Juan Rivera

Honestly it saddens me to see men following men. Just plain petty. Which version of "the organization" are folks supposed to follow? Folks treat men like God, who decides for them what is supposed to be good or bad. The GB shows over and over again it can flip its teachings upside down. What are honest people trying to live right supposed to do? Just prostrate themselves before mortals like themselves and say, "Please! Tell us how today what we should do today to worship our Creator, and tell us tomorrow if YOU want us to do the opposite and we will." Put that in your next work of fiction. Or, maybe its a reality in someone's mind? Go ahead. Write it. It should be that way.
Men who follow men are victims of a dominion never granted to mankind. Mankind was granted dominion over animals, vegetation and the earth. But not dominion of men. Men who dominate men do so to the injury of those whom are dominated by men.
Worship God by living decently. Treat your fellow man as you would want to be treated yourself. Be willing to give your life for those whom you love. Fear God. Do your best to learn yourself what He expects of you. If this is done sincerely it is enough. There is no more to give than your best. Anything beyond that and God will step in to help. And, why not. According to the biblical account, all God ever wanted from Adam was to live in harmony with the natural world provided, and to have enough respect to abide by a single prohibition beyond that.
But that doesn't seem to be enough for some folks. No. Some folks need us to worship "the organization".

First off, blood transfusions are no panacea, which you realize of course. When it comes to "blood transfusions", all sorts of products are rendered from donor whole blood for transfusion. No products rendered from blood for transfusion are a panacea, and all of them have risks and benefits.
Now, as for the usage of "life saving", it's common usage for a wide array of therapeutics. It is false to say the term is never separated from blood transfusion. As a adjective the term is applied when context suggests it is applicable, no matter the noun it's describing.
If you're bleeding out and on the cusp of death for lack of blood, about the only "life saving" hope you have is transfusion of red cells. But you'll find the adjective "life saving" frequently used colloquially for many things, including emergency transports.

I believe in evolution.
I know this will stagger the faith of some participants here. But I just have to say it.
Evidence:
This discussion started by asking the question "How many here have ever held an MCP party card to look it over and see what it is?"
Watching the subsequent path of this discussion has made me a believer. Oh, and we even have a talking beaver chiming in from time to time!
 

Gasp!!!!
A conspiratorially-minded person could take this confession for an admission that MM IS The Librarian!!!! Now, that would be a puzzle piece to crow about!
Just like I have progressed from being rebuked years ago for shamelessly promoting my first book, Tom Irregardless and Me, to participating here to such a degree that some think I actually own the site.
When the number of my comments surpassed those of the formerly dominating @Pudgy (under a different name) I said, ‘What’s wrong—cat got your tongue? I never thought they would surpass those of @JW Insider, but that too eventually happened.
A few dark and paranoid persons began insisting I was the owner. I denied it, but there is a certain type of person who once they get something into their heads, you can forget about ever getting it out. So I began to play along with the notion, and will continue to do so until this site shuts down, which you never know if that will happen or not. @admin was sweating it a while back about some proposed legislation that would make it hot for webmasters. Apparently, the storm blew over. Meantime, I put most of my writing on my own platform, so if this ever does go up in smoke, I go up to a lesser degree.
I dedicated In the Last of the Last Days: Faith in the Age of Dysfunction to @The Librarian. A writer needs more than a muse. He also needs a villain—and she has provided a playground where villains roam freely, as well as others falling in diverse places on the spiritual spectrum. It’s not always clear where they fall, but it sure is engrossing to put together the puzzle—just know, if you find you have stepped into it, you have to back out for a time. Not every one on a mission is actually on one. Sometimes, they just so closely resemble a person on one that you can’t tell the difference.
Avant-garde to carry on in this way? The entire system is avant-garde, from the slippery one who chuckles hehehe))))) as he is cast down from the heavens, to the brother who rebadges the WaPo byline as ‘Theocracy Dies in Darkness,’ to the brother who cries ‘There is not a righteous man, not even one; there is no one who has any insight; there is no one who searches for God—except me.’

