6 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

That your delusional to think certain things can't be applied scripturally, only in your tiny world that doesn't constitute God's vision entered in scripture. Yet you are advocating child safety and unscriptural "shunning" that is an apostate misleading word for distancing ourselves from the very circumstances your hypocrisy is attempting to convey, it must be nice to eat your cake and have it too.

No comment. I just had to save this in case your original got edited or disappeared. Classic!

6 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

“And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes.”

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.

50 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

I could go on, but since your “spiritually rounded” hypocritical world, doesn’t recognize simple script like 1 Corinthians 6:9? I’ll leave it at that.

Hard to tell what all that was really about. But if it was intended as a response to the end of my last post, then I think you may have unwittingly helped to make my point.

36 minutes ago, Shiwiii said:

Can you elaborate on this a little? I mean, if we are to go strictly from the Bible, then there are plenty of changes that can be made.

I agree, but what I would propose would still be incomplete in terms of encompassing so many different possible circumstances, and I don't really want to think about all these possible circumstances. Also, the ideas I would incorporate have mostly been discussed already, in a general way at least, and have mostly already been recommended by the courts in some form, too. If I have some time to fill some of the gaps, I might join a separate discussion about this. The gap I still have is in the nearly arbitrary age definitions that one might start out with. There is no Biblical definition of what defines a child vs young adult vs adult. But there are some common sense ideas, which will always be subject to exceptions. A congregation or any church institution should choose elders who have common sense, and therefore have the ability to make sensible exceptions when necessary. That's one of the reasons for the intended level of qualifications and life experience and other requirements for elders that is suggested in the Bible (Timothy, Titus, etc). We should never expect the Christian congregation to start forming legalistic procedures, but we should expect the Christian congregation to continue looking for ways to deal with every problem in the most loving and efficient way possible.

1 hour ago, Shiwiii said:

I agree with you on #5 as well, I just feel it is a shame that it takes a secular gov't to bring this to light and force some sort of change. Shouldn't (we) be proactive in protecting not just our children, but the rest of society if there is a person preying on others criminally.? 

I'm not surprised, though. The sons of darkness may know more about taking care of such problems than the sons of light do.

(Luke 16:8) 8 And his master commended the steward, though unrighteous, because he acted with practical wisdom; for the sons of this system of things are wiser in a practical way toward their own generation than the sons of the light are.

In general, JWs are not lawyers, so we don't meet up with as many related cases as certain types of lawyers would. Even if we try to collect info on a lot of cases and put it in one place, we can't always have the expertise to make proper inferences about them. In general, JWs also do not work in law enforcement, social work, psychology, or other professional medical fields. So we don't necessarily have enough of those kinds of experts to call together into one place for the purpose of combining expertise through discussion in order to come to some helpful conclusions. Besides, among JWs, some of these persons would be women, and we are a patriarchal organization. There are people in authority in other places who have the power and resources to bring a lot more minds together. I have even heard that Barbara Anderson was asked to go to the Vatican because the Vatican was interested in what processes could be implemented to protect more victims.

Because of their experience, the ARC, for example, was able to point out several clear flaws in our sets of documents. Of course, finding fault is a lot easier than coming up with a comprehensive solution. And even a supposed comprehensive process solution doesn't mean it will really work all that well when imperfect people implement it.

And, yes, of course we should be more proactive in looking for ways to protect all persons, in all parts of society, even showing that we love our enemies.

4 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

#6:  Why should a society that claims God's backing have any weakness in which the courts or laws could leverage against? That is a complete side note, I just wanted to make that statement. I do understand that every group has its faults, but not every group is claiming sole ownership as "God's people", some do and some don't. 

I think the principle from Luke 16:8 might answer a portion of that question. I can also think of lots of other ways in which people who are "babes as to badness" might find themselves out-leveraged and shown up as weak in courts of law. It happens all the time. This is not a direct defense of the current problem however.

(1 Corinthians 14:20) 20 Brothers, do not become young children in your understanding, but be young children as to badness; and become full-grown in your understanding.

It's true that we want to represent ourselves in a manner worthy of calling ourselves "God's people." But it has never been true that "God's people" did not have weaknesses and faults.

4 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

I don't think that its fair to assume that this was mostly from the assistance of ex-jw's.

I didn't assume it was mostly from the assistance of ex-JWs. I do sense some participation however.

4 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

His point was that it was cruel. I'm not too sure this will have any impact, as groups can and do have their own rules, but it is still a human decency issue.

He made some powerful and relevant points. But you are right. Shunning is practiced by some religions much more strictly than in ours. I don't see a Biblical requirement for shunning in the way many JWs still practice it. I think that, except for a few rare cases, the Biblical reasons given for shunning don't really apply to the types of persons that JWs tend to shun.

3 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

What do you think “Gene Smalley” would tell you as a pretender of the truth, that he hadn’t already told past pretenders like “Randy Watters”.

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.

1 hour ago, Shiwiii said:

[1] I'm curious as to what the average jw thought. Was it a good representation of the wt?

[2] Did the testimony make you proud to be a part of the organization?

[3] Do you feel that there was places in wt doctrine that could be adjusted or improved on?

[4] Was it succinct and complete?

[5] Do you feel that Mr. Spinks and Mr. O'Brian were in cooperation with the courts requests? 

[6] Were the statements from the court and counselors "apostate lies"? 

This is what I think, along with some speculation.

QUESTION #1: I thought it was an awkward representation of the WT. They could have done better with better spokespeople. But Toole was apparently fired from the Branch after the last performance and for getting Brother Jackson involved. And O'Brien had been exiled to New Guinea for the same reasons. A better spokesperson took his place within the Branch but the court either was not aware or wanted continuity. A couple of the other spokespersons from the Branch could not be used because of conflicts of interest related to some of the individual cases themselves. 

QUESTION #2: Not particularly. I am proud that we have the courage not to participate in war and other divisive political issues. I am proud that we have a reputation for preaching the good news of the Kingdom in all the inhabited earth. I am proud that we promote Bible reading, Bible study, and more than 100 meetings and conventions every year for this noble purpose. I am proud that we search the Bible for improved teachings that do not depend on traditional teachings, and that even if we might still be wrong on some, we keep making adjustments and improvements. I'm proud that we can come together humbly, putting our own interests aside and get along with persons of different languages, nationalities and races. I'm proud of the way we trust one another, look out for one another. I won't bore you with 100 other things I'm proud of. But the point I just mentioned  about trust  is taken advantage of by some, and perhaps this makes us more vulnerable than some other institutions to the crime of child abuse. We are clearly not the only ones affected, so I don't mean to limit the many factors at play.

QUESTION #3: Yes. And they are 100% Biblical.

QUESTION #4: It was succinct and complete from the ARC's perspective. This had the sound of a pending ultimatum.

QUESTION #5: No. They continually had opportunities to show where they could have been pro-active, and they almost made a point to highlight how they had only been re-active on some points and even in-active on some. This was primarily O'Brien's big mistake, which is bound to cost the Society a lot more than would have been necessary in the area of redress. Spinks played into the trap of not realizing what this kind of hearing was about. Whether sincere or not, other institutions figured it out and made pro-active amends. 

QUESTION #6: Of course not. But they were no doubt helped along by ex-JWs with an inside knowledge of the Society's weaknesses in Australia and elsewhere. 

5 hours ago, Arauna said:

Soon they can make a movie about the wild west set in 2025

They came pretty close to that with HBO's Westworld Series.

On 3/13/2017 at 2:35 PM, Eoin Joyce said:

PS. I see the New York Times referred to Gene Smalley as a Dr. Is that correct and if so, is it as an MD?

It was not correct, but I think it would be easier for him to give the impression that he was a doctor than it would have been for "Doc" Dixon. The heading on that particular JAMA article might have been easily misread, but the first footnote shows that his title is "Mr." not "Dr."

On 3/13/2017 at 6:40 PM, ComfortMyPeople said:

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.

But most of the blood we consume in eating liver and lean meat (muscle tissue) is whole blood, not components or fractions, right?

17 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

And a composition question: Plasma appears to be 92-95% water. Cryoprecipitate is 1% (reasonably solid by definition). So, Cryosupernatant would appear to be mostly ...water, despite it's high proportion as a component? So leaving aside the water, what is it's % composition of plasma? about 4-5%? (Just trying to get a perspective).

I think I see where you might be coming from on this idea, and there appears, at first, to be a nice way to rationalize the idea that plasma is a smaller percentage and therefore could fit the idea, or connotation, of "minor fraction."

One could argue that Cryoprecipitate is only 1% of the total plasma. "Minor" fraction fits.

Then, Cryosupernatant is 99% of the total remaining plasma, because it is all of the remaining plasma. 99% doesn't sound good, but it's mostly water, right? Surely, there is nothing wrong with "water." Blood is mostly water, after all. And Jehovah never showed in his Word that there could ever be an occasion when water was so closely associated with blood, that it was appropriate to pour water out on the ground, right? (Yes, I'm thinking of David.)

(2 Samuel 23:15-17) 15 Then David expressed his longing: “If only I could have a drink of the water from the cistern by the gate of Bethʹle·hem!” 16 At that the three mighty warriors forced their way into the camp of the Phi·lisʹtines and drew water from the cistern by the gate of Bethʹle·hem and brought it to David; but he refused to drink it and poured it out to Jehovah. 17 He said: “It is unthinkable on my part, O Jehovah, that I should do this! Should I drink the blood of the men going at the risk of their lives?” So he refused to drink it.. . .

