Anna

And there you have it. In a nutshell.

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
 
 

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".
 

Cryosupernatant plasma is not, never has been, and will never be viewed as a "cure all" by anyone in the medical field. Because it's not. There is a very good reason why the product is not used as a simple volume expander; there are much safer alternatives than a product rendered from blood.
A primary use of cryosupernantant plasma is for plasma exchange therapy for patients suffering Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia Purpura (TTP).
In trauma cases with massive blood loss volume is important, but oxygen delivery is the primary thing. (Having efficient volume allows oxygen transport to tissue, but you must have sufficient red cells to transport enough oxygen to maintain tissue viability and function) Without sufficient oxygen tissue dies, and at some point that failure becomes an irreversible cascading event leading to death.

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".
 

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
 
 

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".
 

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

Dying is still the leading cause of death. From the day a person's born, the most any medical doctor can do is help prolong the individual's life and quality of life.
When life is lost over something concocted, called "a religious position," maintained despite solid refutation, and then it's double-downed on by threat of being cut off from family and life-long friends should you honestly opt to do the right thing, then morphs through multiple iterations, then conceals critical options (e.g., cryosupernatant plasma for plasma exchange therapy!), it goes through underpinnings like changing socks, then something's wrong.
Yes, I'm completely aware probably the majority of HLC members (if not every single one of them!) are relieved when treatment of young children is left for competent doctors to decide the best treatment options without interference by family during emergencies.
In the post Bethany Hughes medical system we find institutions like SickKids In Toronto, Canada who, with full support of the society, have developed a special letter of understanding available to parents with minor children in the medical system.
This is a document that is signed by treating doctors and the child's parents and is "TO BE PLACED IN THE FRONT OF THE CHART". (Upper case in original document) The primary language reads:
"In an emergency, where your child is apparently experiencing severe suffering or is at risk, if the treatment is not administered promptly, of sustaining serious bodily harm, medical staff will provide treatment that is allowed by the law, which may include blood transfusion."
This document was put together just for JWs, and it was drafted with full support from the society's hospital information services department. When JW parents have minor children in other hospitals HLC members have initiated inquiries as to whether the institution has such a letter of understanding, and if they do not would they consider using one.
Now why would such an initiative be made if not for 1) wanting the child to live and 2) keeping the matter out of the courts and hence under the radar of publicity? What does the initiative to create and then execute such a document say about how devoted the society is to its religious position?

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....

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....

Sam: "Yeah, that's right! I don't care! I'm not trying to solve puzzles here!"
Dr K: "Well, I am. And I just found a big piece!" Despite denials, he presents to me as a man on a mission.
 Nah. Overstated. If you cave on the issue or decide you can't conscientiously go along with it, you sit in the penalty box for a while until they let you out to resume the game. You do this even if you are firmly convinced the ref made a bad call.  As long as you don't cuss the ref out publicly or visibly offer him eyeglasses, he will let you back in.
"Ouch!! I'm not so sure about that call!" says Sportscaster Paul from the broadcast booth. They're sending Many Miles to the penalty box!! Oh, wow! It won't go well even with his temporary absence--he is one heckuva player, but--gasp! What's this? Many Miles is not heading to the box! He took off his skates, broke his stick, threw them at the ref, and is heading home! 'It is altogether a defeat that he has done this!'"
We overestimate our importance. If it wasn't them providing headship, it would be someone else who would also reveal human foibles. Get in that penalty box with Pudgy; he's there every time you turn around. He even puts himself there before the ref calls a penalty, and thus reminds me of my own daughter long ago, who responded to my wife's scolding  by putting herself in the corner unbidden.
 
That may be the greatest understatement of all time.

Hmmm....I doubt that very much. Sounds more like the problem was what you cited in the Elders book. i.e. deliberately spreading teachings contrary to what  JWs teach.  

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.

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

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

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

I’ll say it….he would come under the mosaic Law and when Christ died faithful…..he would then become under Christs Law….and as Christ instructed Peter to put away his sword thus he would say to Cornelius….thus he would be just like you and me…completely neutral..and looking for another job.
 I find it so frustrating when something is so simple…seems so complex to such seemingly highly intelligent people…I’m coming to the conclusion that I must be more of the mind of Einstein that I ever realized.

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 🤪

That's fine. From here on I'll let readers alert me if anything you present deserves my attention. So far all you've done is spew blather in the face of simple questions a child should be able to answer. Why you do this (and the same is true of us all) is for readers to decide as they will, and that's how it should be.
Should want to me to re-engage discussion with you then it's as easy as you answering the two simple questions asked here:
Until then, goodbye.

