Anna

“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!!

 
 

I still remember days when divorce between brothers, fraud between brothers… were so strange. Sadly, nowadays the things are changed. No one should be surprised. As mentioned above, the situation in the seven congregations of Revelation were all less pleasant. With only few exceptions. 
Now, regarding the condition of the Christians, true Christians, in the last days:
(2Ti 2:16-26) […] “for they will lead to more and more ungodliness, 17 and their word will spread like gangrene. Hy·me·naeʹus and Phi·leʹtus are among them.+ 18 These men have deviated from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already occurred,+ and they are subverting the faith of some. […] 20 Now in a large housethere are utensils* not only of gold and silver but also of wood and earthenware, and some for an honorable use but others for a use lacking honor. 21 So if anyone keeps clear of the latter ones, he will be an instrument* for an honorable use, sanctified, useful to his owner, prepared for every good work. […] 25 instructing with mildness those not favorably disposed"
Was Paul advising Timothy about problems he will face with people outside or inside the congregation? WereHymenaeus and Philetus worldly persons or vessels lacking of honor in the congregations? I suppose nobody will find it difficult the answer.
Now the problem. The division in chapters. It seems that chapter three starts a new discussion. With wich base? The uninspired numeric division? Our habit in applying these words to world conditions?
Let’s focus now in the famous chapter 3:1-13
But know this, that in the last days+ critical times hard to deal with will be here. 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal, 3 having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness, 4 betrayers, headstrong, puffed up with pride, lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God, 5 having an appearance of godliness but proving false to its power;+ and from these turn away.  
13 But wicked men and impostors will advance from bad to worse, misleading and being misled.+
One simple question. Who did Timothy need to turn away from (v.5)? From unbeliever neighbors? In reality, Paul was still speaking about the lack of honor ‘utensils’INSIDE the congregations.
I’m completely optimistic regarding the final result of the future events. But I believe we’re facing trouble times. And I’m not only talking about Gog’s attack.
 

Thank-you for your response it is encouraging to see others maintain their faith in the face of situations that may stumble most others. That is my world too. I totally agree that there are cases where direct evidence is not shareable. And of course few would experience these things themselves anyway and would have a hard to believing them - let alone deal with them. So why be too specific (at least they can tell themselves that it is something they read on the internet and is probably not true - and not be stumbled by what they can't rationalize).
I agree with your statements above and to be sure, I  have always done what was my moral obligation as to bringing attention to these matters directly and following the requirements set out both in God's Word and the clear instructions from the F&DS. Including applying Matthew 18 where appropriate. So in further reference to your very astute observation, I realized the blow back I would receive but have not been "...willing to dishonestly apologize and repent for speaking the truth." As Job stated: "It is unthinkable on my part that I should declare you men righteous! Until I expire I shall not take away my integrity from myself!"     I learned decades ago that once you have done your part, fulfilling your obligation before God to keep the congregation clean, the ball is in their court and you just have to leave matters in Jehovah's hands. Otherwise you may find yourself disfellowshipped.
To be clear, my intention is not to use a semi-anonymous forum to bring attention to mistakes, although that does happen. But when I was experiencing these things, there was no one who I could discuss my feelings with who would understand, let alone believe me - and I didn't want to go around talking about these decidedly negative matters. It is true to say that in some cases, it seemed the only ones I could really identify with were individuals like Jeremiah, Job, David, Joseph, Paul, Jesus...They became my "friends" in faith-testing times. Everyone else it seemed lived in a Disney World where these kinds of things can never happen because Jesus is micromanaging all the elders in his right hand -  and "The son of man will send his angels, and they will collect out from his Kingdom all "things" that cause stumbling and people who are doing lawlessness." (Matt. 13:41) But the reality is that people are stumbled. Does that mean the angels aren't doing their job properly? (In fact, our elder body had to reinstate one brother who was wrongly disfellowshipped for years - yet always maintaining his innocence. It appeared in proclaiming his innocence, he was "not accepting discipline from Jehovah" - but it was all a lie. That happens too often). What could be these "things" that are collected out? Is it individuals we hear about every few years being disfellowshipped? Could be, but "things" being collected out that have caused most people (billions) to stumble for thousands of years are things such as false religious doctrines and practices that dishonor and misrepresent God (hellfire,Trinity, immortal soul, Halloween, Christmas, justifiable warfare, nationalism...) Even if one were to suggest that the referencing of "people who practice lawlessness" is not the the apostate "man of lawlessness," it would still have to be taken within the context of 1Tim. 5;24,25 where some things are brought our sooner and others later. The Bible has many examples to support that and I appreciate your inclusion of that important scripture that helps explain why badness can go on for years, decades or some don't experience justice in their lifetime.
I also found 1 Cor. 11:17-19 informative (not the new Bible but the more literal Kingdom Interlinear - in fact pretty well all other translations) in it's use of "must" (dei) (it is binding; it is necessary; there have to be; ..."there "must" be also be sects among you, that the persons approved may also become manifest among you." In stating there "must" be sects/factions, God's Word isn't suggesting that Jehovah wants badness to happen or that it is part of his purpose. But rather that he allows these things to play out for the same reason he has allowed badness to exist even on a universal scale for a time: to manifest who is who. These types of situations are a revealer of hearts, motives, faith, attitudes...even of men in authority who are also accountable. And as Paul stated regarding himself and others: "...we have become a theatrical spectacle to the world, and to angels, and to men." That's what faithless men miss. They think that as long as they can fool men or control matters, they can get away with it. But faithful men recognize as true what you had quoted above in 1 Cor. 4:5 that secret things will be revealed.
While some may characterize these interchanges as negative talk, the fact is that pretending everything is rosy and nothing bad can ever happen (an exaggeration I know) and that everything men in authority do is by Jesus' direction is simply absurd in the face of plain facts. It is not "encouraging" at all. It's like telling someone in great pain with cancer how great everything is going for you and they must be imagining their situation or lying = not helpful. "Rejoice with people who rejoice; weep with people who weep." Romans 12:15. It is comforting I'm sure to any who have had to face a reality most others have not to have people care enough to offer wisdom, empathy, counsel and understanding in such a way as to help them maintain their faith despite extreme circumstances. 
I also appreciated the application you (JWI) made regarding 1 Cor. 4:5, that is an interesting perspective I had not actually considered. 
 