Besides, if water doesn't count, then why not accept plasma all at once without the water? Why say plasma is forbidden? Just remove the water and it becomes a minor fraction, as if water was its major fraction (95%) which has been removed. Of course, we can't because that would only highlight the total inconsistency of the entire fractured logic of fractions. If the water doesn't count, then the remaining plasma is likely being split up into 1 part non-water plasma and 4 parts non-water plasma. If water doesn't count, then this is a split of 20% plasma (cryoprecipitate) and 80% plasma (cryosupernatant non-water).

The logic of trying to make it look like 1% and 4% is tortured. Even if it were possible to extract a full 50% of the non-water plasma into a form of cryoprecipitate, the two acceptable parts would be at best, 50% and 50%. In reality one side would always be higher than 50%, even as much as 80%. So, the fact that both are acceptable still means 100% of plasma is acceptable, whether we think of the split as 1% + 99% or 50% + 50% or 20% + 80%. It always adds up to 100%.

4 hours ago, Melinda Mills said:

We have to practise what is mentioned in the article and note what is mentioned in the following scripture.

I agreed with almost everything you said, too. But it struck me that the above quote was backwards. We have to practice what is mentioned in the following scriptures, and note what is mentioned in the article. (Not the other way around.)

Also, I was thinking about what the process is behind the Biblical counsel "do not be quickly shaken from your reason." This is the exact danger I mentioned earlier about how everyone was against all forms of organ transplant --and we were sure we had good reason for this-- but then, as quickly as a new article came out, every one of us was quickly shaken from those reasons, and most of us instantly accepted the new reasoning. We all believed we were using a Bible-trained conscience when we refused blood in all forms, even fractions. But then we were quickly shaken from our reason so that most Witnesses suddenly began accepting fractions. If we can be so quickly shaken from our reason, then we must not be following the Bible's counsel to question in order to make sure of all things. Therefore, it must not have been our own conscience in the first place that was real the reason behind our reasoning.

4 hours ago, Melinda Mills said:

If we keep listening to subtle arguments and specious reasoning, “twisted things” can sound as though they were straight.

I think that most of us, at least at some point during our spiritual growth as Witnesses, would read that sentence just quoted, and instantly see it only as a warning not to spend time listening to anyone who says something that might point out a flaw in the teaching that currently comes from the visible organization. In context, this is exactly how the Watchtower is applying the idea. But we have to be careful that we don't use two sets of scales. What if the Bible has already answered the questions about blood fractions, for example, but we keep listening to subtle arguments and specious reasoning about blood fractions? What if we have become bloodguilty by accepting these subtle arguments and specious reasoning? What we have accepted, in general, might be perfectly good reasoning, but what if it isn't? What if it isn't questioned, precisely because we are always so quickly shaken from our reason every time a change is made?

Edited to add: I included the following comment, but it kept getting merged/attached with another post. I'm editing it back here:

1 hour ago, Melinda Mills said:

If you revisit the comment with that in mind you might agree.

I know what you mean. I over-reacted. I didn't think you had in mind exactly what I thought others might take from it.

@Melinda Yet, Scripturally, it is also our duty to fight against error and strongly entrenched things, and to point out where tradition has made the word of God invalid. The Watchtower might be perfectly correct in this area. Yet, if the Watchtower is speaking twisted things in this area, is it really our duty to obey it, or is our duty to obey God as ruler rather than men? As you reminded us, Eve was perfect and yet was still seduced by false reasoning. But the word of God is alive and exerts power. If it happens to break down false human reasoning, this is not our fault. It is our Christian duty to be noble-minded and question all reasoning to test it against God's word, otherwise we are trying to please humans. Isn't this the lesson that Paul wanted us to learn from Galatians and 1 & 2 Corinthians?

I'm reminded of words recently attributed to Voltaire, but closer to words from a more modern writer: "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."

There is a certain kind of fundamentalist thinking that shifts one's loyalties to the humans that we credit for bringing us into all truth, even if they brought us into most truth. It's the Bible, the product of Jehovah's holy spirit, that brings us into all truth.

For example, there are those who read the following verses:

(Luke 10:19) Look! I have given you the authority to trample underfoot serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing at all will harm you.

And also the following verses:

(Mark 16:17, 18) 17 Furthermore, these signs will accompany those believing: By the use of my name they will expel demons, they will speak with tongues, 18 and with their hands they will pick up serpents, and if they drink anything deadly it will not hurt them at all. They will lay their hands upon sick persons, and these will become well.”

And the experience of Paul:

(Acts 28:3-6) But when Paul collected a bundle of sticks and laid it on the fire, a viper came out because of the heat and fastened itself on his hand. 4 When the foreign-speaking people caught sight of the venomous creature hanging from his hand, they began saying to one another: “Surely this man is a murderer, and although he made it to safety from the sea, Justice did not permit him to keep on living.” 5 However, he shook the creature off into the fire and suffered no harm. 6 But they were expecting him to swell up or suddenly to drop dead. After they waited for a long time and saw that nothing bad happened to him, they changed their mind and began saying he was a god.

And Paul's counsel:

(1 Corinthians 4:16) I urge you, therefore, become imitators of me.

Putting all that together, some small "Christian" denominations thought it was incumbent upon them, therefore, to show they had the faith to handle snakes and suffer no harm. Some died, but the common fundamentalist thinking structure did not allow that problem to change their mind. In fact, it makes people dig in their heels and become even more dedicated to the idea. Some of them, we suppose, could even claim that the medical community learned more about venom and treating snake bites due to their efforts. Perhaps the sacrifice of a few led to saving many more people from snakebite.

Yet, all that one needed to do was notice that the passage in Mark was not supported from the earliest manuscripts, and to think about the spirit of the Bible, rather than specific passages without their context, in order to break down this dangerous practice.

Edited to add that this wasn't directed specifically at you Melinda, but to an argument I heard recently about how non-blood therapies have now saved more people than ever died from lack of blood therapies, or even directly from blood therapy deaths through error, contamination, etc.

6 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

it is not the Witnesses who have arbitrated on the ranking of blood components or fractions. It is the general practice in most dicussion on the subject to designate in this regard:

The problem is that our publications have made use of the ambiguity. The publications have made use of the fact that the major/minor distinction refers to the size of the breakdown in fractions, based on the KM chart which highlights the "minor" percentages after breaking down blood into 4 "major" fractions. But one of those so-called "minor" percentages is 33% of a "major" component. (And one was 99% and therefore left off the "approved" list even though it was approved.)

At the same time one of the "major" components, platelets, was only considered to be 0.0017 of the total volume of blood. That's 0.17%.

Therefore, by Watch Tower definition, a MINOR component can be 99% of 55% of whole blood (cryosupernatant), or 33% of 45% of whole blood (hemoglobin), and yet a MAJOR component can be as little as little as 0.17% of whole blood. Here is a visual chart showing just how much of whole blood can be an acceptable minor component compared to an unacceptable major component. The acceptable amount of the total blood is in RED:

The following, then is the unacceptable portion of whole blood because the very tiny small red portion of the total line is a MAJOR component:

_{^{|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||}}

The following large red portion is an acceptable portion of whole blood, even though it is over half of the total blood volume, because it is a MINOR fraction:

_{^{|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||}}

This kind of arbitrary play on words is hypocritical. Note a recent Watchtower's comments:

*** w01 6/1 pp. 4-5 Whose Standards Can You Trust? ***
Would you trust a merchant who uses two sets of weights, only one of which is accurate? Certainly not. Likewise, “a cheating pair of scales is something detestable to Jehovah, but a complete stone-weight is a pleasure to him.” (Proverbs 11:1; 20:10) In the Law that he gave the Israelites, Jehovah included this command: “You must not commit injustice in judging, in measuring, in weighing or in measuring liquids. You should prove to have accurate scales, accurate weights, an accurate ephah and an accurate hin. Jehovah your God I am, who have brought you out of the land of Egypt.”—Leviticus 19:35, 36.

15 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

"Blood is a specialized body fluid. It has four main components: plasma, red blood cells, white blood cells, and platelets."

This is not a natural breakdown. These are the four components that are of highest importance to those who separate and break down donated blood for medical purposes.

For the purposes of supporting life (while in the body), blood's major components are:

• Water
• Oxygen
• Proteins
• Sugar
• Fat
• Waste

From the perspective of someone who is injured the major components of blood become:

• Neutrofils
• Lymphocyte antibodies
• Clotting Factors
• Platelets
• Volume

From the Bible's perspective, blood has only one major component:

• Blood

As indicated by the Watch Tower publications, the most natural use of the term major components with respect to the volume (percentage) of blood, would be:

• Plasma (55%)
• Blood Cells (45%)

55% + 45% = 100%. This is not just true of the Watch Tower publications. It's also true of the site you quoted:

The blood that runs through the veins, arteries, and capillaries is known as whole blood, a mixture of about 55 percent plasma and 45 percent blood cells.  - http://www.hematology.org/Patients/Basics/

The Watchtower agrees:

*** w90 6/1 p. 30 Questions From Readers ***
Human blood can be separated into dark cellular material and a yellowish fluid (plasma, or serum). The cellular part (45 percent by volume) is made up of what are commonly called red cells, white cells, and platelets. The other 55 percent is the plasma. This is 90 percent water, but it carries small amounts of many proteins, hormones, salts, and enzymes. Today, much of the donated blood is separated into the primary components. One patient may be given a transfusion of plasma (perhaps FFP, fresh frozen plasma) to treat shock. But an anemic patient might be given packed red cells, that is, red cells that had been stored and then put in a fluid and transfused.

The Awake! shows just how minor white cells and platelets are to the overall volume of blood by charting the same idea and showing that only about 1% of the total is platelets and white cells.

*** g90 10/22 p. 4 Selling Blood Is Big Business ***
The Main Components of Blood

•  Plasma: about 55 percent of the blood. It is 92 percent water; the rest is made up of complex proteins, such as globulins, fibrinogens, and albumin
•   Platelets: about 0.17 percent of the blood
•   White Cells: about 0.1 percent
•   Red Cells: about 45 percent

The Awake! got the percentage of white and red cells wrong. It's really about 3% white cells, therefore closer to about 41% red.

The breakdown into "four main components" is correct from the perspective of the preliminary treating and centrifuging of blood to extract its most valuable fractions (components). But it is arbitrary for the Watch Tower publications to use a breakdown that uses the word "major" to refer to the value of a component for its medical re-use, when the Bible says nothing about the value of transfused fractions. In the Bible, the entire volume of blood is important because it represents life.

17 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

I'm glad you raised it, although it's hardly a new subject. Without exhaustive searching, I can see lively (despite repetitive) discussion going back to 2009 in public forums (inc. B Anderson input on the proportions debate), also medical discussion on treating Jehovah's Witnesses with these components earlier still.

I have never read anything by Barbara Anderson on the topic, and I saw in a Google Search that AJWRB came up but I have not read anything there yet either. I have no problem reading it, but when I see something like this come up, I prefer to start out on my own, with more neutral information, before muddying the waters with presentations from parties I expect to be more biased.

Also, yes, I see I have come to this discussion a bit late. I have discussed the blood issue at length over on jw-archive a couple years ago, but I have only wanted to discuss it from a Biblical, doctrinal perspective. Until now, I have purposely avoided the "science" and technical side of transfusions and fractions. I have done this because I have my own bias that the Bible is already clear enough, and therefore all this discussion of medical knowledge and fractions is irrelevant:

(Matthew 23:23, 24) 23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you give the tenth of the mint and the dill and the cumin, but you have disregarded the weightier matters of the Law, namely, justice and mercy and faithfulness. These things it was necessary to do, yet not to disregard the other things. 24 Blind guides, who strain out the gnat but gulp down the camel!

So I am still not the one to discuss the medical side of this issue. For now I'll just try to answer the specific questions about my meaning.

17 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Some ambiguity here. Do you mean that cyrosupernatant is acceptably termed a "minor" fraction? or that as a "minor" fraction it is therefore acceptable as a therapy? or both?

It looks like there is no such thing, technically, as a "major" or "minor" fraction. Blood is either whole, or it's broken down into fractions. Calling any of them major or minor is arbitrary. And of course the term fraction means exactly the same as component, It is arbitrary to say that blood separates into 4 "major" components or "major" fractions: plasma, platelets, red cells and white cells. So I only intended to use the term "minor" fraction as a way of following the arbitrary terminology of the WT publications which then allows anything defined as "minor" to be "your personal decision."

So let me think if that answers your question. Reviewing, cryosupernatant is a fraction of blood. It is derived as a fraction of whole plasma. It is treated as a "minor" fraction in Watch Tower usage in the sense that anything presented as a "minor fraction" can be left up to the choice of the individual. Calling any fraction a "minor fraction" is a kind of "code" by which we can justify allowing individual choice from the "Watch Tower" perspective. This is undoubtedly why the following source is worded in this same way when discussing Jehovah's Witnesses:

Hill, Steven, MD, Care of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Patient Refusing Transfusion, Medically Challenging Patients Undergoing Cardiothoracic Surgery edited by Neal H. Cohan, MD, Wolters Kluwer │ Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2009, pp. 327-347.

17 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Also, by "minor" do you mean minor in significance to the overal function of blood? or "minor" in respect of it's position in the heirachy of blood components? or "minor" in that it's use is of little consequence to Jehovah's Witnesses in deliberating choice in respect of non-blood medical management?

Again, restating, I am only utilizing the term with the Watch Tower's usage as a reference point. Through both words and charts, the Watch Tower uses the term to convey the idea of "minor" in respect to its position in the hierarchy of blood components, highlighting also a "minor" or low percentage of blood over-all. After arbitrarily dividing blood into four fractions called major, then any further fractioning after (or "below") those first four arbitrary divisions will be called minor. The implication is that the term minor is suitable because these "minor" fractions are typically labeled in percentages of 1% to 33%. This would explain the need to remove items on the list that would have been labeled 99%. Otherwise, I see no explanation for why the Watch Tower publications would keep any secrecy around a so-called minor fraction which is technically 99% of a whole "major" fraction (or component). 