That being the case, it saves swaths of time if we can discover what are the glasses another is using.
It has been mentioned before that if one is atheist, it will so heavily influence anything they utter that you simply waste your time addressing them—unless you are speaking specifically of atheism or if you are speaking to those beyond them.  Atheism is for them the force that refreshes, and if you could demonstrate that each and every accusation against human organized worship is false, they still would say, ‘Well, there’s no god anyway.’ So why should you go there with them? What you as a Christian view as commendable delayed gratification they view as a woeful and willful flushing of one’s life down the toilet. When you say, ‘Well, every project needs headship, so I’ll cooperate with these people,’ they say, ‘They’re even more deluded than you! Cult leaders, through and through! The farther you can get from them, the better.’
Within the realm of religion, find out if the other believes we’re in the last days, for it will so heavily influence anything they say as to make any other criticism of theirs irrelevant. There is no sense swatting the water downstream, for it is immediately replaced. Unless you go to the source—are we in the last days or not?—any subsequent conversation, unless it is directed at those lying beyond, is fruitless. The entire ‘life boat’ scenario that so much Witness action and thinking depends upon is absurdity to them. Addressing some controversy about ‘Tight Pants Tony’ as though that was something that really troubled them, is just spitting into the wind. Even if you win, you haven’t gotten anywhere. I’ll wear pants the size of parachutes if it fits in with lifeboat protocol. 
Find out, as soon as possible, how they feel about ‘the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with his powerful angels in a flaming fire, as he brings vengeance on those who do not know God and those who do not obey the good news about our Lord Jesus.’ Many people, even those religious, are repelled by the thought—how could God be so mean! they say. Find this out as soon as you can, because it will determine much of what they subsequently say and, again, you can find yourself quibbling with a point so far downstream—critiques over how Witnesses do this or that—as to quibble all day over a comparative nothing.
And, Lord knows, find out whenever you can if the person is ‘Proud to have come out of the closet’ gay, because if he or she is, you don’t stand a chance in discussing anything involving traditional morals as found in the Bible. Whatever you are debating, with you thinking that if you can make the point it may stick will not. Their ‘sexuality’ trumps all else.
All the above are largely matters of the heart, not the head. The heart makes a grab for what it wants, then charges the head to devise a convincing rationale. This leads the unobservant to think the head is calling the shots, but it is the heart all along. This is why one might buck at ‘rationality’ as the be-all and end-all. Rationality offers good insight into the head, but poor insight into the heart.
The best talks and writings are those that, while not ignoring the head, appeal primarily to the heart. Jesus did things that would infuriate any strict devotee of reason. He routinely spun parables that he declined to explain—let the heart figure it out. If it doesn’t, it doesn’t. He answered questions with counter-questions. Try doing that with a modern ‘critical thinker.’ He launched ad hominem attacks. People may say that the ad hominem attacks of Matthew 23 are not really ad hominem attacks because the scribes and Pharisees actually were that way, but this wlll be said by anyone launching such an attack.
Allen Guelzo the historian lectures about how subjective history is, not at all how most of us suppose it. We get a hint he may be right when we recall the expression, ‘History is written by the victors,’ but he greatly expands on the idea by including new trends and waves of thinking among the ‘victors.’ That’s why (he does not make this point, but likely would if his lectures were given today) Americans pull down statues of Columbus and the forefathers that they once put up. History has (once again) flipped. The good guys have become the bad guys.
But doesn’t our modern day critical thinking solve the problem of subjectivity? he asks. No, it only makes the situation worse, he says, because it repackages our dubious biases as laudable critical thinking. “When dealing with people, let us remember we are not dealing with creatures of logic. We are dealing with creatures of emotion, creatures bristling with prejudices and motivated by pride and vanity,” Dale Carnegie said. The trouble with critical thinking is that those who most heavily advocate it too often assume they have a lock on the stuff.
Accordingly, while your remarks must make sense so as not to explode the head, to go exclusively there is to miss where the action is. It is the heart that is the seat of motivation. One may be dubious of a discussion that appears purely intellectual, as though coming across ones fighting a battle that does not matter.
 

Without again copying @Pudgy’s cartoon, which reveals a certain — ahem—cynicism of social media that leans left, which is practically all of it . . .
the founder of the BITE model that is used to recognize ‘cults’ is very political, active on Twitter (sigh…X) and invariably comes down on the left side of most (if not all) issues. He has a book out called, ‘The Cult of Trump.’ It could be argued that when you think half the country has fallen victim to a cult, it is evidence that you have drunk too much of the KoolAid yourself.
BITE stands for all methods of ‘control,’ behavioral, informational, thought, and emotional. Ironically, nobody seeks to control information like many of these social media companies, going so far as to ban large swaths of communication, and those who engage in them, on the grounds of being ‘misinformation.’
I read Walter Isaacson’s biography of Elon Musk.  He described the latter as very enamored with Asimov’s three laws of robotics—but also very concerned that most of his competitors are not. He has developed a feud with one of the Google heads (Page or Brin, I forget which), who has accused him of being a ‘specist.’ (one who favors his species) They used to be tight.
‘Um yeah, I kind of like humanity,’ says Musk, accounting for why he is fond of Asimov’s laws. He is in the minority. Most of these other guys want to let AI rip, go where it goes, go as fast as it can be developed, and if it one day outsmarts and outmaneuvers humans, swatting them as one might swat a bug that gets in your way, well—that’s evolution for you, survival of the fittest.

@Many Miles I'm reading thru the forums comments and catching up on the conversation you started on the other thread. So far these statements by @JW Insider has put things on a different light for me.
 
 

My piece of advice: Conduct your own thorough research in order to draw a conclusion worthy of being owned by you. You have to know your own capabilities and limitations, but don't let other people think for you if you can help it. There are folks with passions, and there are folks with biases, and there are outright charlatans too. Of course, there are unbiased experts. But you have to dig to make sure whatever information you gather is viable, and then you have to make sure whatever you deduce from that information is done soundly.

No, you don't remember that at all, because nothing like it was ever said. Not by me, nor anyone else that I can remember.
The closest thing I said was that two members of the Writing Department (who shared an office) were discussing it with me, and said that it still remains on a shelf, collecting dust, because everyone in Writing considered it a "hot potato." No one wanted to be assigned to respond to it, because that would be a lose-lose situation. You couldn't respond honestly, and if you couldn't respond you'd be considered a potential apostate.
I never saw it at all until a few months later. Brother Schroeder had a small portion of it photocopied, and he took it with him when we traveled together on a trip to Europe in 1978. He did not allow me to read any of it and I never asked. I never had a research assignment related to it. I didn't see the manuscript at all until early 1980 when Brother Rusk and I were going over my wedding plans in his office and he needed to take about an hour to respond to a phone call (regarding a blood issue) while I sat in his office. While I waited, I grabbed a book from his library, and I also looked around and saw that he had the manuscript open in about three stacks on his desk, but again I never read more than the pages on top of the stacks.
I doubt it was ever discarded. It seems probable that what Fred Rusk had on his desk was already a photocopy.

I've mentioned this before on the forum, but I was traveling with Brother Schroeder (along with Charlotte and Judah) in 1978 where we visited several countries in Europe together (England, France, Spain, Italy) but I had to do work for about a week in the Athens branch and didn't catch up to him again when he went to Innsbruck, Bern, Wiesbaden, Hamburg, Copenhagen, and a couple other places for meetings specifically about Carl Olof Jonsson. I knew in early 1978 that Jonsson had sent his manuscript a few months earlier, and had asked for comment, but no researchers at Bethel would touch it. I saw a photocopied portion of it in 1978, but actually never saw the entire manuscript until Brother Rusk had it in 1980. (Rusk and I were going over logistics for my upcoming wedding, but I asked him about it when he had it across his desk, and was making some notes.) He never responded to the manuscript either. One brother in Writing told me that no one even wanted it on their desk because they knew it was the same information, basically, that they had already come across in researching the Aid book. Similar information had come in from two different sources in the 1960's, too. None of the research projects that Brother Schroeder assigned to me were directly related to it, and I was not aware of Schroeder's specific actions he was taking with reference to Jonsson, until I read about it decades later.
But Jonsson has put copies of his correspondence with the Society up on a website:
http://kristenfrihet.se/english/corr.htm
Jonsson admits to making at least one mistake in this correspondence, but the Society does appear to be the one "playing dirty." I would love to say that I don't believe it, but I was working even more closely with Schroeder back when he showed all the same "qualities" in his campaign to get rid of R.Franz from late in 1979 right up into the 1980's when he was finally successful. It was not something that a squeamish person (like me) wanted to see.
I don't really know what kind of a person Jonsson was, but I suspect that he is mostly right in the claims he makes about how he was treated. Also, I can just imagine even some of the personalities that show up on this forum and imagine what they would be like if they thought they had the actual power to cast someone into Gehenna, for example.

Whoops!
Maybe what I meant to remember was that he was never "disfellowshipped" which means that technically he is not "officially" an "apo-state." I see that his experience says nothing of being DF'd, but then again, I've seen people DF'd for less.
Everything he says about his discussions with Albert Schroeder and John Albu "rings true," perfectly. (John Albu was a brother in NYC, but not a Bethelite) I was put in contact with Albu for access to some of his books and his expertise for research projects.
Alan says:
I have believed the same thing, but never knew for sure. I think the general outline of that 1981 book was to be prepared from a couple of older Watchtowers with updates meant to specifically answer new questions raised about Ptolemy's canon and several other sources that Carl Olof Jonsson had written about. I remember that Bert Schroeder, Gene Smalley and others were angry about COJ's manuscript but wouldn't attempt to answer it. It got passed around like a hot potato around the Writing Department for years. Finally, Fred Rusk (the brother who gave my wedding talk) got it as an assignment to produce a Watchtower article in 1980. Rusk knew that the best researchers in-house at the time were Napolitano&Lengtat but he didn't like them because they had been friends with Ray Franz and had helped work on the Aid Book. He let it sit in his office for several months. I had a very strong feeling that it would end up being turned into an assignment for John Albu. John had been open-minded about discussing anything doctrinal, even things controversial up through 1981. But he seemed to close himself off completely in 1981 and for the rest of his life (until 2004), as far as I could tell.

Well-said. I see your point. It's also true that we only have his side of the story. And I know there was some concern among at least one of his peers to take care of some of the issues he exposed as soon as possible.
But these issues he brings up, along with a review of our own organizational history from WT publications, all support the idea that someone in his situation could easily have had a crisis of conscience. I think he should have had one. I thought it should have led to him resigning from the Governing Body before he was asked to resign, rather than just take a leave of absence from the Governing Body during this time of crisis.
His crisis seems to be initially about whether he should have continued to work for more scriptural policies from the inside, or whether he should stand up more strongly for his own beliefs, or whether he should acquiesce. For years, apparently, he always acquiesced. Within the Governing Body, he would vote against creating a new rule that married couples could be disfellowshipped for oral sex, for example. But then when overruled by at least two-thirds of the rest of the Governing Body, who got the assignment to write it up?
He would be the one asked to write up the Watchtower article to provide the scriptural defense of something he conscientiously believed was not scriptural. Kind of like your point (in TTvTA) about how people are taught to debate by being assigned either side of an argument.
Now as a member of the Governing Body, he could remain and fight for what he thought was the scriptural position: that there was no explicit Bible rule stating that married couples must be dragged through a judicial hearing if, for some reason, the couple admitted to a friend, for example, that they had engaged in oral sex of some kind.
At the same time, the Watchtower claimed that a man could have homosexual relations with another man or an animal, and it was not "fornication" and thus did not constitute grounds for a scriptural divorce. R.Franz still believed, as did his colleagues, that these forms of sex were wrong, and not to be engaged in, and that the person could be disfellowshipped. But for some reason he did not stand up for his conscience and take a stand against what was clearly an unscriptural case of using the supposed "letter of the law" to kill the "spirit of the law."
Of course, he reports that he did fight for the change, from the inside, and sometimes it would take months of collecting letters to the Service Department, and sometimes it would take years. And patience. But in large part, apparently, these areas of conscience were resolved and the rest of the Governing Body finally acquiesced. We have the Watchtower articles that provide evidence to fit his claims.
This might sound self-aggrandizing for R.Franz, but it makes perfect sense considering the persons who made up the Governing Body.
Working as an artist for most of my 4 years at Bethel, I knew who was writing which articles and books. In fact, the initials of the writer and an additional series of initials of those who had seen and approved the article were always at the top of the first typewritten page. This also helped proofreaders and artists know who their department head might talk to if there was a question.
Listening to the Governing Body members rotate through their 15 minute talks every day, sometimes rambling unprepared, and sometimes well organized, it was easy to tell who deferred to whom, and which members were interested in Bible topics and which were interested in organizational rules, and rarely did the twain meet.
Between that experience of hearing them speak daily and knowing which Watchtower articles a GB member had written lets me know that everything R.Franz says in the book makes perfect sense with respect to those who spoke up and what they probably would have said during GB meetings. I should also add that I could sometimes hear L.Swingle and F.Rusk (non-GB) speaking to other writers from their offices. (Most GB members never wrote a Watchtower article, and most had almost nothing to do with Writing of any kind.) It also makes sense why, by way of explanation, R.Franz goes into the history of the creation of the Governing Body from the time it began in the early 70's.

