instructors at the German Reformed seminary at Mercersburg, Pennsylvania, developed a 'manifesto that included "the evil of sectarianism, and the imperative of unity within the church." They saw "rationalism and sectarianism" as the greatest dangers to the church. Claude Welch suggested that the movement derived from Nevin and Schaff's manifesto died out after the Civil War. It did not, and we find it expressed in various ways. Russellite rejection of sectarianism with its dependence on creeds derives from this long heritage. This is true of other small fellowships who described themselves as nonsectarian and of those independent congregations who fellowshipped on the basis of faith alone and not on the basis of creedal doctrine."
 

The real issue to me is about the limit of obedience.
 
Paul was pretty straightforward. In essence he said Christian obedience to those taking the lead ended where those taking the lead departed from what had been taught and accepted. Paul admitted that obedience had a rightful limit, and he laid down a litmus test for it. 
 
Of course, back then there were supernatural evidences available to corroborate whose teaching had merit, and departure from those teachings was the litmus test. 
 
Today, to our knowledge, there are no supernatural evidences corroborating whose teaching to accept. What we have is something that was only building amongst early Christians. We have the Bible. So today the litmus test should be 1) what the Bible expressly states, and 2) what can be deduced from what the Bible says with a conclusion that is subject to known conventions of logical construction (i.e., a demonstrably sound conclusion)
To be blunt, 1) if a teaching is found to be not expressly stated in biblical text, or 2) if a teaching is not a demonstrably sound conclusion (or, worse, a refuted conclusion), then no Christian should be bound to obey that teaching. Such teachings should be left to accept or ignore based on personal conscience.

I assume that in Judaism a special system of slaughtering animals was developed to be consistent with the idea/prohibition of eating blood. If this is true, then JWs today should only buy meat from those butchers who have such a procedure (the Jewish procedure should be the one God approved for the Israelites in ancient times, i guess).
If the purpose, of the ban on not eating blood, is not to make the meat completely free of even a single drop of blood, then any insistence on a "total ban on the use of blood" is open to criticism. This is exactly what is happening today with JW. They eat the blood in the meat, because there is always blood in the meat, regardless of the fact that most of it came out during the slaughter. However, no one at WTJWorg insists that the meat be completely bloodless. From this, we could conclude that the only important thing is to slaughter the animal, during which the blood comes out of the body unhindered. Obviously, the "prohibition of eating blood" in that case was reduced to the process/method of taking the life of an animal, and not so much to the insistence on unconditional "abstinence from blood".
I remembered the everyday situation in which our gums bleed. How many times have we swallowed our own blood. And by that, everyone like that has broken the "commandment". All such JWs should be called before the JC and asked if they are repentant or unrepentant sinners and then exclude them. :))
I don't like blood as a medical issue only because of health dilemmas, because blood controls and storage are not done properly, and everyone donates blood who shouldn't.

I assume that in Judaism a special system of slaughtering animals was developed to be consistent with the idea/prohibition of eating blood. If this is true, then JWs today should only buy meat from those butchers who have such a procedure (the Jewish procedure should be the one God approved for the Israelites in ancient times, i guess).
If the purpose, of the ban on not eating blood, is not to make the meat completely free of even a single drop of blood, then any insistence on a "total ban on the use of blood" is open to criticism. This is exactly what is happening today with JW. They eat the blood in the meat, because there is always blood in the meat, regardless of the fact that most of it came out during the slaughter. However, no one at WTJWorg insists that the meat be completely bloodless. From this, we could conclude that the only important thing is to slaughter the animal, during which the blood comes out of the body unhindered. Obviously, the "prohibition of eating blood" in that case was reduced to the process/method of taking the life of an animal, and not so much to the insistence on unconditional "abstinence from blood".
I remembered the everyday situation in which our gums bleed. How many times have we swallowed our own blood. And by that, everyone like that has broken the "commandment". All such JWs should be called before the JC and asked if they are repentant or unrepentant sinners and then exclude them. :))
I don't like blood as a medical issue only because of health dilemmas, because blood controls and storage are not done properly, and everyone donates blood who shouldn't.

Cryosupernatant plasma (also known as cryo-poor plasma, cryoprecipitate depleted [or reduced] plasma) is a product rendered from blood that is left to individual JWs to accept or decline purely as a personal choice.

For whatever reason(s), cryosupernatant plasma has never been mentioned in our publications addressing use of products rendered from blood. This despite cryoprecipitate plasma finding ready reference in the general search bar at jw.org.

Medical use of cryosupernatant plasma is said to have markedly improved medical outcomes for JWs who accept it, and particularly for those suffering from acquired thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP). In this case the use of cryosupernatant is as a plasma exchange. The procedure uses an IV tube placed in a vein to remove blood from a TTP patient. The blood will traverse a cell separator to remove plasma from the blood. The non-plasma part of the blood is saved, and the donated cryosupernatant plasma is added to it (replacing the patient’s own blood plasma). The blood is then put back into the patient’s system through an IV line. This process can take a couple hours, and the plasma replacement therapy will continue daily for days or weeks until symptoms improve.

Because plasma makes up the majority of our circulating blood, as you can imagine, this procedure requires a lot of donated blood plasma.

Recently I have found this blood product cited for therapeutic use at jw.org, but not in the general search engine. To find this reference you have to navigate to the link for Medical Information for Clinicians page and use the search engine there. I’m unsure how long this reference has been there, but it is now.

So, though we don’t find this product on any of our diagrams, it is there, and it can save lives.

in the original context, the difference was that Angus Stewart asked "do you see yourself as modern-day disciples?" A lot of people use the term "Jesus' disciples" as synonymous with his original direct "twelve disciples." Of course, Bro Jackson could answer that the GB definitely see themselves as modern-day disciples. [Those taught by Jesus.] The GB also definitely see themselves as modern-day "sent-forth ones" which is the meaning of the word "apostles." And they do speak of themselves in several ways as a modern-day parallel to the apostles, or even as a kind of parallel to the small number of men who ended up writing all the books of the Christian Greek Scriptures. But Bro Jackson knew the danger of trying to explain these "parallels" to a non-JW so he steered clear of it by even pointing out that they, the GB, do not consider themselves to be the sole channel (mouthpiece) of truth today. Mr. Stewart had clearly been prepped with the knowledge that the Watchtower has many times pointed to the Watchtower publications and/or the Watchtower Society as the sole channel for dispensing truth today. This idea has been repeated very directly during the time of Russell, Rutherford and Knorr/Franz, but much more subtly in recent publications. 

I would participate gladly in an open-forum Biblical discussion about what we can learn from Paul's letter to the Galatians. If it can inform our modern day view of the GB that's fine, but I think the view of an ex-JW vs the view of a JW is going to be rather predictable on that count. Nevertheless, I'd say 'go for it.'