Khufu (Philippe), Fred Rusk & Blood Issues

by Seeker4 5 Replies latest jw experiences

  • Seeker4
    Seeker4

    By now, many here have read Khufu's posts on his study of how blood is understood in the Bible, and how he came to understand how that contrasts with the JW teachings on blood. He would eventually bring this research to the attention of Fred Rusk.

    The truth of this story resonates with me. I first met Fred Rusk in the mid-1980s when we traveled together to an international assembly in Peru. We became friends, and the Rusk's vacationed at my home in Vermont a few times, and we visited them at Bethel as well.

    Fred Rusk was for many years the man who answered questions that were phoned or mailed to Bethel. He was eventually moved into the department that handled issues dealing with blood transfusions, and was likely responsible for the changing view toward cell savers, blood fractions and the like.

    Fred seemed always a humble and thoughtful man, but definitely a company man. He talked with me about Ray Franz and the big apostasy of the early 80s, where he had served on the investigating committee that questioned the Bethelites. One might insert "Witch Hunt" there. I remember that in South America he met with all the various Gilead grads there to make sure Dunlap and Franz hadn't gotten to them during their tenure at Bethel! I remember how he also gave me a detailed explanation on how some information was the backing piece of evidence for the Soceity's 607 BC date, though I can't now remember what he told me.

    Fred was obviously a real company man, though knowing all these debatable points and weaknesses in the Society's teachings, he has continued to defend them. He's traveled the world over to defend the Society's blood position, and worked with some of the largest insurance providers to get them to work with the JW transfusion position.

    My last conversation with Fred was about three years ago. He called one evening, and we started a friendly conversation. He asked how we were doing (as in, "in the truth") and I told him that I was no longer a Witness, though my wife was. I explained to him that the 1914 Generation change was the last straw, and I had completely lost faith in the organization and had simply left it. The rest of the conversation was brief and cordial. I would find out later that he had immediately called my former congregation's PO.

    Anyway, nothing revolutionary, just some thoughts on the issue. I do remember that Fred had the disconcerting grooming habit typical of many of the older men at Bethel of not trimming his eyebrows, making them look like some 19th Century Victorian military man. I think the Bethelites jokingly referred to them as Eagle-brows, or some similar disparaging term. I remember one sister remarking, "Don't these guys have wives? Can't they tell them how ugly that looks?" The Andy Rooney School of Fashion and Grooming!

    S4

  • Khufu
    Khufu

    Thanks Seeker4!

    No wonder Fred Rusk was so nervous during our meeting. Ray Richardson remained calm, but I sensed he was troubled at the moment he got my point.

    At some point Fred Rusk said something that was in line with my arguments, I can't remember exactly what it was. I jumped on it, but he immediately backed off.

    btw, I read your post on witnesses calling at your house. Very funny.

    Philippe

  • Frog
    Frog

    thanks Seeker for the extra interesting background continuing on from Philippes post :)...it's always fascinating to hear how members of the WT school of protectionism respond when presented with logical arguments that they cannot rationally defend! thanks again, sis frog, x

  • Marvin Shilmer
    Marvin Shilmer

    Hello, Seeker4

    Rusky sold his soul to the WTS a long, long time ago.

    Last time the subject of blood came up between us in conversation it was apparent nothing had changed with the man. His practice is to ignore what you actual say and respond as though you said something else entirely. The man is a coward. He worships the WTS. He ceased his loyalty to what is true, if he ever had it to any degree. His life is reduced to earnestly searching for and using anything that remotely supports current WTS teaching. Any evidence to the contrary let it be damned, is his feeling.

    Any educated person who thinks the WTS is honest with Jehovah’s Witnesses when it comes to its blood doctrine need only discuss the subject with Rusk. No doubt will be left in their mind that the WTS is dishonest to the bone on the whole topic. Rusky’s approach to insurance carriers is one thing and one thing only: your best risk for managing claims to premiums is to go along with Jehovah’s Witnesses who prefer our doctrine. Of course this has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the doctrine is sound, or whether it promotes the best medical outcome in individual cases. His approach with doctors is likewise on a narrow front: ethically you should honor wishes of adult patients, and when it comes to minors our policy allows guardians to permit treatment despite lack of guarantees that blood transfusions will not be given. Again the man makes no effort to prove true the WTS’ doctrine in the face of critical questions.

    Listening to the man give a public lecture leaves impressions of a meek humble learner. Listening to the man respond to pointed questions about the WTS’ blood doctrine betrays the man as a inbred WTS zealot who has no interest in learning and every interest in worshiping the WTS.

    Marvin Shilmer

  • Terry
  • greendawn
    greendawn

    For anyone to hold a senior position he has to be a loyal company man, known and trusted by the inner circle, that's why things will never change and those objecting to the FDS will be always marginalised or expelled even the "anointed".

    Even if they are better enlightened Christians and more sound personality wise and morally superior they will get nowhere because they are not company men.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit