JW Insider

It seems like everyone who studies this subject in any depth, realizes the same thing. And the Watch Tower publications have said pretty much the same thing on many occasions. For example: So, seriously, does this mean the Watch Tower publications were being dishonest, or just sloppy when they said the following in 1995? *** w95 5/15 p. 20 par. 20 Part 1—Flashes of Light—Great and Small *** 20 The book Riches, published by the Society in 1936, made clear that Jesus Christ was executed, not on a cross, but on an upright pole, or stake. Or this in 2008: Or this in 1975: *** yb75 pp. 148-149 Part 2—United States of America *** A few years later Jehovah’s people first learned that Jesus Christ did not die on a T-shaped cross. On January 31, 1936, Brother Rutherford released to the Brooklyn Bethel family the new book Riches. Scripturally, it said, in part, on page 27: “Jesus was crucified, not on a cross of wood, such as is exhibited in many images and pictures, and which images are made and exhibited by men; Jesus was crucified by nailing his body to a tree.” 1992 *** w92 11/15 p. 7 The Cross—Symbol of Christianity? *** The Bible shows that Jesus was not executed on a conventional cross at all but, rather, on a simple stake, or stau·rosʹ. Or this is 1972: *** w72 9/15 p. 572 Christendom—Fighter Against God *** Tammuz was represented by the first letter of his name, which is an ancient tau, a cross. The “sign of the cross” was the religious symbol of Tammuz. . . . The cross, on which Christendom’s religions claim Christ was put to death (though it was actually a stake), is considered the foremost symbol of Christianity. On the issue of whether "Tammuz was represented by the first letter of his name, which is an ancient tau" [Greek letter] we have this interesting piece of evidence for why the same could not be true of Jesus: *** g76 11/22 pp. 27-28 Does Christianity Have a Visible Symbol? *** The writer of this apocryphal work claims that IH represents the first two letters of “Jesus” in Greek. The T is viewed as the shape of Jesus’ death stake. Concerning this passage, M’Clintock and Strong’s Cyclopædia states: “The writer evidently was unacquainted with the Hebrew Scriptures, and has [also] committed the blunder of supposing that Abraham was familiar with the Greek alphabet some centuries before it existed.” I find it amazing that a researcher could notice this in 1976, yet not think to correct the Watchtower from just a couple years earlier in 1972. The same article says: *** g76 11/22 p. 27 Does Christianity Have a Visible Symbol? *** But do not writers early in the Common Era claim that Jesus died on a cross? For example, Justin Martyr (114-167 C.E.) described in this way what he believed to be the type of stake upon which Jesus died: “For the one beam is placed upright, from which the highest extremity is raised up into a horn, when the other beam is fitted on to it, and the ends appear on both sides as horns joined on to the one horn.” This indicates that Justin himself believed that Jesus died on a cross. This means that Watch Tower researchers already knew in 1976 that some Christians might have thought that Jesus had died on a two-beamed cross, long before the 4th century.

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

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

The following contains opinion, of course: I know this might sound cynical because it echoes the 'follow the money' line of thinking. But unfortunately, this was the reason that all branches moved as much of their money as possible to New York, and moved toward trustee arrangements for property ownership. (My guess is that this arrangement will also come into play when redress is defined.) The next step to reach the same goal is to cut the legal ties between the HQ and the branches and even the branches and the congregations. In spite of the need to call up a centralized legal department for serious cases, the legal arguments in court tend to push liability as far away from branches and HQ as possible. I was told that some court arguments by WTS lawyers have treated the WTS as just a service that "congregations and their circuit overseers" subscribe to. A place from which to order publications, training and distribution materials. Therefore, it will always be necessary to keep GB members (or anyone from "HQ") away from these types of court proceedings at all costs. Even if it looks like the local legal teams are being left to hang out to dry, or be "thrown under the bus" that's much safer than allowing some court to tie liability directly to the WTS HQ. The Vatican is able to do this, too, which is why you hear of local diocese having to sell buildings to pay redress for victims, rather than money coming from central Vatican coffers. You might have noticed in the hearing that the WT in Australia changed their legal team since the previous hearing. That's partly because there was a shakeup of the local WT legal team. I've heard that the same thing happened in UK and Canada. Although that might sound cynical, the brothers at HQ are also doing their best to protect the assets of the organization so that they may be put to the kind of use that fits both the expectations of the brotherhood and the corporate charter. It's fiduciary responsibility.

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

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

@Jay Witness This is not a report of thousands of sexual assaults related in any way to Switzerland. It is the report about the thousands of assaults in Australia that the ARC studied. The article does say that Switzerland has dealt "extensively" with the problem of abuse among JWs, but no numbers were given. Translation of a portion from Google: From 1950 to 2014 presumably 1006 believers of the Jehovah's Witnesses sexually abused 1,800 children, according to the report. The Commission relies on internal records and documents which the Commission has confiscated. Neither the leadership bodies nor the parents of the victims reported the attacks to the authorities. The members of the family usually do not dare to take legal action against the will of the management board. It can be assumed that the dark figure is significant, because the leaders have destroyed many documents about the sexual abuse of minors. Furthermore, it is feared that many attacks have not been reported. The Commission also intends to carry out further investigations. It has the competence of courts in the investigations, but can not make judgments. It reported more than 700 cases to the authorities. Perpetrators were promoted Of the approximately 1,000 suspected perpetrators, 579 had sexual assaults. A total of 28 of them were promoted, although they were suspected of having minted minors. 410 were initially excluded, but 230 of them were later reintroduced into the Community. The Royal Commission accuses the large, world-wide Christian faith community of hiding sexual abuses, not reporting to the authorities, and also not working internally.

Unfortunately, one of those links to fake news is the article by Jon Barron at https://jonbarron.org/article/blood-transfusions-may-have-killed-millions It supposedly works off one of the Duke studies, and then extrapolates that millions may have died, when in fact, the Duke study said no such thing. Additionally, it turned out that this particular Duke study was not confirmed by further studies.. JWs started popularizing this link in 2011 and 2012 just before the letter came out. It's also included in a list of links @Kurt included here: As Witnesses, even elders are anxious to believe such information, because it kind of fits the hype that we wish was true about blood transfusion, but then the HLC, and the WTS gets laughed at over the misuse of information, which is off by a few orders of magnitude.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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%.

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

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

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

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.

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. 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. 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). 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.

Thanks. I catch your drift. Christian love back at you, too. Thanks.

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. 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

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.