So many topics in this thread (and so many threads in this topic). 
I'd like to tackle just this one piece of your otherwise logical argument. I think you are giving way too much attention to an English translation of this verse rather than the more probable intent of it. But I also think people often give way too much attention to the original meanings of Greek and Hebrew words because it's usually done to support an interpretation based on the least likely possible meanings of the word from its context.
Anyway, I said all that to say that the Bible NEVER says EVERY SORT of food eaten. And even if it had, it need not be interpreted to include food that died accidentally or "of itself." If we needed to focus on the words "every sort" we'd probably have to include, every kind, every species, every cooking method, every uncooked method, salted, unsalted, washed, unwashed, deboned, un-deboned, descaled, scaled, bloody, un-bled. The list would be endless. 
But we don't need that because the Hebrew just says [of] EVERY FOOD not "all KINDS of food" or "all SORTS of food."
And I don't think we should make too much of the word "ALL" here. The Hebrew word is "kol," pronounced "coal" and just means ALL or EVERYTHING. 
-------This next part is interesting to me, but TLDR; -----------
I took several semesters of Hebrew in school, but that doesn't make me an expert. What it did do is help me appreciate that Biblical Hebrew is not usually written in the way people naturally speak. At times, it's too simple --resulting in either understatements or exaggerations-- and we therefore MUST read into it what is only implied.  And at other times, especially Genesis, for example, it's more repetitive than it needs to be, and translations usually ignore this because, for example, our English-hearing ears are not trained to listen like that. The Hebrew is often (unnecessarily) alliterative and poetic even in historical accounts. 
There is a Hebrew professor/archaeologist named Dr. James Tabor who actually has tried to make an English translation that imitates the alliterative and poetic "sound" and "rhythm" of Hebrew through some of these parts.
If you look up Genesis 6:21 with the above in mind, you might even get the impression that the word ALL is actually not really literal but just a poetic way to make a statement with repetition, rhythm, and alliteration. Notice here: https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/gen/6/21/t_conc_6021
 וְאַתָּה קַח־לְךָ מִכָּל־מַֽאֲכָל אֲשֶׁר יֵֽאָכֵל
v-atah kaht-l-khah m-kol maakhal asher y-ah-khel
There are other ways to say the same thing wthout all the variations of kaht, khah, kol, khal, khel in the same short phrase. So I don't think ALL foods is necessarily literal.
 
 

Funny how opinions work: Based on available eidence it would have been just as easy to reword your statement above as follows and possibly be just as accurate:
It is important to highlight that Mrs. Russell harbored NO ulterior motives and was not consistently honest in certain occasions [where some might say she was dishonest]. It is HARDLY possible that she was deceived by E.C. Hennings, a hypocrite person who was fully loyal to Russell such that Russell entrusted him with the Watch Tower's work on the entire continent of Australia, and who only later began to disagree with Pastor Russell on various matters. [And those matters were primarily matters in which ALL Jehovah's Witnesses have now come to also disagree with Russell.] Something we don't need to use Sultz's book to address.
I won't repeat the defense that Russell printed for himself in the Watch Tower. It has been rather thoroughly debunked. Also, the Watchtower is currently more in line with Mrs. Russell's writings on some subjects than Mr. Russell's. And the Watchtower is currently more in line with Henninges views on the New Covenant and rejects Russell's view (that only natural Jews are in the New Covenant).
 
But you did say this:
Turns out that she wasn't a child at all during the time that Mrs Russell spoke. She was a grown woman of legal age. She was the VICE PRESIDENT OF THE WATCH TOWER SOCIETY. Russell tried to paint her as 'a little child in a short skirts/dresses sitting on his lap' to make himself appear more innocent, as if she was just a young girl jumping on papa's lap, not because anyone would have been thinking about child molestation. Otherwise Russell wouldn't have voluntarily mentioned her short skirts.
Or one could say that when an egotistical and vindictive man tries to take everything away from a woman, including her means of support, and her reputation, and her place to live, she has little choice but to take him to court.

Exactly! it was no more relevant than when you asked who the first president of the Watch Tower Society was when no one else had brought that up. If anyone else wants to know, they can read a little more about him in the refereces cited in this Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Henry_Conley
He gave a lot of money to charities and missionary societies. Started a missionary home in Jerusalem. But his support for another Bible-study publication outside the Watchotwer apparently triggered Russell to speak out against that publication, and to tell Watch Tower readers not to buy it. And Conley was not mentioned again. Not even a notice of his death or funeral, which is something the Watchtower did for several other early supporters of the Watch Tower.
It's a simple matter to see that your information is false. I believe I have all the available court papers and commentaries about the case from neutral sources, opposing sources and supporting sources. She was in Australia when the judge made a ruling, and it wasn't about her statement. You might be thinking about the ruling over whether it was permissable for Mrs. Russell to bring up adultery and/or sexual misconduct in open court or not.
We can sometimes find out if something has any significance to anyone by seeing whether anyone gets upset by such information. I'm not saying that you would get upset, but some people do, and that MIGHT mean that they are giving too much importance to the reputation of a man. Then it could become a scriptural matter:
Galatians 2:6  But regarding those who seemed to be important+—whatever they were makes no difference to me, for God does not go by a man’s outward appearance—those highly regarded men imparted nothing new to me.
There is a lot of Russell "worship" still going on among some today. Not so much Witnesses, but among some Bible Student groups who follow his writings.
Then you and I agree totally on that point.

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
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.

Well, I could say that:
1. it is possible to be very (highly) educated, very rich and at the same time be a good Christian
2. it is possible to make a good deal and see a business opportunity as the president of a publishing company that deals with religious topics