Tehachapi News

Reply to Sparks' questions (not intended as an argument, merely a reply):

Folks, I am not a christian and I don't belong to any religion. I have been following WT for couple of months to know what is really going on in that org.

I went through the following verses in search of the place where god prohibits humans from blood transfusion. I looked up these verses in their bible called " New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures".

Leviticus 17:10, 11
Leviticus 3:17
Leviticus 17:13, 14
Leviticus 11:4-8, 13; 17:15;
Deuteronomy 23:12, 13
Deuteronomy 12:23-25; 15:23;
Leviticus 7:26, 27;
Ezekiel 33:25
1 Samuel 14:31-35
Genesis 9:3-6
Isaiah 48:17
Acts 15:22-29
Acts 21:25
Acts 15:29

In no where it was mentioned that blood should not be transfused.It all says that blood is vital, precious and should not be eaten. Its one of the interpretations that happened in 16th century that they termed transfusion being similar to taking blood orally. But if you see, drinking blood goes into digestive system and it is proven that our digestive system will kill most of the components of blood and take the nutrients and send it to blood. On the other hand, if you pass blood into veins, it is reaching circulatory system which goes UNALTERED. So there is a significant difference between eating / drinking blood and taking it through veins.Also if we drink blood there is a chance that we end up taking in hormones and enzymes which can affect our body. So it is logical not to drink blood but the argument of considering drinking as transfusion is baseless. Any JWs reading this please let me know.

Some of the components from blood are solely left to one's personal choice. Why so? If the person chooses the transfusion and survives, what will happen to him. To my knowledge he will be ousted from org. So watchtower is not giving choice to their followers but they are giving a choice like thing to satisfy governments, so that they don't ban them. Any JWs reading this please explain.

WTs articles say that blood transfusion kills hundreds of people. Think about the number of people that were saved by blood transfusions. It will be in ten thousands.

Bible does not give human the right to kill himself (think of Juda's case). But if JW stops the doctor from giving blood to him/her (assume that is the ONLY option available), is he/she not trying to kill themselves, which is a suicide and prohibited according to bible.(Exodus 20:13)?
Is this WT concept condradicting what bible says ? Why are they interpreting things incorrectly.Any JWs reading this please explain.

As per WT/Bible, Jehovah does not have a figure and cannot be drawn or painted or sculptured. But how organizational publishings have the pictures of an old man which leads to be believed as Jehovah. Why is that so? Any JWs reading this please explain.

In the magazines and other publications from WT, they have the views of organization rather than bible. There is no need to interpret bible, as bible itself says that there is no need for no one or no additional material to know it. So the role of organization and its publishings are merely enforcing and preaching their words under the cover of god's name. Is it not wrong?
JWs please explain.

Watchtower has been foretelling that world is about to end and 1914 prophecy and so on.
I searched entire watchtower website for biblical proof for these things, but there is none. What is the basis for this?  Some of the earlier publications say that these words are Jehovah's and slaves in Bethel get them through Jeh's holy spirit and write it out.If they are foretelling, then it is not against bible?

There are so many discrepancies that exist with JW and WT. Every religion in this world should have started as a cult with few people following it and growing it.Hundreds and thousands of cults were started in the history of humanity but look at how many have grown into full fledged religion or sect of a religion. As time proceeds, most of these cults will fade away due to their out dated policies (classical example is the WT's policy on blood transfusion) or obsolete practices which the followers will dislike and start loosing their faith. But if the cult is dangerous to society due to their preachings, philosophies and practices, we need to critically evaluate them and take a firm stand against them, which would include ban if not more. By taking an affirmitive action, we are not intruding in the religious freedom of its followers, but we are freeing them from the clutches of their cults!

Thanks,
Kris

If you can't spell or use proper grammar, then you should be banned from posting.

Why do you remove coments that you can not give a reasonable ancer to Danny.  You are souch a coward and very hateful, and I expect this to  be removed like my last post.