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

Interesting theory. I wonder if it really is substantiated however. I have not heard of one single person who supported Raymond Franz in the 80's, got disfellowshipped, and then got reinstated. It's possible, of course, but seems unlikely. I knew one Bethelite, a person who might have supported Franz in the 80's based on his current promotion of a book that R.Franz wrote. He continued as a Bethelite until about 1984? and as an elder until about 1995, but then was disfellowshipped for an unrelated issue related to divorce and re-marriage, but who now thinks he should get back in, he claims, just to help warn more people that they should get out. But I don't think he has ever tried to get back in, and in his mental situation, what would be the chances that he could get reinstated with such a negative view of the WTS? He has views similar to "Witness." Can you imagine "Witness" trying to get re-instated (assuming he was DF'd).
But this is the closest situation I know about. I imagine there are a lot of people who read Franz' books and think that a warning must go out, but it really makes no sense that people would get DF'd over their negative view of the WTS and then truly want to get back inside the WTS just to tear it down. What a waste of a life!
I think it's pretty obvious who you have actually meant to target with your wild, unsubstantiated allegations. You are wrong, of course. By the way, Raymond Franz would have been one of the most difficult persons to be a supporter of while he was at Bethel, as he was always friendly with a smile, but very few words. His weeks where he handled morning worship were never about any controversial subjects, almost always just Christian conduct and character. He was extremely quiet, unassuming and stayed very busy in his office when at work, and handled a lot of Branch visits. Most of the Governing Body did not do multi-stop Branch visits. Otherwise, he spent a lot of time in his own congregation. So what was to "support"?
In my own experience, I got married in the early 1980's and remained in New York so that I was even able to continue several research projects reporting to Bethel, which did not completely wane until 1984. I have never been disfellowshipped. Two brothers from the Writing Department gave our wedding talk, and one of them actually did fade away several years later and I haven't spoken to him since then. But the other remained in his position as editor of the Watchtower well into the 2000's. In 2013, I was asked to give the funeral talk for a person from his old congregation in NYC since he couldn't get there on time. (He lived in Patterson.) He got there later, and we ended up sharing the talk in much the same way as he had shared our wedding talk with another speaker. This was Brother Fred Rusk.
Also, can you explain your reference to "Mabon"? I looked the name up in Wikipedia and can't see what you are trying to say.
Religion and mythology
Mabon, the Autumnal equinox in some versions of the Pagan Wheel of the Year Mabon ap Modron, a figure in Welsh Arthurian legend Maponos, a pre-Christian Celtic god Mabyn or Mabon, an early Cornish saint People
Willie Mabon (1925–1985), American singer & songwriter Dickson Mabon (1925–2008), Scottish politician William Abraham (trade unionist), also known as Mabon (1842-1922), Welsh politician

Yes. I corresponded with Schroeder and Swingle openly multiple times per year. Starting a couple of years before Brother Schroeder died, I started to send about one letter a year. I don't personally know any current members of the Governing Body except Brother Lett, and recently I have sent extra letters to Bro Splane on the generation, and  Bro Jackson on child punishment and child abuse. The letters are not negative, and usually fairly short (believe it or not). They always agree with everything possible, then pose a problem and ask a simple question. The letters sent to them are intended to be anonymous, and I therefore do not expect a direct answer, although I kept a P.O.Box for this purpose for a while, and I always give an email address. But sometimes the answer comes in another way.
I still speak on the phone with a couple persons (might be down to only one, now) whom I have known for years. I have had long conversations even until very recently with Fred Rusk, Ciro Aulicino, and Harry Peloyan until their health became an issue. All of them have been very well aware of my questions. And I have received many answers over the years.

I know for a fact, and from personal experience, that it is quite possible to hold differing views from many other Witnesses and continue to have privileges and NOT be disfellowshipped. Among certain bodies of elders one can even make a private request not to be given certain subject matter as assignments and, as long as this never interferes with congregation activities as a whole, this need not be a problem. But I also know that there are some elders and circuit overseers who are quick to create an ultimatum that might lead to disciplinary action. It's ironic that some of the most judgmental of these persons themselves also hold views that differ from the Society's view. (I saw this especially when I worked for Brother Schroeder.)
Everyone knows that all of us might hold certain minor variations in our personal beliefs about a verse or an idea here and there, and if we are not dogmatic and if it does not contradict a key teaching then we are "safe."  But it is easy to cause trouble with personal beliefs, and it's easy for people to get caught up in the idea that their personal beliefs make them somehow better or more spiritually mature than others. This was a rather obvious problem for a time at Bethel.
I didn't see it as openly when I was there, but I'm told that there was a practice that probably peaked in the early to mid 1970's and coincided with the hype about 1975 that ran from 1967 to 1974. The practice was for many "Bethel Elders" (especially those in authoritative positions) to talk about ideas they held that differed from the current Watchtower teachings. This was not considered a sign of disrespect, but a way to gain more respect, a way to position themselves as spiritually mature and studious. It was especially the more mature brothers who had responsibilities in the Service Dept, Correspondence, Writing, and similar work. It seemed like every "Table Head" could speak about some nuances of differences in belief that he held, and there was a kind of free-thinking openness that many brothers found refreshing. Younger Bethelites were able to have enlightening conversations among themselves about doctrinal possibilities based on sharing things they heard from table conversations.
The expansion of the Bethel family due to the increased inflow of Witnesses in the pre-1975 era might have had something to do with why this was cracked down upon. With the new Governing Body assignments that expanded beyond the Board of Directors, some of the brothers like Sydlik and Schroeder who were well known for this practice, began to be heard only in more hushed tones. Others followed suit, so that non-conformists seemed to censor themselves (I'm told). Of course, it's quite possible that other factors resulted in the self-censoring. Perhaps there was a fear that it could get out of control; perhaps it came from Knorr or Franz. All I know is that people still talked about the more open freedom that had been the norm in the years just before I got to Bethel, and various Bethelites would still identify who had said what about certain doctrines. The consistency among various Bethelites told me that most of it was probably true, and I was able to verify some of it with Dan Sydlik, Bert Schroeder, Fred Rusk, Sam Friend and others personally.
On the matter of the "overlapping generation" I would think it's simply a matter of attitude and "style." Disagreeing without being disagreeable.

@Many Miles I'm reading thru the forums comments and catching up on the conversation you started on the other thread. So far these statements by @JW Insider has put things on a different light for me.
 
 

Boy that brings back some memories! I had more than a few exchanges with Rusky on the subject of blood, fractions, and associated biblical texts, etc. There is so much left unsaid about this issue. Even academic writers usually miss some of the big things. One day. One day. 

I think this is saying that the foundation and structure of the congregation results in unity of faith, correct knowledge of the Son of God, and spiritual maturity, resulting in greater stability and less risk of being tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine, or by human cunning, craftiness and deceitful schemes.
I don't think you mean that all these changes (instability) over the last few years about "fractions" were caused by deceitful schemes and craftiness. But I would agree that we have given others the unavoidable impression that our doctrines can change direction as if  tossed to and fro by waves and wind. The "blood doctrine" has actually changed more often than the doctrine about "this generation." 
For example, Acts 15 was at first understood, not to be rules about whether we Christians must avoid blood, but that this was a necessary request for a time when Jewish Christians still considered themselves to be under the Mosaic Law and that it was a compromise necessary by Gentiles to avoid stumbling these Jewish Christians and Jews who were interested in conversion to Christianity. Here is the earliest Watchtower reference to the point:
He further suggested writing to them merely that they abstain from pollutions of idols, i.e., from meats offered to idols (`verse 29`), and from things strangled and from blood–as by eating such things they might become stumbling blocks to their Jewish brethren (See `1 Cor. 8:4-13`)–and from fornication. The eating of blood was forbidden, not only by the Jewish Law, but also before the Law. The same command was given to Noah. (See `Deut. 12:23`; `Gen. 9:4`.) . . . It will be noticed that nothing is said about keeping the ten commandments, nor any part of the Jewish law. It was evidently taken for granted that having received the spirit of Christ the new law of love would be a general regulation for them. The things mentioned were merely to guard against stumbling themselves or becoming stumbling blocks to others. -- Watch Tower, 11/15/92 p.350,351 Reprints p.1473
This began to change in 1909, referring to animal blood, but transfusions were still seen as a good, loving and merciful thing as late as 1945. (Animal blood in food was banned in 1927) Although I have never seen it, the Dutch Consolation (now Awake!) September 1945, evidently said:
"God never issued regulations which prohibit the use of drugs, inoculations or blood transfusions. It is an invention of people, who, like the Pharisees, leave Jehovah's mercy and love aside."  (p.16)
In the July 1, 1951 Watchtower QFR it was clarified that blood transfusions were not for Christians, but it was also clarified in the 1950's that no one would be disfellowshipped over their decision. Then in 1961 it became a disfellowshipping offense to take blood and blood products, including any fractions.Then various fractions began to be included over the years, moving to and fro on several of them before finally settling on turning the majority of usable blood fractions into a matter of conscience. Currently 100% of blood can be accepted in all but four of its various fractions.
 
EXAMPLE OF DOCTRINE CAST TO and FRO
Plasma serum for example was
Acceptable during WWII Unacceptable in 1954 Acceptable in 1958 Unacceptable in 1963 Acceptable in 1965 So perhaps this type of thing is based on some kind of deceit or deception, as mentioned in the verses you quoted from Ephesians, but I don't think it's always purposeful deception. As Melinda pointed out earlier, there is a kind of deception based on desire, which is how Eve, for example, was deceived.

I hate to seem judgmental but . . .  Gene and Randy both acted like jerks, way too often for my taste. Something seemed a little off with both of them. Also, if such a conversation took place --and it seems likely-- it seems to have taken place after the year 2000 based on the subject matter. Randy Watters was a press-room manager until 1980, and was well known for being smug, smart-alec, and sarcastic, even though he was friends with (and worked for) Tom Cabeen who was good-natured, humble, and well-liked. The point is that both Watters and Cabeen were well-known, and they attended all the Bethel Elders meetings with Smalley, but they were both disfellowshipped and kicked out of Bethel. So what made Watters think that Smalley was going to forget that?
If you are asking what Gene Smalley would say to me, I think he would tell me the truth, as long as I told him from whom I heard the rumor, and as long as I approached the matter in a serious way. (I am concerned that he will make me promise secrecy.) In general, I don't think he is a pretender of the truth. Perhaps this one issue is a difficulty at present. Most of us, I think, can deal with one serious issue at a time and not completely lose our bearings spiritually. I think he would preface it with a lot of "couched" language to make sure that I didn't think his current view was too much of a shock, and that I was still "grounded" spiritually. All this is assuming the information I received about it was correct. If it wasn't then I would expect him to clarify without hesitation.

I can't describe my feelings very well about something I just learned. I seriously don't know how to handle this issue.
A couple days ago, I made a post in the area of this forum about the blood doctrine. While writing that post, it reminded me that I have been holding on to a couple of questions about the ins and outs of the doctrine, more specifically about why we now accept just about 100% of the products that are made from blood. It's true that we don't accept "whole blood" transfusions, but "whole blood" transfusions are so rarely offered any more that even the word "transfusion" has come to refer to to several blood therapies that JWs regularly accept.
Anyway, it occurred to me that I should have no problem getting a couple of these specific questions answered because I know some of the people who were involved very deeply in the blood issue. About three years ago, at the end of 2013, I talked to Brother Rusk in NYC immediately after the Annual Meeting. I hadn't seen him for many years. He was also good friends with my wife and he gave our wedding talk back in the very early 1980's. When I met with Fred Rusk in his office at Brooklyn Bethel in 1979 and 1980 to talk about the wedding, my fiancee, and leaving Bethel, among other things, he very often took phone calls about the blood issue. He wouldn't send me out of his office, but would usually just say, can you wait a second, and then he would go on for up to an hour (during my work time) talking to doctors, hospital personnel, elders, circuit overseers, patients, or sometimes a brother down in the Service Department who was trying to word a letter correctly about our policy. Our policy was still fairly straightforward back then. Fractions were not a big "thing" yet, but there were still questions about what did and did not contain blood, or whether certain kinds of blood storage machines were acceptable or not (containing the patient's own blood). There were also issues regarding blood decisions that I had never thought of before, related to child custody, headship over family decisions, etc.
Brother Rusk died fairly recently, but he wasn't the one involved so much with the new "fractions" policy anyway. The person who began taking over for Brother Rusk as the Society's subject-matter-expert on blood was Gene Smalley, also from the Writing Department.
These two brothers have very different reputations. Brother Rusk was a very well-loved, peaceful man, who was nearly always soft-spoken, kind, patient and helpful. Even when taking care of a serious issue, you never saw anger. He was a cornucopia of the fruits of the spirit. Gene Smalley was almost the opposite in every way. Spiteful, hateful, bad-tempered, yelling, angry, backbiting, divisive, contentious, etc., etc. (He wasn't that way all the time of course, but often enough to gain a reputation, and more than once threatened with losing his job in Writing.) But his sweet wife Anita just died very recently (from cancer) and I thought this might be a good reason to contact him and, perhaps, if the conversation could be comfortably turned, it could be a chance to get a couple questions answered about fractions. He would know the precise answer. 
Well, I haven't called him yet. Instead, yesterday, I started asking around from friends who may have seen how he is doing recently. This includes one person who worked with him until fairly recently in Writing, and one person who was a close acquaintance of both Gene and Anita.
Here is the most disturbing thing I learned. I was told that I shouldn't ask Gene Smalley about the blood doctrine. Although still on the Writing Committee, evidently he has not believed in the Blood Doctrine since about 1992, according to one of the persons I just spoke with. Yet, he has still promoted it and given interviews about it.
I have always thought of Brother Smalley as the "father of the fractions doctrine." So he would be the perfect person to ask. But the persons I asked are both well known at Bethel, and one of them has even been mentioned in the publications as early as the 1970's. My obvious question was, "Well, if he doesn't believe in it, then why does he still defend it?" Both of the persons I asked gave me the same answer, even though I asked them separately. (Although one could have been repeating the answer they heard from the other.) The answer, paraphrased:
Even though he doesn't believe in it, he still defended it because of all the persons who have died.
 

Also from this book we find this statement:
"Jehovah’s Witnesses cannot become blood donors (for those who do not share JWs’ views), even if the blood would be solely used to obtain a blood fraction or produce medicine made out of blood:"
The author cites a source for this comment, but unfortunately for him, the source is outdated and the new position has never been published by the society. So what the author states here is false.
The author quotes a 1983 publication from the society to support his statement. However, in year 2000 that position changed. But, guess what? The society has YET to publish that change in doctrinal position. I once asked Fred Rusk why the society hadn't published that JWs could donate blood for purposes of extracting permitted "fractions". He said, 'It's not something we want to talk up.' But the society did change its position on this matter beginning in year 2000.
 

Answering "why" is always difficult, and we may never have a definitively solid answer to the questions posed above.
However, in Journal of Contemporary Religion (Vol. 12, No. 2, 1997, pp. 133-157) professors Rodney Stark and Laurence Iannaccone co-authored an article titled Why the Jehovah’s Witnesses Grow so Rapidly: A Theoretical Application. Therein they posit a theoretical model of why religious movements succeed to see how well it explains growth amongst JWs. A proposition within this model may offer insight into the "why" question above.
That proposition is:
New religious movements are likely to succeed to the extent that they maintain a medium level of tension with their surrounding environment—are strict, but not too strict.
According to Stark and Iannaccone,
Applied to the Witnesses, the issue is not whether they are sufficiently strict, but whether they aren’t too strict. Their stormy relations with outsiders, especially governments, make it clear that they are in considerable tension with their environment. The very high expectations concerning religious and missionary activity, their unbending pacifism, rejection of flag-saluting and anthem-singing, and their refusal to have blood transfusions all demonstrate considerable “strictness”. On the other hand, the Witnesses are comfortable with much of the general culture. Although they prohibit smoking, they do not prohibit drinking—and most of them do. They have no distinctive dress requirements and female Witnesses do not stint on cosmetics—publishers are expected to be nicely dressed and well-groomed, when they go calling. They do not prohibit going to sporting events, movies, plays, or watching television--although many believe this is a waste of precious time better devoted to missionary work. Consequently, it is impossible to identify a Witness, unless he or she volunteers the information. Visibility may, in fact, be the crucial factor for identifying when groups impose too much tension or strictness. [Underline added for emphasis]
If this is true, there is reason to believe the answer to the "why" question has more to do with growing a religious movement than being rational. If true, this would explain a great deal. It would, for example, explain why, to this day, not a single member of the governing body is willing to openly and publicly engage in a critical analysis of the blood doctrine they stubbornly hold to despite overwhelming evidence the doctrine is not only unsound but outright refuted. It would also explain all the society's demonstrably fallacious responses it offers in its literature addressing the subject. Then we have all the society's online die-hards, who, to the person, fail over and over again to offer any rational reasons supporting their leaders' position. They don't have this rationale because the ones they entrust with their decision-making have not offered them suitable material.
It may end up being the case that the society is running a religion business rather than a moral compass anchored on rational biblical foundation. It pains me to say it, but there it is. I've said it out loud. Of course, those of us like me know we were taught from infancy that the society's religious positions are [soundly] reasoned from the scriptures. Yet, as older, more experienced and educated adults we've learned we do not have sound reasoning that support the society's current religious position on blood. We also learned that insiders tasked to answer for this doctrine (like Fred Rusk) have utterly failed in their attempts. Over and over again they've offered false premises to underpin the doctrine.
This finding may be confirmed by the society's own publications and doctrinal evolution:
The society's own literature demonstrates that since 1945 the JW community consistently objected on sound bases to the notion that it was wrong to teach the scriptures forbid transfusion of donor blood to save life and/or health. Regardless, the society just turned up the heat on this doctrine to the point where it became a matter that could lead to a JW being disfellowshipped (excommunicated).
The doctrinal evolution of this religious position also shows a dial feature related to "personal conscience matters" and what it terms "minor fractions" that have the effect of mitigating harm to JWs whilst maintaining the overall doctrine. Over the years the society has used these doctrinal features to dial up or dial down the tension caused by its blood doctrine, again whilst still maintaining the overall doctrinal position.
The whole thing smacks of business building strategy rather than offering a sound scriptually based moral compass.