17 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

And a composition question: Plasma appears to be 92-95% water. Cryoprecipitate is 1% (reasonably solid by definition). So, Cryosupernatant would appear to be mostly ...water, despite it's high proportion as a component? So leaving aside the water, what is it's % composition of plasma? about 4-5%? (Just trying to get a perspective).

That is approximately how I understand it, too. Cryosupernatant is 99% of the original plasma volume. (And plasma makes up 55% of the original volume of whole blood.) Without the water, plasma can be stored as dry powder and then reconstituted with distilled water for transfusion. Cryosupernatant contains all the original water that was in the original plasma from the time of donation, so it is usually frozen but still used fairly soon after a blood donation. But with or without the water it is still "your personal decision" to accept 100% of the original plasma, when offered in these two separate forms.

16 minutes ago, SuziQ1513 said:

There was a refining process by Jehovah to let the Israelites and the mixed company get hungry, thirsty and wondering what happened to Moses (i.e. their leadership).

Thanks. I catch your drift.

Christian love back at you, too.

Thanks.

1 hour ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Not someone else's half remembered; half made-up; half distorted memory of what they might think.

True. I put this out there hoping that someone might know for sure or that someone who is holding back might be nudged. That might not be fair to the parties involved. Yet, I still think it was the right thing to do based on the seriousness of the reasoning I heard so far.

I will not mention the speculation again, unless I learn something that is more specific and useful to a serious discussion. I think I'll stick with getting more complete info on the questions I had in the first place.

5 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

The 13 blood fractions is an over-simplification ... but the PRINCIPLE behind it is not.

It's not so far off. As I'm sure you already know, the four so-called "major" fractions are forbidden. One of those "major" fractions is PLASMA. And JWs can accept 100% of PLASMA on the same day, during the same procedure.

The 2006 km worksheet says "Unacceptable to Christians: PLASMA" But then it says that clotting factors are "Your personal decision."

*** km 11/06 p. 5 How Do I View Blood Fractions and Medical Procedures Involving My Own Blood? ***
                 There are various
                 proteins that help blood
                 to clot in order to stop            __ I accept
                 bleeding. Some are given         blood-derived
                 to patients who tend to              clotting factors
                 bleed easily. They are                 or
                 also used in medical             __ I refuse
                 glues to seal wounds                blood-derived
                 and to stop bleeding                  clotting factors
                 after surgery. One
                 combination of clotting
                 factors is known as
                 cryoprecipitate.

Among the so-called "minor" fractions listed as acceptable on the chart under plasma are some that are up to 4% of plasma (albumin), up to 3% (immunoglobulins) and clotting factors up to about 1% (cryoprecipitate):

But one was purposely left off the list, even though the HLC has been told to let doctors know, and to let JW patients know it can be accepted if an emergency arises. It wasn't listed because it would have shown that one of the "minor" fractions was 99% of plasma (cryosupernatant).

How would it have looked if the chart had included it? It would have shown that we don't take Plasma, but that we can decide to take a "minor" fraction of 99% plasma, and 1% plasma.

But these aren't just any two "minor fractions." In fact, they are WHOLE PLASMA, where it's simply frozen in such a way that it can be easily split into two parts: 1% cryoprecipate and 99% cryosupernatant. If a patient doesn't respond as anticipated to one of the two choices, the doctor can simply utilize the other one which will have somewhat different properties based on the proportion of included factors. But each contains everything the other contains, only in different proportions. All together, they make up exactly the original 100% of the plasma.

Knowing this, you might think that many JWs will refuse, yet I believe that the available reports on this so far show that over 95% of JWs will and have accepted the 99% plasma solution just as easily as they will accept the 1% plasma solution.

You might also think it's dishonest to leave the 99% plasma solution off the list, if we really accept it as a minor fraction. I see that this is what most JWs believe about it whenever the subject has come up on-line. And that's why most JWs who have defended the KM worksheet don't really believe it's permitted. In fact, 3 or 4 well known JW defenders have all argued at length that it can't really be true that the 99% solution is considered acceptable. Note here, for instance: http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-witness/T8NCFHJ9OQE9B9TIR

But then a site by a respected JW who evidently knew the facts actually included reasons for accepting the 99% percent solution, even though this had never been published outside of direct communications between the HLC and physicians:

http://defendingjehovahswitnesses.blogspot.com/2013/10/blood-fractions-do-jehovahs-witnesses.html

• In the case of some larger fractions such as Cryosupernatant or Cryoprecipitate where the process does not necessarily completely destroy blood and may allow reconstitution other facts such as above are considered. Since God has allowed proteins such as found in Cryo to be transferred from the blood stream of mother to the fetus some individual JWs view this as an indication that Cryo is not included in the prohibition of blood.

