Anon asks: "Anyone else have experiences where elders did not take action despite knowing prohibited parts of blood were accepted?"
I am privy to a few of these but not many. For obvious reasons the individuals involved do not wish to make this public. There are thoughtful elders out there--and some real thugs, including some traveling overseers.
Also: "Interesting info about twin transfusion. Has Society ever commented on this? Has anyone brought this to their attention?"
This deserves some background that may be helpful to many. It is fairly common knowledge in Bethel circles that one particular individual has been charged with writing about matters pertaining to blood. There are no experts other than this self-professed expert. To be charitable, his track record is rather bad when it comes to documentation and accuracy. Those around him do not possess the skills to recognize this, although a few certainly do and are vaguely or frankly troubled. What can they say or do about it?
Here, frankly, is the pattern: A decision is made about policy, what doctrine will be. THEN an article is written, with quotations that ostensibly buttress, and scriptures that seem to apply. It's a basic flaw in presentation and been there for many years.
(Remember the "nethinim" article that just didn't seem to work? The one on the heart actually thinking?)
An impressive data base of 10,000 journals could be theoretically "reviewed" and some apparently supporting quotations lifted even out of context. Who would know? Who would know Professor Gorman's quotation in the 10/15/00 Watchtower grossly distorts the whole import of his book? They got it correct between the quotation marks, and that's all the lawyers care about. And with Pliny, and Tertullian, and ...... Once it is in print it's truth. I can attest to the comment made about Knorr saying, "Once it's left the sixth floor, it's truth." The old press room.
One who seems to question anything will be pointed to what is already published as a product of a holy spirit guided faithful slave, and thus not to be questioned. That's the dilemma. Admittedly imperfect men, yet on pain of enforced shunning to be viewed as perfect/adequate/God's spokesmen.
If you write "the Society," you will be answered by a department called Writing Correspondence, as others on this board have pointed out. Few letters ever get past this point. One may wait months for a veritable boiler plate response.
So this teeny troublesome question that shows inconsistency would be brushed off as a nuisance. Even if your presentation cannot be refuted, you will be told to "wait upon Jehovah" like Micah, don't run ahead, He will correct matters in his good time. That's the watchword, together with: "No matter what facts you present, or what you say, this is still God's organization and he's using it."
This works for only so long. This brief comment should answer CPiolo's question about me personally. I cherish friendships within the organization but my personal integrity ultimately comes first, and a clean conscience before my God. (CP, thank you so much for the kindness in supplying a certain need.)
Hope this helps, anon. You are such a good person; you represent so very, very many who write me. Not only should the Society be concerned about the organizational Brain Drain; they should really worry about the Heart Drain.
Maximus
.