I think it's "spot on."
I also hope you continue to give further examples in your posts. I think this point is closely related to one of the absolutely most important recent changes to our teachings. I wanted to add some info from a historical perspective on this point. For better or for worse, I got involved in this same subject in 1978, and learned something interesting from the experience. (Interesting to me, at least.) 
For me, the experience gives some additional perspective on why it took forty-two years to make the official change, from the time this 1972 article first presented this same important question about extended applications, sometimes called: "type-antitype" applications.
The 1972 Watchtower you quoted was actually a summary of what Ray Franz had learned from the team that researched and put together the Watch Tower's first Bible encyclopedia: "Aid to Bible Understanding" (finished in 1971). The "Aid Book" research resulted in adjustments to the elder arrangement and the GB arrangement. It contains literally dozens of statements about how we can't be absolutely sure of the meaning or reason for certain Biblical references. But the biggest practical change for the Writing Department, was that this Bible dictionary/encyclopedia revolved almost completely around Biblical context. It was not a doctrinal reference.
I thought this idea about the importance of Biblical context was almost a "radical" idea, because it changed the way that many of us would read and study the Bible. The article you quoted presented the first evidence that we could question the overly specific extended applications (types and antitypes) that we were so accustomed to. It subtly moved the "type-antitype" application from a specific prophetic drama about specific classes of Christians to lessons that taught all of us something about Jehovah's unchanging principles. Everyone on the "Aid Book" team believed that only a few few specific "types and antitypes" should be a part of our doctrinal teachings. (Only the ones that were specifically said to be "type-antitype" in the Bible itself.) But this would mean that literally hundreds of type-antitype applications would have to be dropped. It was too many doctrines to change all at once. Brother Fred Franz, who was the source or "keeper" of many of the type-antitype teachings, argued against dropping them. Brother Fred Rusk (Watchtower Editor) also supported keeping them. I don't know for sure, but I assume that most of the Governing Body at that time would have sided with Fred Franz on anything doctrinal, since he was still treated as "The Oracle" at this time.
Therefore, the 1972 article was an important and controversial move, but ultimately ended up "compromising" or postponing a big change on this very important point. (The very next article was supposed to balance the idea you quoted with the idea that there are still "prophetic dramas" that have difficult and specific meanings that are too difficult to grasp from principles and context alone.)
The suggested change was not finally made until October 2014 at the Annual Meeting by Brother Splane. This was forty-two years after it was first presented in 1972. The specifics of this change were credited to Bert Schroeder during the Annual Meeting in 2014. Brother Schroeder had died in 2007, though, and I have no idea what time period Brother Splane was referring to. But I do know that Brother Schroeder suggested this change not long after the death of Fred Franz. His reasons might be clearer with a little more context.
The primary members of that "Aid Book" team continued to contribute work for the Writing Department from 1972 to 1980, and they were easily the most prolific writers of our Bible-based study material and convention releases. Many others in Writing worked from "news" material, spending a lot of their day reading about wars, earthquakes, food shortages, pestilences, and commenting on "pro" and "con" references to "Jehovah's Witnesses" found in outside publications. About 25% of the study material came from Fred Franz, mostly indirectly from those who based their "new" articles almost totally on prior articles from Franz had written. While I was there, about 75% of the study articles and all but a few of the convention releases came from the  "Aid Book" team.
The four primary members of that team were dismissed from Bethel in mid-1980. One was disfellowshipped at the time, and another (R Franz) was disfellowshipped in 1981. A couple of them tried to keep a low profile in their congregations, or even continued to get research assignments for the Society for several more years, being given a bit of support through the "special pioneer" arrangement. (Ironically, some of those continuing assignments were related to replacing the Aid Book with the updated Insight Book.) But ultimately all of them, I'm told, finally found themselves outside of the organization even though all of them, as far as I knew, had wanted to quietly remain inside the organization for as long as they were allowed. One of them lasted at least a couple of decades in his congregation, serving as an elder and special pioneer for years, but I do not currently know his status. I haven't heard from him or about him in 10 years, but I heard a rumor that he was "pushed" out.
While at Bethel, when I read through a large portion of the Aid Book for technical errors and typos, I was a bit troubled at first by the neutral, undogmatic style that sometimes said, "we don't know for sure." I mentioned this to someone on the "Aid Book" team, and said that I'm beginning to understand that the style was necessary as s a kind of public-facing, academic style. In 1978, I asked if it was troubling to anyone else. He said: "There are a lot of people here who would LOVE to hear that about the Aid Book." This really surprised me, because this was early in 1978 and it was a hint of trouble. He explained that the Aid Book was considered "dangerous" and had created a division between Fred Franz supporters in Writing, because it put a new value on context, and relatively less value on "extended applications."
He said that the most common response (letters/comments) from those who had become familiar with the Aid Book's style were commenting on how much more value they were getting out of their Bible reading because they were realizing for the first time that the meaning from context was now more open to them. For example, they no longer read Ezekiel 18 as just the chapter that had a verse or two about the soul dying (18:4). There's another message in the context that is also very important, and they hadn't noticed it before. By 1975 there were many brothers who had been so overjoyed at this "new" way of reading the Bible that groups of Bethelites would join others in their rooms just for Bible reading. The Aid Book "style" was being credited. Because all of these Bible reading groups were "banned" in 1980, and even brothers on the Governing Body spoke out against them, it was assumed that these all had something to do with the apostasy. But there were dozens of them, and hundreds of Bethelites participated. It's true that most of the "apostates" had also participated, but the majority of participants remained in responsible positions.
I regularly attended one in the room of a brother from Writing that often went on for three hours on Wednesday. Whenever I could, I also started attending another one after the Monday-night Watchtower study for one hour. One of these had one of the "Aid Book" team and I was questioned about it later in 1980, although I continued to do research for Brother Schroeder from 1977 until 1983. Schroeder kept a good measure of personal control over who was and was not dismissed for "apostasy" 1980 through 1983. Yet, even Brother Schroeder quietly sided with the "Aid Book" team on this same point about "type-antitype" during the 1980 crisis. My best friends in the Writing Department also included Brother Fred Rusk, who gave my wedding talk later in 1980. (I last saw and spoke to Rusk in 2013, at a funeral talk.) Rusk and Schroeder were both very strong opposers of the entire Aid Book team. But I kept friends on "both sides of the aisle."
I don't know how easy it is to tell that the writer of the article below was asked to write in support of types and antitypes but was intentionally "subversive" or "ambiguous" in a way that would still get past the editors.
*** w72 8/15 p. 501 God Readjusts the Thinking of His People ***
JEHOVAH is infallible, and he is the Great Teacher and Leader of his people. (Ps. 143:10) They are fallible, and at no point do they understand all things. . . .
Another thing that has given rise to questions is the use by Jehovah’s witnesses of parallels or prophetic types, applying these to circumstances and to groups or classes of people today. Many people who read the Bible view its accounts all as simply history, but when they begin to study with Jehovah’s witnesses a readjustment of viewpoint takes place as they see that there is more to the accounts than history.
The question that is sometimes asked is, Did Jehovah stage that ‘dramatic’ event, so that we would have a warning now? Well, would he cause such bad things to happen? Would he maneuver them himself? No. The Christian disciple James answers: “With evil things God cannot be tried nor does he himself try anyone.” (Jas. 1:13). . . .
We can therefore read what took place with ancient Israel and surrounding nations and know that they were just as real as our situation today and that God will act toward us according to the same principles, just as surely as he did back there. As we benefit from the record of God’s dealings with his people in the past, we experience a readjustment of viewpoint. But, of course, at times there may be points that we find difficult to grasp.
 