I suppose that we couldn't list it openly because it could easily "stumble" someone who wondered why Plasma was a "major fraction" and therefore unacceptable, and yet 99% of Plasma was acceptable as a "minor" fraction. But then I got an answer from a respected source who tells me that this is exactly what we have been telling doctors for many years. Doctors have consistently reported for many years now that JW elders have "allowed" it, that it is now being referred to as a minor fraction, and that patients should rightly be informed. Not only that but Witnesses who have been arguing against it for many years are now embarrassed to note that the jw.org site has also now recently included it here: 

https://www.jw.org/en/medical-library/conditions-blood-transfusion-alternatives/hemaautoPlasmaColloidAlbumCryo/

Treatment of thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura with the cryosupernatant fraction of plasma: a case report and review of the literature.

Ellis J, Theodossiou C, Schwarzenberger P.

Source‎: Am J Med Sci 1999;318(3):190-3.

Indexed‎: PubMed 10487410

10 minutes ago, bruceq said:

None of the photos I have to sell are originals however only reproductions.

I understand. One of them is my great-grandfather. I bought one a few years ago and gave it to my parents, but forgot that I might like to keep one myself. If not I'll make a reproduction of a reproduction.

On 3/3/2017 at 0:30 PM, bruceq said:

One of the very first terrorist grousp was the

Sicarii

(66–73 CE), a Zealot-affiliated religious sect fighting against Roman occupiers in Palestine and Jerusalem (the City of David), Jewish traitors, and Jewish moderates . . .

I've read that a version of a Hebrew-Aramaic plural of Sicarii could be si-cari-ot or ish-cari-ot. (plural of masculine nouns end in -im; plural of feminine nouns end in -ot or -iot). This could indicate that Judas Iscariot was once a sicarii, just as Simon the Zealot (or zealous one) may have once been one of the terrorist "Zealots," their common name in Judea and Galilee.

Even names like "Boanerges" or "Sons of Thunder" could have had roots in prior terrorist activities. A comment in a Google look-up of "boanerges"  referring to James and John the sons of Zebedee in Mark 3:17 says:

from Galilean dialectal corruption of Hebrew bene reghesh "sons of rage" (interpreted in Greek as "sons of thunder")

11 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

14 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I'd say the problem for Brother Smalley was exactly what JTR is showing in the cartoon above 

Thought provoking though the cartoon is, it misleads in that no one takes all of the blood fractions at one time.

I still feel it is pointless and damaging to speculate on Bro Smalley's supposed view.

True. I shouldn't have used the word "exactly." I meant that if I had to guess, knowing about his particular history with the doctrine, that it could well have been the fraction problem that is is ridiculously parodied in JTR's cartoon.

I understand the idea that it could be "pointless and damaging." Yet, if someone we have deemed to be an expert  has evidence that can result in an adjustment to our teaching, then do we lose interest in his expertise because it makes us uncomfortable?

I see why we might argue for that position because of the direction he might have taken. What if our expert on vaccinations for so many years (C J Woodworth) while editing the Golden Age magazine, learned that he had been wrong about vaccinations all those years, but then he learned that no one wanted the new information --until a quarter century later-- because we had become too invested in the earlier anti-vaccination teaching?

A brother once recorded two hour-long interviews with Grace DeCecca about her husband's imprisonment in 1918, and she revealed at least half-a-dozen points that she evidently hadn't told anyone before about her husband Giovanni and others, or at least they never became known very widely. These weren't points that would result in a doctrinal change, of course, but they became of great interest to Brother Wischuck and others who collected that sort of historical information.

Anyway, I can't help but think this could be important, but I admit that I am already disposed to revisiting the doctrine. I also tend to perk up when the subject of correcting errors pops up. But that's also just a bad habit of anyone who has ever been put to work as a researcher or proofreader.

1 hour ago, bruceq said:

Therefore a replication can be altered in the sense that anyone can put whatever they want into it whereas a photocopy of the original would be exactly that without any alteration.

OK. I always hear that apostates make changes to the photocopies, but haven't seen an instance yet.

1 hour ago, bruceq said:

I do not sell or deal with the "apostate" versions of the "Studies in the Scriptures" which you can tell because they were printed not in Brooklyn but East Rutherford , N.J.

Right. The ones that some Bible Student groups continued to publish after they were no longer printed by the Watch Tower. It was the Dawn Bible Students in East Rutherford, I think. I never bothered to see what changes were made during that time, if any, although I know that the Watch Tower magazine published some remarks about the changes the Watch Tower itself made to various editions during the early 1900's up until 1915.