Surviver

WHY THE WATCHTOWER SOCIETY BLOOD POLICY IS WRONG: *** A blood *transfusion* is not the same as eating or drinking blood as has been illustrated with the: "If a doctor told you to abstain from alcohol, but instead of drinking it, you transfused it into your veins..." illustration that the society often uses. If a person was starving to death and was given multiple blood transfusions instead of food, he would still die. A transfusion of blood replaces the volume of blood lost (much like replacing an organ) which is needed to sustain life, nothing more. No nourishment is gained by a blood transfusion, as would be the case when eating or drinking the blood, which is forbidden. This illustration often used by the society does apply with alcohol and other digestible foods, but not for blood. It simply stays in your system indefinitely. *** The scriptures in both the Hebrew and Greek sections of the bible, which say: "blood must be drained out" and to, "abstain from... blood" were always referring directly to the eating or drinking of animal blood. The blood of the animal that had been killed was to be "poured out" rather than eaten or drank. This token act of faith demonstrated to Jehovah that the life that had been taken belongs to him. The blood of the animal represents the life of that animal. Humans do have the right to take animals for food only because the creator allows us to do so. Pouring out the blood first, acknowledges this arrangement. By including modern day blood transfusions in the current application of these verses however (which is not the same as eating or drinking of animal blood), the society is going beyond what is actually written in its application. In addition, the one supplying the blood for a transfusion has not died at all, which was always the case when an animal was bled. A "living" donor instead provides the needed volume of blood-fluid that has been lost for another "living" individual. And in many cases over the years, as a last resort this has been and can still be a life-saving medical act. In other cases by refusing this particular medical treatment because of our stand against blood transfusions, lives have been and will continue to be lost. Is this what Jehovah wants, and is this premature loss of life really necessary? *** We can also learn something about this from Jesus very own example. Jesus was also willing to perform miracles on the Sabbath (something against the mosaic law) in order to save lives, or even just heal the sick. Would not Jesus have made an exception then to a dietary rule in order to save a human life? In Luke 14:5-6, the bible account says: "And he said to them: "Who of YOU, if his son or bull falls into a well, will not immediately pull him out on the sabbath day?" 6 And they were not able to answer back on these things." The account in Mathew 12:11 goes even further, it says: "So they (Pharisees) asked him "Is it lawful to cure on the Sabbath?" that they might get an accusation against him. 11 He said to them: "Who will be the man among YOU that has one sheep and, if this falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not get hold of it and lift it out? 12 All considered, of how much more worth is a man than a sheep! So it is lawful to do a fine thing on the Sabbath." If Jesus was willing to value the life of an ANIMAL enough to rescue that animal's life despite this "work" being done on a Sabbath, how much more so then should the life of a human being be given priority over the strict interpretation of the law? Well, we need not really ask since Jesus answered this himself when he said in verse 12, "All considered, of how much more worth is a man than a sheep!". Yes rescuing a sheep from a pit on the sabbath is the loving and merciful thing to do. Additionally, Jesus performed many other miraculous works on the Sabbath. Yet to work on the Sabbath was to bring the death penalty upon oneself. And in fact, the scriptures actually record this penalty being meted out to a Sabbath violator. (See Exodus 35:2; Numbers 15:32-36. Here we see clear evidence though that Jesus appreciated the principle that love triumphs over law. That when life is at stake, (even an animal's life), rules can be set aside as circumstances require. LIFE is valuable and precious. Jesus showed this love for life and people over and over. While by contrast the oppressive, rule-keeping religious leaders often missed the entire purpose of the law. By not allowing a blood transfusion to be given, especially in last-resort situations, but rather allowing these ones to die instead, is the proper "respect" for life being shown as Jesus clearly demonstrated? Imagine if this involved allowing one of "our own" to die due to such a strict stand by the society. *** I've also appreciated another example that demonstrates this same "principle" of Jesus' valuing a person's life over the written law. It had to do with the woman who had a flow of blood for 12 years. Under the Mosaic Law a running discharge made her "unclean", and anyone even touching her would also have to