I totally agree with that. I've clearly seen that myself and so have many others (although few would want to say it out loud and at times there would be serious repercussions.) It seems to me that that later we get into the time of the end, the more people reveal who they are within the scope of time, pressure and opportunity. Of course, once again, these traits, although visible at times in the form of imperfection or even wickedness at times, don't characterize the majority of our brothers and sisters who are struggling to swim upstream in Satan's system, cope with their own imperfections, temptations and face the badness of others within. Still, it is there and it's only honest to acknowledge that it exists. After all, how can you protect yourself against something you believe doesn't exist or can never happen? It is good that Jehovah's Word gives us the warnings we need both in examples and in word for our protection. Romans 15:4: "For all the things that were written aforetime were written for out instruction, that through our endurance and through the comfort from the scriptures we might have hope."

I have less time lately to participate. Perhaps this night. The issues in this topic realy make feel sad, because the news are regarding my country, and I personally know some of the brothers on jail. 
EDIT '[I'm not using my normal PC, the persons I know were mentioned in other post about Spain, this that mention brothers on responsability on the Supreme Court in Spain]
At this time I only wish to point out my confidence in that this is Jehocah's people. But, why are we sure all the refination happenned in 1918? What if the "best is to come"?
Why have we applied 2Tim 3:1-5 to worldy people, when the context is with no doubt talking about situations INSIDE the congregation? In this way, when I know about this bad news in the congregations I see more proof we are living in the last days!

I'm sure I am not the only one who appreciates your attitude toward these types of things, things we may witness first hand, but which cannot be shared. I believe I have been where you are, and I can share some of the scriptural points that have helped me.
If we are concerned to do our best to help keep the local and the world-wide congregation clean, there are cases where direct evidence is not shareable.  We often must focus on general principles or even "lesser" issues or different issues, which may only be similar in their effect or the way in which they show that corruption can be insidious or reach to surprising levels of authority.
I have no idea how it happens, in your case, that elders from all over the place might be asking you about a specific situation. This tells me that whatever the problems, they might have already been sufficiently exposed - as far as it depends upon you.
(Ephesians 5:10-13) 10 Keep on making sure of what is acceptable to the Lord; 11 and stop sharing in the unfruitful works that belong to the darkness; rather, expose them for what they are. 12 For the things they do in secret are shameful even to mention. 13 Now all the things that are being exposed are made evident by the light, for everything that is being made evident is light.
Of course, I have no idea if it is sufficient to follow the Bible's counsel to expose by trying to bring attention to mistakes in a semi-anonymous forum, with a random audience of readers. I'm sure it's not sufficient for my own conscience. But I also realize that if I were to speak out in the congregation itself, I would lose not only privileges, which matter very little in the long run, but would also lose all further opportunities for fellowship with the brotherhood -- that is, unless I was also willing to dishonestly apologize and repent  for speaking the truth.
To the extent possible, I believe that we need to address issues first with the person(s) responsible for the wrongdoing, especially in light of Matthew 18, when we are a party or direct witness to the wrongdoing. If he doesn't listen then we take it to the congregation, whether the global congregation or the local congregation, whichever is more appropriate. Then there comes a point when you might realize you have done all you can. "As far as it depends upon you...."
(1 Timothy 5:24, 25) 24 The sins of some men are publicly known, leading directly to judgment, but those of other men become evident later. 25 In the same way also, the fine works are publicly known and those that are otherwise cannot be kept hidden.
Some Witnesses keep things hidden only for the short-term reputation of the congregation, but this does nothing for both the short-term and the long-term protection of the congregation. If there is any question or doubt about whether an issue needs to be exposed, however, we can apply what Paul said here:
(1 Corinthians 4:5) 5 Therefore, do not judge anything before the due time, until the Lord comes. He will bring the secret things of darkness to light and make known the intentions of the hearts, and then each one will receive his praise from God.
We need not carry a burden of guilt that we did not personally expose something, or bring it to light. We can throw such burdens on Jehovah.

I am a faithful believer and have "privileges" in the organization. I am also aware of things that most people are not aware of and wouldn't believe even if I told them. (And no, I don't come by this by way of apostate websites and such. I am there at ground zero with eyes on the ground, in first person testimony). These are the types of things that you will never read about in our publications - and for good reason. People would be stumbled - some things are just too outside their field of experience to rationalize within the context of their faith and they wouldn't thank you for knowing about it anyway because they don't want to know. (It would be like asking: "Can you tell me something that's going to kill me?") And yet, none of these things should come as a surprise. The Bible clearly warns us of "wicked men and imposters," men who would advance from bad to worse. Sometimes the things that happen are so "out there" that the only ones you would be able to identify with are faithful men described in God's Word who have experienced similar things that some of us experience in a spiritual sense today. Yes, some men in authority - "stars in Jesus' right hand" are not what they appear to be even though they may appear righteous to men and have a badge of authority. Of course, most people expect imperfection, but there are times when you have to call it what it is: wickedness. (I can't say whether that applies in the case referred to above here since I don't know all the facts and wasn't personally there - even though it looks bad). No, but as referenced above, we "shouldn't be too surprised considering the other kinds of hidden crimes that we already know about." I get elders asking me from all over the place about these things and I respond the best way I can, always honestly, but in a way that will help them maintain their faith in Jehovah and respect for his organization - with the proviso that sometimes that respect is for the authority men may have, but not for who they are. (i.e.. David's respect for Saul, even though Saul, using theocratic resources, was orchestrating a murderous campaign against a faithful servant of Jehovah that went on for years).  
 The short answer is that, our relationship and dedication to Jehovah God should never be dictated by the decisions other humans make, regardless of what "position" they have, or how much we may fell hurt by them. Even when that "position" is viewed by many as being righteous. Power can have a corrupting influence and when men aren't held to account quickly, they can become hardened to do bad. Especially when they have the authority to control matters to hide and protect themselves. To be clear I'm an not pointing or accusing the Governing Body as such - (although there have been some disturbing issues in the past), but rather pointing out the fact that there is no level within the Organization where corruption has not existed at one time or another. (in what year was corruption no longer allowed?  Not yet anyway...) It is also important not to paint with too wide a brush as if the whole organization was bad - based on the choices of a "relatively" few bad apples. When you think about the people you associate with at meetings, the ministry and at conventions, you see that most JW's are good at heart, happy, kind people who want to do what is right and please Jehovah despite their imperfections - just like we are. 

Depends. Maybe it was important to Jehovah. Anyway, at the moment you are right in saying 
but we will know for sure in the resurrection won't we?