 
 

I wanted to stay out of this because of the way the answer might sound worse than I hope it sounds. I think the real answer should acknowledge both of your ideas.
Because I think the policy changed on account of a belief by some that the original policy showed "hardheartedness" in the face of "doubts" at the level of a primary policymaker. Not so much F.Rusk/Dr.Dixon, but mostly from the research by G.Smalley (Writing Dept) which had "earned" him a larger say in the policy. Too many people were dying, and because of doubts about the overall policy, these deaths seemed unnecessary. The more that the "hardhearted," older generation, wanted to speak of "martyrs," the more that the soft-hearted younger generation wanted to see the entire blood policy thrown out. I believe that allowing fractions was a compromise between the "old guard" and the new. Even some Witness doctors were called in to HQ to discuss it. And without committing to any changes in policy with them, the direction was clear that some compromises on blood fractions could be potentially justified when one looked at the details of blood fractions and how they were being used to save lives.
I haven't talked to Brother Smalley about this, but was told by a Bethel elder who has known him well, that he was willing to change the entire blood policy (for scriptural reasons, not financial) but that this would be seen as a Catholic "Fish on Friday" "No Fish on Friday" -- the flip flop on fish. It would devastate the Witness families who had lost a child, parent, relative or close friend to the blood policy in the past, and for this reason he was happy to go along with the fractions compromise which could at least reduce the number of deaths greatly. I've heard JTR assume this was a move by lawyers to reduce financial exposure. But I know that even Brother Rusk was aware of both financial exposure and that there were several questions about the scripturalness of the policy as he had dealt with those arguments before. (But as soft and gentle and loving as this brother was to my wife and me, and all persons we knew, he was very much a "hard-liner" on the original blood policy and never gave an inch to those arguments. I don't know that he was ever really OK with the fractions compromise. I think I've mentioned before that he was best friends with my wife, and gave the key portion of our wedding talk.)
BTW, my iPhone identifies a goodly portion (badly portion) of my calls as "Fraud Risk" and I always glance at it with the thought that I just got a call from "Fred Rusk" although he died a few years ago.
Yes, there are probably "14 ways from Sunday" to look at the matter "legitimately", not just two. (The term "legitimate" seems out of place when we are comparing law with conscience.) Some of these ways are fully scriptural; some are based on science; some are a mix. I was in full agreement with JTR strictness in my own personal policy (based on conscience) until a couple of years ago, while participating on this forum. I would neither take blood nor fractions, and I would have been willing to die before knowingly accepting a transfusion of any kind. The only difference I had (conscientiously) with the Society's position, however, is that for the last 10 years at least, I would never impose my conscience about either whole blood or blood fractions on any of my own children before they were baptized or 18, whichever came first. I would try to work with doctors as best I could, but if I were convinced that their survival depended on a blood transfusion, I would not impose my conscience, and would accept any consequences. And of course I would give no recommendations for unbaptized youngsters or babies in the congregation either. I felt the issue was too serious to even accidentally impose my own conscience on another. Fortunately, it has never come up.
But when I learned of Brother Smalley's policy-making issues, even though I didn't confirm them with him personally, the brother who told me about it gave me another contact who might confirm. This was another one of Smalley's friends who was close enough to him even recently to know if he had said anything of the sort to him. This contact was reluctant, because I had never contacted him before, but after I told him of my concern based on the information from the Bethel elder whom he knew, he understood how important an issue I thought it was. This new contact gave me some additional information I have already included above. To be fair, I should also mention that I very recently talked to another friend who had worked with Smalley in the Writing Department back in the 70s and 80s, and he sounded incredulous about all of this.