wash and be considered unclean until evening. However, she went even further than this by actually touching Jesus garment secretly in hopes of getting healed without anyone knowing. Jesus as we know, perceived that power went out from him and realized what she had done. Others too were watching. Notice though, that rather than condemn this woman for what she did, Jesus instead compassionately tells her: "Your faith has made you well. Go in peace, be in good health from your grievous sickness...." Once again we can see the spirit of the law (and the value of a human life) taking precedence over the supposed letter of the law, which the woman had clearly broken. *** Acts 15:28-29 (which is the foundation scripture for society's position against blood transfusions since the Mosaic Law is no longer in force -this too is the society's view-) reads: 28 "For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to YOU, except these necessary things, 29 to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If YOU carefully keep yourselves from these things, YOU will prosper. Good health to YOU!" The society considers this to be an all-encompassing, absolute, eternal command. However, notice that along with abstaining from blood, we also hear the command to abstain from "things sacrificed to idols" Now, if you read 1 Corinthians 8:4-8, we can see that Paul there helps the reader to see that the "eating of food sacrificed to idols" was really a conscience matter. Obviously then, the Acts 15:28-29 could not have such a broad, absolute, universal meaning since another part of that same scripture is considered a conscience matter by the apostle Paul in another verse. This decision instead was rendered so that the newer "Gentile" Christians would be conscious not to stumble the more traditional Jewish Christians, many of which were still rooted in Mosaic Law. The decision was acknowledged that they were not under Mosaic Law any longer. However to prevent unnecessarily stumbling of these traditional Jewish Christians, this decree was given. This is also how most bible scholars today understand these verses. The account at Acts 21:20-32 gives further evidence that this decree was given because the older, traditional Jewish Christians were being stumbled, since once again this very same prohibition found at Acts 15:28, 29 is repeated ten years later in Acts 21:25. Notice specifically how verses 24 brings out that this decree was given because the Jewish Christians thought Paul had discarded all Jewish law and customs which were causing these Jewish Christians to be upset and stumbled. Paul's words quoted above at 1 Cor 8:4-8 once again only adds further evidence that this command was not an eternal, universal law from God since again, he there states that "eating foods sacrificed to idols" (also included in Acts 15:28,29 along with blood) is a personal decision for each individual Christian. The command to abstain from fornication however is an absolute, eternal, universal command, since it is clearly repeated often throughout the Christian Greek scriptures. Not the case at all regarding blood. Nowhere else is this mentioned. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and Galatians 5: 19-21 contain many specific warnings for Christians, but blood is not one of them. Nor is it mentioned anywhere else in the Greek scriptures. And even if it were considered a universal, eternal command, which clearly it is not, that decree then would be regarding the EATING of animal blood, and not the receiving of blood fluid from a living human donor to another living human donor. *** If consuming blood was such a capitol offense, why were Saul's men not executed when they fell to eating blood along with the meat? (1 Sam. 14:31-35) *** I also wanted to find out how the most traditional, conservative and orthodox Jews today felt about accepting blood transfusions, since they still object to any traces of blood in their meat and other strict dietary guidelines from the bible by insisting on kosher foods. After researching, I found out that they DO accept blood transfusions, considering these bible commands to be based on the eating and drinking of animal blood; something a blood transfusion is not. *** Another thing that now clouds the blood transfusion issue altogether for me is the 2000 decree that certain blood "fractions" are now permissible. Many of these are now considered a "conscience matter". Just a few years ago most of these were forbidden. I have studied this very carefully and thoroughly as well. Some of these "fractions" take far more blood and donors to make them, than accepting the whole blood unaltered takes. Some hemophiliac treatments for example, (which have been long permitted) require the collection and storage of massive quantities of blood (up to 2500 blood donors for a single treatment). These are not just some made-up numbers thrown out here, but can be easily verified. Other more common "fractions" still require many liters of blood, from many different people to donate. It is often just a "concentrated" form of blood. These facts bring up two different, problematic issues in my mind then. For one, how can we say that we as Jehovah's Witnesses "abstain from blood", since all of these fractions that Watchtower Society now permits like albumin, EPO, hemoglobin, blood serums, Immunoglobulins, and hemophiliac treatments (clotting factors VIII & IX) clearly tap into the world's blood supply and can be (and are) used by Jehovah's Witnesses today? And two, if then, we as Jehovah's Witnesses can with a clear conscience now USE these fractions that come from the blood supply, why are we then forbidden from donating to this same blood supply that we now are allowed to tap into? And, why are we still not allowed to store our own blood? The pouring of blood "back to the ground" was long ago nailed to the torture stake when Jesus sacrificed his life; hence we are no longer under that Mosaic series of laws. It sure appears to me then, that we no longer abstain from blood, and can and do dip into the worlds blood supply, often in great quantity, yet we are still not allowed to put back into this same supply, nor can we store our own blood. Another problem with "fractions" (for me) is that certain fractions such as "Albumin" ARE acceptable by the society, but others making up even smaller amounts are not. "Albumin" for example is a blood plasma protein that is produced in the liver and forms a large proportion of all plasma protein. This "authorized" fraction, Albumin, however makes up just 2.2 percent of the whole blood and again IS approved by the society today. White blood cells on the other hand are NOT allowed, not authorized by the society, yet these white blood cells make up less that one percent of whole blood. White blood cells are absolutely needed to fight infections and are often very important for accident and post-surgical patients. Yet again, these white blood cells are not acceptable by the society. Another fraction, Blood "Platelets" are needed to help cause clotting, so people do not bleed to death (especially important with chemotherapy, other cancer treatments and hemophiliacs). Yet platelets are another fraction NOT authorized. Platelets make up only .17 percent of whole blood. That's not even one quarter of one percent, (a far smaller portion than albumin). Yet these platelets are forbidden by the Society. I have read the literature and fail to see the logic of this "approved" and "disapproved" list with no explanations anywhere. It's also worth noting that if you add up all of the fractions that ARE acceptable by the society, you come up with a total of 97 percent of what makes up whole blood that is pumping through our veins right now. However, these cannot be taken together as whole blood, but must be instead broken down and taken separately, in minute fractions. It has been compared before to being allowed to eat ham, bread and cheese, as long as they're kept and eaten separately. Yet not being allowed to eat them together for instance as a ham and cheese sandwich. I just fail to see the reasonableness in this kind of doctrine. "Hemopure" is an acceptable blood-product that Jehovah's Witnesses are allowed to use. It is made from purified bovine, or in simpler terms, Cow's Blood. How can we as humans be allowed to use this purified animal blood today, yet not be allowed to use our own blood, or that of another living human donor? So then, when I add up all of the facts listed above here; that blood transfusions are not the same as eating blood. That the scriptures themselves are always referring to the "eating or drinking" of animal blood that is forbidden (not transfusions). How Paul shows at 1 Corinthians. 8:4-8 that the Acts 15:29 command is not all encompassing command but had a particular purpose. That Saul's men were not killed after eating blood. How the strictest of Jews today allow blood transfusions. That Jesus clearly demonstrated how life (even that of an animal) was more important than a narrow, strict interpretation of the law, with the "animal that fell into a pit on the Sabbath" illustration he used, and the "Woman with a flow of blood" real-life example. How the one donating blood is a LIVE donor and offering this blood to another person that is also alive and in need. That the Society was wrong before about forbidding vaccinations and organ transplants and then reversed these decisions. Many loyal Witnesses nonetheless died from such stands. And, the Society has now changed its position once again, instead of saying no to all blood, to now say "fractions" of blood are acceptable, even though the particular fractions approved and disapproved seem to have no particular rhyme or reason and we are still not allowed to donate blood nor store their own. Though we can use cow's blood. It seems fairly easy for me then, to come to the conclusion that I can no longer support the society's position on blood transfusions today. In fact I believe it was an erroneous decision from the beginning, and has only been made even more confusing and unstable with the latest "fractions" adjustments.

Danny blog author's reply to davidl7

The Watchtower WILL excommunicate you if they find out a baptized JW has had a transfusion.To deny this and say it's a "personal conscience matter" is a lie.

It is the Watchtower that has heaped controversy on itself with it's arbitary flip-flopping decisions on what "parts" aka fractions of Blood are allowed and disallowed.

If you go by the old testament it says to pour ALL the blood onto the ground as dust as it is ALL sacred to God.So,where does the Watchtower get the authority to decide what "parts" of something that is sacred can be used??

Moreover,no question it's better and more healthy not to put another persons blood or any body parts into your body if you don't need it.In cases of emergency trauma such as in a car crash if I lose 3-4 pints of blood i will die without a emergency transfusion there is no time for fancy modern gadgets or vitamin supplements.

Case in point,I had a 'totalproctocolectomy' major surgery and did all the things you JW's suggest to build up and prep my body for surgery and had two pints of blood on standby that my skilled surgeon did not have to use.BUT I had  3 months to prepare for the surgery.

Some cases need life-saving Blood emergency transfusions and the watchtower say's NO.

 

  A Reply Concerning the Prohibtion of Blood Transfusions
Just a few comments from my own personal understanding regarding blood transfusions and changes in arguments that I have seen pro and con regarding the Jehovah's Christian Witness position on blood transfusions.  Numerous bible passages clearly state we must not eat blood.  In Gen. 9:3,4 , when God first allowed humans to eat animals, he specifically said that the meat combined with blood cannot be eaten  "only flesh withits soul - its blood- you must not eat."  So blood was considered sacred, representing the life or soul of the animal.  That human blood was also considered is seen by the context of Genesis chapter 9. In verse 6 it clearly say that human blood must not be shed, we must not kill our fellowman.  Several other OT texts clearly state that blood must not be eaten; animal blood was to be poured on the ground.  Lev. 17:10, 11  says that anyone who ate "any  sort of blood" was to be "cut off from among the people."  Witnesses understand that those Bible texts clearly indicate that blood must not be eaten.  They also cannot in good conscience accept a blood transfusion because they feel that is the same as being fed blood (which carries nutrients) intravenously.  Theoretically, a starving patient can get the nutrients his body needs with a blood transfusion since blood contains nutrients that it carries.
  Earlier arguements against the Witness understanding of those Bible texts were quite weak.  Those who disagreed with their point of view would state that the prohibtion of eating blood only applied to the nation of Israel, or the Jews, and not to Christians.  Witnesses, however, would righly point out that Gen. 9:3,4, the first prohibition against blood, was written prior to the Mosaic law, and therefore applies to all humankind since then.  And most importantly, the Chrisitan congregation emphasized the  law of not eating blood as applying to them.   In Acts 15:19, 20, 28,29, Christians were told that they must abstain from blood. Now, those who disagreed with the Witness' position  would state that the decreed in Acts 15 was only temporary, only applying to first century  Gentile Christians, so as not to offdend the "sensitivity" of  Jewish Christians.  That argument, generally advocated by Evangelicals and Catholicss, as well as others, was extremely weak.  The fact is the decreed in Acts also stated that Christians had to abstain from fornication and idolatry, something which everyone knows were never temporary.  Those are moral commands that apply to Christians for all time; therefore, the blood law must be permanent also, as Witnesses pointed out. 
  In the early 1990's, the Witneses publishing arm publishing an article which stated that Christians may decide for themselves whether or not to accept minor blood components, although major blood components such as red blood cells was seen as clearly condemned in the Bible.  At the point, those who disagreed with the Witnesses said, if they allow some components they might as well allow all components.  But, as some Witneses have pointed out, most transfusions are based on the major blood components.  Minor components, such as vitamin K which is found naturally in vegtable sources, can be used if  it does not bother a Christian's conscience, since it is also found naturally in non-blood sources.  (see site by Witness apologist with more details at http://www.e-cepher.com/papers/treasure/bloodparts.html).  Witnesses argue, if medical technology can separate vitamin E from the rest of the blood, does that still make vitamin E blood?  In the same way some Chrisitans feel that accepting vitamin K, a blood clotting factor, is not wrong since it was separate from whole blood. So depending on one's concience a Witness may or may not accept certian components.  Unlike what others state, the WT is not  "controlling" Witnesses. Witnesses know what the Bible says, and have come to their own conclusions, agreeing with what  has been written in the Bible as advocated by the Watchtower, the Christian publishing arm of Jehovah's Witnesses.  I also think, that by allowing minor components more freedom is given to the individuals, and at the same time it does not appear to be violating the law of  abstaining from blood. 
  Some like to point out that the Orthodox Jews don't eat blood, but accept transfusions, therefore, there can be nothing wrong with them.  But again, Witneses who have studied the Bible and have decided for themselves what it clearly says, to "abstain from blood", do not see any difference between eating blood via the mouth, or taking blood via the viens intranvenously.  Interestingly,  many people of the Jewish faith that I have spoken to  wil say that they understand the Witness point of view when they are quoted the muliple Bible texts dealing with not eating and abstaining from blood.  One  Pentecostal who demanded to know why  we do not believe in blood transfusions, after hearing about a case about a Witness at work, accepted the biblical explanation she was given, and even said that she herself would not in conscience accept a blood transfusion.  The fact is the words of Acts 15:19, 20, 28,29 and the OT texts regarding not eating blood are very powerful texts and, people reading them literrally and understand the simple meaning of those words, come to the conclusion that blood transfusions are wrong.
  Regarding the individual who stated Witneses do not donate to the Red Cross: Yes, but   Witnesses have donated hundreds of blood salvage machines to hospitals and medical facilities around the world.  Those machines, much like a diaslysis machine, immediately transport a patient's own blood back to his or her body.  Those machines have helped thousands of both Witness and non-Witness patients who refuse blood transfusions.

I never could explain the WT blood transfusion ban when I was a JW- the Bible gives examples of suspending Mosaic laws to save a life- even the life of an animal. Little children who are not old enough to be Jehovah's Witnesses and who might choose life over death are never given the chance by their JW parents- they will obey the WT rulers and deny a life saving blood transfusion for ther children. All of humanity can see this for what it is:  a sanctioned ritual sacrifice of children. I hope the JW parents who read this will see the WT evil for what it is. It is not a Bible command  to refuse blood transfusions and even the most Orthodox Jews see no problem with accepting a blood transfusion.

I'm a fairly new Buddhist and I have always been Godless, so I don't know much about Christians or religion.  i have been told that there are many denominations of Christians and most do not agree with each other on some issues.   I think everyone should be entitled to their own beliefs and I don't feel I have a right to say people are wrong simply because their beliefs are different than mine..... Live and Let Live.   However, people dying because of their beliefs is pretty hard for me to take or understand.  it's so sad when so many lives can be saved with more knowledge about blood transfusions.   Is Jehovah Witness a Christian religion?  I have read the Bible and I can see where people can interpret it differently than others.   I also know times have changed since it was written.  So who really knows what the Bible says?  What if the Jehovah Witnesses are right and God did not intend for them to have blood transfusions.   I think it would be a hard choice for me to make... Go against my God or save my life.  All this aside, I'm glad the Jehovah Witnesses' have someone like Danny to help them understand better how they can save themselves, because no matter how people interpret the Bible I do not think their God would want them to die unnecessarily.  

It seems hypocritical that Jehovah's Witnesses will take fractions of blood, from blood that have been donated by "worldly" and unrighteous people, but then won't replenish the supply by donating blood themselves.

Brenda Lee, "Out of the Cocoon:  A Young Woman's Courageous Flight from the Grip of a Religious Cult"
www.outofthecocoon.net (contact me through my website for more interesting facts about the Watchtower organization)

Witnesses were once fighters for certain good things in our laws, but the organization has evolved full circle into a bunch of hypocritical old men who remain in a severely retarded Victorian world where they hole up and say, "We are the only true religion!" and yet the soup stinks. They are declining the last two years in many parts of the earth due to THIS, the internet, the very thing they are encouraged to avoid because it makes them look so bad. Follow any of the links about Jehovah's Witnesses in the search engines and you will find the record of false prophecies, flip-flops in doctrine, phony dates, and bloodguilt over wrongful deaths, including those from following their ever-changing stance on blood transfusions. This religion is POISON folks! Keep your distance and keep your sanity.

"We just don't know what makes people snap sometimes." Sometimes we do, at least in the case of Jehovah's Witnesses. They have a distorted view of life and death, waiting every moment for Armageddon, not planning for the future, believing that Jehovah will destroy billions of people soon who do not accept the teachings of the Watchtower and its aging leadership, believing that whatever happens Jehovah will resurrect them to a perfect state, denying life-saving blood transfusions, and the list goes on. Fortunately they are in decline and will never recover due to poor management.

The Real Reason Jehovah’s Witnesses Refuse Blood Transfusions

If you were to ask Jehovah’s Witnesses why they would refuse a blood transfusion they will explain that it is because of what the Bible says about blood. They usually refer to Acts 15:20 where it says "abstain from blood" and reason that transfusing blood is not abstaining from blood.

But they don’t realize that what the Bible says about blood is not the real reason why they refuse blood transfusions. That real reason only shows up when looking at what Jehovah’s Witnesses always do when the Watchtower Society stops teaching something. For example…

For decades they believed that it was "the Creator’s promise" in the Bible that the New World will be here before the generation of 1914 passes away. They said they believed this because of what Jesus said at Matthew 24:34 about "this generation will not pass away until all these things (including the New World) occur." But in November of 1995 the Watchtower Society stopped teaching such a thing. What did Jehovah’s Witnesses then do?