“I was just a boy when Stalin exiled my family to Siberia merely because we were Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is sad and reprehensible that my children and grandchildren should be facing a similar fate. Never did I expect that we would again face the threat of religious persecution in modern Russia,” says Vasiliy Kalin, as Russia petitions the Supreme Court to ban Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Of course, it’s all going to go against us eventually in this system of things. When Jesus said his followers would be hailed before courts, it wasn’t so that they could receive ‘good citizenship’ plaques. When Jesus himself was dragged before Pilate, he didn’t sweet-talk his way out of it, did he?
It’s all the doings of the ‘house’ church. Many countries have house churches, who agree to be strictly subservient to the state. Russia, once officially atheist, found they could not stamp out the urge to worship, so they settled on the house church, which they seek to harness as a force for national unity. “What can we do for you?” they ask the house church. “Take out the competition,” is the reply.
Putin doesn’t care, most likely. It’s not his thing. “Give the house church what it wants,” he reasons. “That way I keep them out of my hair.” After all, he has a country to run. It was just that way with Pilate, who tried to get Jesus off, but in the end, gave in to fanatics.
‘What are they saying about me, here?’ said Paul to the Jewish leaders in Rome. ‘Are they digging up any dirt on me?’ But there was no internet in the first century, and snail mail was snail mail. “We have not received letters about you from Judea, nor have any of the brothers who came from there reported or spoken anything bad about you. But we think it proper to hear from you what your thought are, for truly as regards this sect, we know that it is spoken against everywhere,” they told him. (Acts 28:21-22)
It is a mark of true religion today. Depend upon it to be “spoken against everywhere.”
Surely, the house church make Russia look like utter fools on the world stage. You cannot view jw.org, banned in Russia and Russia alone, and think for one moment that it is extremist. One would think that ISIS would have taught the Russians what extremism is. Still, while we hate persecution and we pray for our Russian brothers under trial, persecution does often turn out for advancement of the good news. “Why are they making trouble for the Jehovahs?” some people ask. “They’re nice people.”
"In their literature, there are some very harsh statements and very insulting statements about other faiths," says Alexander Dvorkin, a former Russian Orthodox priest who now teaches the history of religion and cult studies at St. Tikhon University in Moscow. "Of course, every religion has the right to criticize other faiths, but that should be done in a non-insulting manner, especially if you are talking about [my faith] the faith of the majority." (brackets mine)
The reason you can and should criticize other faiths is that, as any non-religious person knows, religion has historically served as chief cheerleader of war and killing. That’s why a growing number of persons would like to ban it.
“Dvorkin says that the Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christian because they don't believe in the divinity of Christ.” (from NPR) Got it? It’s also violence at the hands of Trinitarians. A more intolerant bunch you will never see.

I know a brother in Europe, who is an elder and has a beard. And I know several brothers who are serving as ministerial Servants and have beards.
Ultimately in the USA it will be up to the local elders to decide whether a beard is acceptable in their area or not. When the WT came out last May, our CO said that come end of the year, he expects many brothers (in the US) will be sporting a beard.  I am fine with that, as long as as sisters don't start that trend too

Hahaha, that is a kind of oxymoron as the conscience is a personal matter and what is acceptable to one persons conscience might not be acceptable to an other. I have a feeling the Society has recognized that this thinking (by the JWs who consult with them) is a bit flawed because it takes away personal research and personal conviction and the gift of free will. Like in the WT study article a couple of  weeks ago quoted a woman " Do not make me think; just tell me what to do. That is easier." 
I don't know if you or anyone else noticed a BIG change in the new Advance Directive. There are no longer any options for minor blood fractions that you can check. There is merely several lines of space under point 4 "Regarding other health care instructions" . So the holder of the directive is invited to put in his own words what other health care instructions he/she may wish to insert. When I filed it out,I did not consult with any elder as to what I should put there I merely broadly mentioned that "I may be willing to accept some minor blood fractions, but the details will have to be discussed with me...." Of course in order to be able to discuss any details, one has to inform oneself so that one knows what one is talking about, and that is the point I think. I mentioned this to the elders and they just looked at me. Then it crossed my mind that I wonder what they would have said if I asked them what I should write under point 4. I have a strong feeling they would have told me to go and do some research, and perhaps told me what publications to look up. I also have a feeling that this is also because of legal implications. No one can then say anyone was coerced into stating a particular wish. So really it is a good idea that portion 4 is left blank and it is up to the holder to inset his/her wishes. A definite improvement to get publishers to use their brain!

That's maybe because they don't view our GB as they do the Pope, which I'm glad about! The Pope has celebrity status, I hope our GB are not viewed that way. (I just has a visual of him answering questions in his skull cap and and white cape...the Pope I mean) And also the Pope is just one, whereas we have 7 representatives and one of them was already a part of the hearing in 2015. They obviously thought it wouldn't be any trouble for him to repeat the gesture. 
So in other words you are saying that it's understandable that WT might be trying to safeguard assets. Which is what I said.

Sad.
Looks like it will be difficult even to have 'home church services' if groups are caught advertising such services without permission. Based on this report from a few weeks ago. Odd that they will still allow a business bank account but with only enough money in it to pay fines and taxes.
 
 

Wish I could speak Spanish as I cannot really fathom the Google translate (?) version. I am sure we will get the full, lurid details and more soon if there is any truth in the matter.

That's why one shouldn't take anything personally and keep things merely factual, without too much emotion. These are merely discussions (or unfortunately sometimes debates) and people expressing their views and opinions and then giving reasons for their views and opinions. It we can respect that, then one can have some meaningful discussions sometimes.....Just my opinion!

Maybe this is not completely relevant to the discussion, but has anyone noticed in today's WT study (WT January2017 ) the illustration of Jesus on the stake, with the nails going through his wrists rather than through the palm of his hands? I haven't noticed this before, perhaps we have always drawn it this way and I just didn't pay enough attention. I remember reading somewhere some technicalities about the actual physical possibilities or impossibilities, and one argument was that the victim could not be nailed to a stake through the hands as the weight of the body would rip through the palms (sorry, this is so morbid) and the only way it could be through the palms is if the downward weight was distributed with the arms tied to a cross beam and the then the palms nailed (I guess for added anguish). In any case, when Thomas needed confirmation of Jesus' resurrection he said at John 20:25 .....“Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails and stick my finger into the print of the nails and stick my hand into his side, I will never believe it.” Is this a case of a broad usage for "hand"? And could it mean anything from the fingers to the wrists, including the wrists? In some languages the translation of hand can be a little confusing because it can also mean the whole arm in another language. Only the context can give a clue as to what is meant, whether it is a hand, and arm, the forearm or the whole arm including the hand...This also got me to thinking about the translation of stauros, could that also encompass  not just a vertical beam but some horizontal beams?

Maybe this is not completely relevant to the discussion, but has anyone noticed in today's WT study (WT January2017 ) the illustration of Jesus on the stake, with the nails going through his wrists rather than through the palm of his hands? I haven't noticed this before, perhaps we have always drawn it this way and I just didn't pay enough attention. I remember reading somewhere some technicalities about the actual physical possibilities or impossibilities, and one argument was that the victim could not be nailed to a stake through the hands as the weight of the body would rip through the palms (sorry, this is so morbid) and the only way it could be through the palms is if the downward weight was distributed with the arms tied to a cross beam and the then the palms nailed (I guess for added anguish). In any case, when Thomas needed confirmation of Jesus' resurrection he said at John 20:25 .....“Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails and stick my finger into the print of the nails and stick my hand into his side, I will never believe it.” Is this a case of a broad usage for "hand"? And could it mean anything from the fingers to the wrists, including the wrists? In some languages the translation of hand can be a little confusing because it can also mean the whole arm in another language. Only the context can give a clue as to what is meant, whether it is a hand, and arm, the forearm or the whole arm including the hand...This also got me to thinking about the translation of stauros, could that also encompass  not just a vertical beam but some horizontal beams?

It does appear as a problem to me in that "two" is not adequate as a definition. It is not clear what form their evidence takes, whether direct or circumstantial. Citing Deut.22:22-27 is relevant but inconclusive as there is no description of its application in fact that I know of.
Seems to have been addressed in the response letter you linked at page 8. 2:8c "if the elders and branch office determine that a child is in danger, the elders are directed to call law enforcement authorities, even if such reporting is not mandated by law."
The question seems to be prompted by Mr Stewart's exasperation in the midst of a rather muddy discussion looking at your linked reference.
Excuse me feeling a tad dubious about "society's" commitment here in the light of the unfolding extent of this ever burgeoning problem.
However, I did notice the ARC invitation to Watchtower Australia to participate and contribute to improving matters. 
There are obviously well motivated individuals indicating their genuine concern in the area of child protection, and a number of specialists providing invaluable insights into understanding and handling the problem. However, as noted elsewhere in the postings, the continued mud-slinging and jibe trading that seems to accompany discussions on this subject, (not limited to this forum), are an impediment to any joint approach in dealing wih this criminal activity.

I can see similarities in the use of jw.org logos as trinkets or ornaments or badges in the way that others might use crosses without religious significance.
However, I can't really see a similarity between the way many witnesses view trinkets and cakes etc. bearing the jw.org symbol and the way in which the cross is treated religiously by diverse members of Christendom.
The links below might illustrate my point:
http://www.latitudenews.com/story/faithful-in-philippines-embrace-christ-and-his-crucifixion/
http://blogs.ft.com/photo-diary/2016/01/kissing-the-cross/
http://catholicphilly.com/2016/03/think-tank/catholic-spirituality/salvation-comes-through-the-cross-not-a-magic-wand-pope-says/
Anyway, I apologise for deviating a bit from your topic which I note is about the quality of research in the 1985 Reasoning Book article on the Cross. I am sure this line of discussion will come up more appropriately somewhere else so will leave it until then.

A lot of people debunk things when it does not agree with their vision.  It is like the "science" offered these days which proves that humans have a hand in the climate change and other studies which give proof that it is bunk - and in the meantime there are countries and whole areas that is going under water while the scientific "debate" and scientific proofs are still being offered to prove it is not happening.... Russia is using new sea lanes in seas that previously were covered in ice - there is also a race for territory under the sea to explore for oil.... in new territories where they never thought they would explore.
So I must offer the thought that I do not really put my trust in science - or the humans behind it.  I do not put blind faith in humans and their so-called knowledge because one does not know when it has been tainted with an agenda.  Really too much misinformation these days.... conflicting studies all over the place and many have been caught out as manipulating their results.
One does not have to throw everything away though - and neither do I throw all away that Hyslop wrote - that would not be smart - even if it is just to get an idea what the universal thoughts behind some of the signs were. He was smart enough to tie ancient Babylon and Sumerian culture to many of the ideas in modern Babylon - which is agreed upon by the author of the bible, Jehovah,  because he himself calls the empire: Babylon the Great. Many of the spiritistic ideas in many modern religions on earth today came from that area.
There are many scientists who agree with the new chronology in Egyptology.  But unfortunately they are not allowed into the country any more.  If you do not agree with the' prevailing consensus' then you are marked as a pseudo-scientist.  Champollion was not a good scientist either because he was an archeologist when the science was in it infancy and yet his ideas are accepted as laid in stone/ concrete.... and other scientists have built on it.  The problem lies right at the foundation of Egyptology....and when one builds on a wrong foundation then one gets the mess we are sitting with at present.
Two people who come to mind who did not agree with the new ideas offered by younger scientists were Einstein (later in his life he rejected some excellent new ideas); and Hawkins -  but we still view them as icons for the work they did do. There are still some very good thoughts in Hyslop's book.... but of course there were religions that did not like it and set out to discredit him - so they wrote their own pseudo-science.
I am glad you agree with me on one thing - that there were universal symbols for many things which was accepted by many countries.  A good example today is the wedding ring - originally pagan - but we still use it as a symbol to show that we are married.  Some countries they wear it on the left hand and in other on the right....This does not mean that we are pagans.  Since it does not involve pagan  rituals or participation in pagan rituals it has evolved as a universal symbol -  we accept it as a sign of marriage. Same with the days of the month.   We cannot throw absolutely everything out of the window - we are still in this world and we share it with people who do not believe in God. But we can remain clean by not participating in pagan rituals and stay away from inter-faith.
I do appreciate chatting with you though but I do not like debates - it does not serve an edifying purpose. 
 
 
  
I would just like to add: I do not need science to prove that the Bible is a message from the creator.  There are too many prophesies going into fulfillment at present which give proof that the writings of the bible has a higher source....

Definition of witness is the problem - procedural inadequacy
Definite error of judgement this - evidence of naivety.
Pressure definitely exists, but probably sensible, clear, consistent legislation and enforcement would be a better instrument for change. And wouldn't it be helpful if outside "consultants" could be relied upon to have children's interests at heart? (I'll cite UK examples in view of the impending investigations).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-39305042
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-39234390
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/real_story/4595158.stm

That makes a lot of logical sense. So really, there could have been two stakes, the ones already in the ground, and then smaller stakes (the cross beams) which the victim carried. This would not necessarily contradict the scriptures since they do not specify WHAT stake (stauros) Jesus carried. And also by saying Jesus was hung on a stake does not necessarily exclude a cross beam either.

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!!

Nationalism is at an all time high and Putin is like a cult figure. Many are joining the Russian Orth church because Putin has sanctioned it. The church is the bedfellow of the government and it is behind the hate of Jehovahs Witnesses.
Many other Christian religions are also persecuted - not just the JWs

I have a very strong feeling that Russian Orthodox is behind the persecution of JW's there... similar to Georgia... IMHO....