Do you have replicas, or reproductions of the press photographs that each of the speakers at conventions (and other venues) once used in the early 1900's when advertising talks. At some of the early conventions you could purchase these photos of Russell and Van Amburgh and others. I saw a few advertised once, and only purchased the single sheet (also found in a convention report) with a picture of Russell in the middle and smaller photos of other speakers on the same page. I'm interested in a few of the individual photos.

1 hour ago, bruceq said:

They are replicas of Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls that were produced by the Israeli Antiquities Authority who currently own the original Scrolls.

Could you explain exactly how you define the difference between replica and reproduction?

I notice that in your description of a Dead Sea Scroll item you are selling, you include the words:

I offer reproductions of Watchtower archives NOT replicas.  A replica may have changed texts or were replicated to look like the original. A reproduction, however, is an actual copy of the original photo or written script.

I understand that this refers to Watchtower publications and related books, not the DSS item.

Also, have you ever seen a Watchtower publication item for sale, either replica or reproduction, that had text changed? I have seen very sloppy quotes taken from Watchtower publications, but have never seen an altered replica or reproduction. If you have evidence of one, this would be very important to in addressing the common claim that non-JWs and ex-JWs have often altered original material to make the Watch Tower Society look bad.

6 hours ago, Anna said:

What would be interesting though is to find out the reasons for WHY he apparently no longer believes in it. He must have some good arguments right?

I think Melinda is rightly concerned that this does not turn into the kind of discussion that creates doubts that we are not ready to face, and I thought about that before posting in the first place, but made a decision to go ahead based on some of the very scriptural passages Melinda quoted. If I feel up to it, I might explain tonight or tomorrow, if I get a chance.

Hard to imagine him (Gene) diverging from the Society's view in any way. He was one of those who would not have varied from Watchtower doctrine by one iota back when the chronology doctrines were being questioned by many of his department colleagues. My close friends know my own feelings about chronology and the "doubled generation," but on the blood issue, the ones I contacted only knew that I had a couple questions about fractions. (Especially cryosupernatant. Although yesterday I just got the definitive answer to that one without contacting Brother Smalley.)

If I had to offer a best guess, I'd say the problem for Brother Smalley was exactly what JTR is showing in the cartoon above  (posted 3/9/17 9:55am EST). Remember, however, that this info about someone's personal beliefs is second-hand info, somewhere between advice and gossip. Even if true at one time, it might not be true at the moment. People change. But I wouldn't have put his name here if I didn't think this was an extremely serious matter that needs an explanation. Since this is really about life and death, then I think we all deserve more transparency. (Just as I think we need more transparency on the thinking that went into the doubled generation, child abuse procedures, etc.)

But I also have the impression that this now goes well beyond fractions and reaches another level (for Gene): that no one should have ever died unnecessarily over this doctrine. I can see how doubting fractions could lead to the latter view more easily than the latter view leading to the fractions doctrine. However, when I got the final answer to cryosupernatant an entirely new and very plausible explanation of his view just occurred to me. It's a bit complex to explain, however.

The typical reaction after backing Trump for President.

10 minutes ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Another world famous Catholic who suffered doubts ...

Also Pope Pius XIII  (HBO Series)

I think there was more of a bunker mentality throughout many congregations in the twentieth century. The fear was that the Society's and congregation's reputation would suffer, especially if someone admitted to hospital staff that a JW minister beat his wife, in a small town where people knew people personally. Probably a much greater danger of a reputation problem for a person whose name was known to the entire world (Sister Jackson).

On 2/11/2017 at 8:48 PM, The Librarian said:

She twice filed for divorce from the family patriarch Joe Jackson. She was tired of his affairs and filed in 1973, but her Jehovah's Witnesses church persuaded her to drop the divorce. She then tried to divorce him again in 1979 but was again urged to drop it. He went on to have a long-term affair with another woman and had another child with her. While Katherine and Joe remain married, they live in different states.

The current paperwork also stated, "Mrs. Jackson does not want to hurt anyone and has always erred on the side of enduring abuse to save everyone else."

Her lawyers speaking on her behalf say that she "will have moments of strength and tell her kids that Trent is abusing her, and by the time they get Adult Protections Services to the house, he has convinced her by crying or begging not to report him, and the cycle starts all over."

This was my sister's experience. She was always told to err on the side of enduring abuse, even if it meant not going for needed treatment at a hospital - for violent abuse. Her husband, my brother-in-law, remained a ministerial servant after at least half-a-dozen complaints. My sister was disfellowshipped for finally "defying" the elders' recommendations and separating from her husband saying she had no intention of ever trying to patch things up with "mildness and submissiveness"