If the real reason they believed that teaching was because it was truly based on the Bible, then even though the Society stopped teaching it, Witnesses should have continued to believe it anyway. But they didn’t. They all stopped believing it the moment the Society stopped teaching it. What does this show?

This shows that the real reason why they believed that teaching was because that’s what the Watchtower Society was teaching. They started believing it when the Society started teaching it and they stopped believing it when the Society stopped teaching it. Therefore what the Bible says at Matthew 24:34 is not the real reason they believed it.

Again, this is what Jehovah’s Witnesses always do when the Society starts and stops teaching something. While they are teaching something they call it "a true teaching of the Bible." But when they stop teaching it it is called "old light." This is the way it has always worked with the Watchtower religion.

Is there any reason to believe that it is any different with the Society’s current teaching about blood transfusions? Do Witnesses believe that transfusions are against God’s Law because of what it says at Acts 15:20, or because this is what the Watchtower Society happens to be teaching at the present time? Here too the real reason will only show up if the Society ever changes what it teaches about blood transfusions.

Why are they so willing to change what they believe whenever the Watchtower Society changes what teaches? I feel that former Governing Body member Raymond Franz has the answer on page 296 of his "Crisis of Conscience" where he said…

"I believe that Jehovah's Witnesses are, in effect, the captives of a concept. The concept or mental image they have of ‘the organization’ seems almost to take on a personality of its own, so that the concept itself controls them, moves them, or restrains them, by molding their thinking, their attitudes, their judgments…The …concept of ‘the organization’… becomes, in fact, the dominant, controlling force."

Without realizing it, their belief that the Watchtower Society is "God’s organization" – rather than the Bible - is what dominates and controls what they believe. That concept causes them to believe that whatever comes to them from the Watchtower Society is coming from God Himself since this is the organization he is using to teach them everything they need to know. As long as they believe that concept they will remain captives of it.

Don

Good for you Danny, keep informing people of the dangers of this cult.

Smalley wrote the entire 1990 Watchtower booklet on blood, "How Can Blood Save Your Life?, the one that Kerry Louderback-Wood wrote her essay about which she titled, "Jehovah's Witnesses, Blood Transfusions and the Tort of Misrepresentation." The essay appeared in the Journal of Church and State, Autumn 2005 issue. The information about who wrote the blood booklet came from a a Legal Dept. staff member who was complaining about Smalley having the ear of certain GB members and that's why they won't listen to any Watchtower attorneys who have problems with the accuracy of some statements in the blood booklet. 

Smalley is also author of Watchtower "Questions from Readers" columns. And many blood doctrine announcements and changes have been found there since 2000. It is assumed that any other statements about blood and blood fractions in the Watchtower originate with Smalley or are passed through Smalley's hands for editing because he's resident expert.

Also, notice Watchtower physician, Dr. Schiller's published reply to an article which appeared in the April 2007 issue of ANESTHESIA & ANALGESIA where in paragraph two of his reply he comments about a "1981 position paper" which appeared in JAMA written by Dixon and Smalley. Schiller quotes that JAMA paper where Dixon and Smalley explain that Witnesses "rule out transfusion of whole blood, packed RBCs, and plasma, as well as WBC and platelet administration.

 However, Witnesses' religious understanding does not absolutely prohibit the use of components such as albumin, immune globulins, and hemophiliac preparations; each Witness must decide individually if he can accept these." Incidentally, on page 30-1 of the 1990 blood booklet can be found an article written by Dr. J. Lowell Dixon, "Blood: Whose Choice And Whose Conscience?" where in paragraph 7 is a quote taken from Dixon and Smalley's 1981 JAMA "position paper." Further, Gene Smalley appears in the recently released documentary, "Knocking" CD extras where there's an interview with Smalley. That documentary features the positive side of Jehovah's Witnesses and their blood transfusion doctrine. 

In conclusion, we see Smalley as author of "How Can Blood Save Your Life? booklet; author of "Questions From Readers" columns which have discussed answers to specific blood transfusion and blood product questions; interview in "Knocking" documentary CD extra where his blood expertise shines through; and a blood "position paper" that appeared in a 1981 JAMA article. So there is ample evidence of Smalley's blood thumbprint found in Watchtower no-blood management theories as discussed in Watchtower literature.