Anna

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

My mum and I were trying to imagine some GB members with a beard, and we decided, nah, brother Lett wouldn't suit one, and here, this proved us wrong, it actually really suits him! 

This is what happens when a thread gets worn out. Everyone starts mucking about, with no more meaningful contributions to add. It's a sign.

Tacos anyone?

Going back on topic, (of a post that hasn't been on topic, lol) in reading everyone's comments I see the reasoning behind both the against and the for blood. Personally I can see why someone would abstain (which means both eating and transfusing). My main issue is that the organization says this is a conscience matter, whereas in practice this is not true. It is the societies conscience we are told to obey. We were always taught to tell the doctors that our conscience will not allow us to break God's law on blood. But what if someone's conscience did allow them, for whatever reason? This is why I think the blood issue (whole blood) should be something between them and Jehovah only. (Someone said well then we could say the same about fornication. Well, if no one in the congregation finds out about it, then it will still be between them and Jehovah, and they will have to answer to Jehovah for it in the end.

In line with this, I have noticed that elders on the HLC no longer "interfere" or are privy to a person's medical decision. In the USA hippa laws are strict, and absolutely no one should be able to find out if someone has had a blood transfusion, even relatives. So if someone does get a blood transfusion, it remains between them and Jehovah.

I think Tom's handling of the situation with the young brother in hospital was very good. No elder should be persuading another person to follow his (the elder's) conscience, or anybody else's conscience for that matter. The conscience is each person's their own. (This is why the conscientious objection to alternative service was a farce because the brothers who objected, for the most part, didn't know why they were objecting, they were just following the societies conscience). 

The stance now is we do not fight the Superior Authorities when it comes to transfusing children. Which makes me wonder where the principle "obey God as ruler rather than men" went to? Did we decide this because we do not want to make a spectacle of ourselves, fighting court battles and making it look like JW parents want their children to die? Don't get me wrong, I am glad about it, but where in truth does it leave  "obey God as ruler rather than man?" It seems like the organization has compromised... or not? Same with the fractions becoming  a conscience matter. I get why this was so, they "didn't want to get "dogmatic" (a phrase we will probably be hearing a lot more). But how much of this was also for practical reasons? The guidance about blood fractions itself says that people should realize that many vaccines (which members of Bethel used) and other therapeutic medicines contains blood fractions. So the person who says no to blood fractions should realize this, and then make an informed decision. I wonder if the covid vaccines had been based on blood fractions, or contained blood fractions, how would the organization have handled that? Probably they wouldn't have been able to "push" it like they did, and would have just had to say it's each person's decision, based on their own conscience. 

For me, when it comes to the question of blood, we don't want to be putting our life at risk just for man made rules. We have to be sure it is Jehovah's law, and by the looks of it this camp is split into two. Some say yes and some say no. 
I feel like we should apply Occam's razor and go with the simplest and clearest explanation. 

It's all giving me a headache...
 

2 hours ago, Pudgy said:

I developed this understanding when I started integrating information from all sources, and STOPPED ignoring hard evidence.

It explains who Cain was afraid of and why they would want to kill him on sight, even if he wandered a thousand miles away.

It even explains who Cain “married” in exile.

It even explains the Aborigines in Australia, whose culture is 60,000 years old.

Genesis 4 even explains how God considered the blood and lives of his direct created “Homo Theocraticus”  in Eden his personal property as a special possession.

Learn all you can about “Punctuated Evolution”, then substitute the term “Punctuated Creation”

Then TEST your conclusions against the Bible. They should be consistent.

It’s like the Genesis account of Creation. It makes no sense from a Space based reference point, but from an observer standing on the Earth, it does.

(  … assuming you already understand the last 4 billion or so years of Earth’s geological and atmospheric development …)

 

 

You mean Jehovah created sub humans like he created dinosaurs? 

9 hours ago, Thinking said:

The stand on blood comes from the mosaic law.

I think that was his point, that we are no longer under the mosaic law.

5 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

He has developed a feud with one of the Google heads (Page or Brin, I forget which), who has accused him of being a ‘specist.’

Is that for real?

It seems that Cryosupernatant Plasma is not a "cure all".

In the document bellow it mentions it is not to be used as volume replacement, one of the biggest reasons for blood transfusions, especially during traumatic blood loss. 

wf-lab-apl-form-cryosupernatant-plasma.pdf

And this bit is also quite scary:

https://www.rdm.ox.ac.uk/publications/190785

12 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

then there is accounting to be held for the teacher

Yes. No doubt about that.

"Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, knowing that we will receive heavier judgment."

"But the one who did not understand and yet did things deserving of strokes will be beaten with few. Indeed, everyone to whom much was given, much will be demanded of him, and the one who was put in charge of much will have more than usual demanded of him".

6 minutes ago, Pudgy said:

 a child who dies for sake of rightousness … trying to respect and obey God and Christ … even if wrong … will not be resurrected to eternal life?

BOTH ABRAHAM AND ISAAC SET THE EXAMPLE.

And there you have it. In a nutshell.

8 hours ago, Many Miles said:

Have you ever helped a mother and father deal with the death of a small child who died because they refused a recommended medical remedy

I am sorry you had to go through this. 

I think this must have been some time ago, and perhaps not in the US? If I'm not mistaken, with small children, and children under the age of consent, the decission about blood is taken out of the parents hands by the court, and the HLC elders will not encourage the parents to fight it but to go along with it. I was told this by a HLC elder.

With regard to children who are of the age of consent the doctors will leave the decission to them. 

Just a couple of years ago we had a young woman (she was just a few months shy of 18) in our congregation admitted to hospital with severe anemia. The doctors strongly recommend a transfusion as her numbers were dangerously low. Her father, an inactive Witness for some time, urged her to get a transfusion, but she stood her ground and refused. The doctors reluctantly cooperated with her because she was almost 18 and deemed it a waste of time to drag it through the court. Thankfully the doctors were able to bring her blood count back to normal. Today she is a healthy and happily married woman. All ended well. I think a lot of it had to do with the fad of not eating enough protein. All these young girls jump on the vegan bandwagon and the parents are not aware of just how dangerous it can be.

Of course this was a less serious case in that it was self induced anemia and not something caused by a disease. 

I do get TTH reasoning regarding the choice of treatment. Doctors cannot promise a cure, only perhaps a prolongment of life. Parents are usually given choices and of course recommendations. It is a very very difficult situation and I do not envy any parent who has to go through this. In a way I am glad the choice about blood has been taken out of the patents hands and who knows, maybe the elders on the HLC feel the same way. Certainly the elder I spoke with didn't seem to be upset by the fact....

44 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

he had given so much money (millions?

I am assuming by millions you mean any amount, even a small amount, but one he could not really afford.  When reading his website, not sure if it's still up, it looked more like he was a wannabe enterpreneur and a strange and unrealistic one at that. It all smacked of someone that had mental problems. On the website he promised he could make potential clients millions (or something like that). I know you also read the same thing. I have not heard that he gave lots of money to the organization, what source is that from? 

15 hours ago, Many Miles said:

Here: 

 

How to survive Armageddon. (Just kidding). 

On 11/13/2023 at 10:26 AM, JW Insider said:

When the Noahide Laws were clarified and expanded from what we currently see in the Genesis account, the rabbis specifically forbade eating a limb or part of an animal while it was alive and kicking

Is that something that was actually a thing back then, people eating bits off live animals? Is that why they had to expressly forbid it? Or were they just expanding on the law in a Phariseical way?

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I read the book.

Thanks. I was thinking more of the blog. But now I don't need to search for it in the book.

11 hours ago, Anna said:

I have his book 'A Separate Identity: Organizational Identity Among Readers of Zion’s Watch Tower: 1870-1887'

It seems to cover the right time period.  I will see if I can find something.

I realized the book has no appendix where I could search for Rose Ball. I don't have time to search the whole book, but I found quite a lot of information on Schulz's blog:

https://truthhistory.blogspot.com/search?q=rose+ball

13 hours ago, Many Miles said:

I don't think he's ever seen pages of the early minutes of the society's board of directors

Not sure if it mentions the minutes, as I haven't read through everything, but I do know that Schulz won't put pen to paper unless he has written evidence for what he says. But these articles were written mostly by Jerome, not Schulz himself.

1 hour ago, Many Miles said:

Him and his fellows have done some really good research into Russell and the early days of Zion's Watch Tower. I don't think he's ever seen pages of the early minutes of the society's board of directors. If he has, I'd love to read what he had to say. He might have more than I've seen. I don't know.

I have his book 'A Separate Identity: Organizational Identity Among Readers of Zion’s Watch Tower: 1870-1887'

It seems to cover the right time period.  I will see if I can find something.

6 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

I bothered to go look it up. In 1893 Charles Russell was president, Rose Ball was vice president, Maria Russell was sec treas. My guess is you won't find that piece of history just laying around.

I wonder if B.W. Schulz mentions this. He is a big Russell historian. I will have to check it out...

5 hours ago, Many Miles said:

Proposition 5: When God told Noah "Only flesh with its soul—its blood—YOU must not eat" either God said those words of living animals that Noah had just been told he could use as food, or not. Proposition 5:  Did God say those words of living animals Noah had just been told he could use as food, or not. If yes, why. If no, why?

My answer to proposition 5: Yes. Because regarding biological tissue, the entire text of this address of God to Noah speaks of and only of things soulical.

Same answers as you except for the last one.

I do not think God meant for Noah to eat animals while they were still alive and kicking. He had to kill them first, and then drain the blood out so he would not be eating flesh with blood.

8 hours ago, JW Insider said:

this same circuit on transparent plexiglass so that students could look at all the wires and switch and bulb from underneath and from all sides. It’s not as impressive on a wooden board

So I am assuming there were no wires running underneath that when the switch was raised closed the circuit...? and the top wires were made of non conducting material just to throw you off? I suppose not. I am completely  confused and puzzled 🤪

And this is why we have the closed club, so we don't have to put up with many Allen Smiths with many problems, and his buddy George. Oh why, oh why, did I even start commenting here I ask myself.

1 hour ago, Many Problems said:

This information is quite valuable, especially if you find yourself trapped in a blazing high-rise building on the 13th floor. lol!

What's that got to do with jumping off a cliff?

28 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

there is a limit to any obedience or loyalty we may owe any human or group of humans, regardless of whatever authority they might hold.

Yeah. If someone, no matter their lofty status, asks me to jump off a cliff, I ain't doing it!

32 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

Nothing like saying it like you mean it!

 

I know.....

21 minutes ago, George88 said:

The Watchtower disseminates magazines, books, and other resources with the aim of enlightening the general public. It is ultimately upon each person to determine whether they accept the teachings of God based on those materials

Unless  some of these materials are speculative, dogmatic, or going beyond what is written. 

"Make sure of all things, hold fast to what is fine"

"But let God be found true even if every man be found a liar"