Many Miles

The closest thing I can find to the society saying its okay to reject something it says is the article “Is Obedience Always Proper?”  in the The Watchtower of April 1, 1988. After citing what Paul wrote to Galatia, we find this paragraph:

“Is the information before us different from what we have been taught through “the faithful and discreet slave”? Is the person spreading that message speaking to honor the name of Jehovah, or is he trying to exalt himself? Is the information in harmony with the overall teachings of the Bible? These are questions that will help us in ‘testing’ anything that may sound questionable. We are admonished to “make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine.””

It’s the third question presented that is somewhat of an acknowledgement that it’s okay to reject something the society puts out, but the first question presses what Geoffrey Jackson alluded to under sworn testimony, that the governing body is the guardian of doctrine and beliefs hence it is the decision-maker about interpreting what they Bible says. Hence the average one of us is led back to what the society says to determine what the overall teachings of the Bible are, which tends to negate the third question. This is unlike what Paul did. Paul just put it out there in so many words. He said, “even if we…” and then got right to it.

And, as for being “different from what we have been taught through ‘the faithful and discreet slave’”, that’s going on all the time! Am I to decide what I’m supposed to believe based on what is taught today, yesterday, or tomorrow? At some point there has to be a clear litmus test offered and respected.

Boy that brings back some memories! I had more than a few exchanges with Rusky on the subject of blood, fractions, and associated biblical texts, etc. There is so much left unsaid about this issue. Even academic writers usually miss some of the big things. One day. One day. 

Boy that brings back some memories! I had more than a few exchanges with Rusky on the subject of blood, fractions, and associated biblical texts, etc. There is so much left unsaid about this issue. Even academic writers usually miss some of the big things. One day. One day. 

Boy that brings back some memories! I had more than a few exchanges with Rusky on the subject of blood, fractions, and associated biblical texts, etc. There is so much left unsaid about this issue. Even academic writers usually miss some of the big things. One day. One day. 

Oh, “evidently”. That is such a terribly misused term. In presentation it’s a term used for persuasion; definitely should never be used as underpinning for a premise in a logical argument. Maybe to nudge thought on a theory. But it’s such a mercurial term. As persuasion the usage immediately conjures thoughts of a snake oil salesman. 

The closest thing I can find to the society saying its okay to reject something it says is the article “Is Obedience Always Proper?”  in the The Watchtower of April 1, 1988. After citing what Paul wrote to Galatia, we find this paragraph:

“Is the information before us different from what we have been taught through “the faithful and discreet slave”? Is the person spreading that message speaking to honor the name of Jehovah, or is he trying to exalt himself? Is the information in harmony with the overall teachings of the Bible? These are questions that will help us in ‘testing’ anything that may sound questionable. We are admonished to “make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine.””

It’s the third question presented that is somewhat of an acknowledgement that it’s okay to reject something the society puts out, but the first question presses what Geoffrey Jackson alluded to under sworn testimony, that the governing body is the guardian of doctrine and beliefs hence it is the decision-maker about interpreting what they Bible says. Hence the average one of us is led back to what the society says to determine what the overall teachings of the Bible are, which tends to negate the third question. This is unlike what Paul did. Paul just put it out there in so many words. He said, “even if we…” and then got right to it.

And, as for being “different from what we have been taught through ‘the faithful and discreet slave’”, that’s going on all the time! Am I to decide what I’m supposed to believe based on what is taught today, yesterday, or tomorrow? At some point there has to be a clear litmus test offered and respected.

We may be talking about different things.
My question relates to obedience of teachers taking the lead. Paul was a teacher taking the lead. The apostles were teachers taking the lead. In their time there were other teachers taking the lead. What Paul wrote could be applied to any and all teachers taking the lead, or any teacher at all for that matter. There is also biblical admonition to obey those taking the lead among us. But Paul pointed out a point at which teachers taking the lead should not be obeyed but, rather, rejected as accursed. Paul said this was okay, and he included himself. I don't find any instance where the society has ever given this instruction of itself, as though it were even possibly right to reject what they say when they say it.

We may be talking about different things.
My question relates to obedience of teachers taking the lead. Paul was a teacher taking the lead. The apostles were teachers taking the lead. In their time there were other teachers taking the lead. What Paul wrote could be applied to any and all teachers taking the lead, or any teacher at all for that matter. There is also biblical admonition to obey those taking the lead among us. But Paul pointed out a point at which teachers taking the lead should not be obeyed but, rather, rejected as accursed. Paul said this was okay, and he included himself. I don't find any instance where the society has ever given this instruction of itself, as though it were even possibly right to reject what they say when they say it.

Depends on who you ask.
For starters, there is no verb, so we are forced to attribute a verb. The most likely candidate is "eat" or "eating" since nowhere were ancient faithful men and woman, like Noah and Job, ever prohibited from otherwise using blood, and it was useful and used for many purposes by ancient peoples, including medicinal transplantation as a preventative in some cases and as a therapeutic in others.
Then there is the question of what blood to abstain from, since contemporary society makes use of donor blood and not blood taken by assault (i.e., using a living animal to eat its flesh without killing and draining its blood first, which is what Noah was prohibited from doing).
That's just the tip of the questions posed by the simple statement to abstain from blood. Some aspects of these questions are addressed in our publications, and some are not.

Thanks for sharing that piece of video. I had not recollected that part, if I ever saw it at all. He gave quite a bit of testimony.

What he says does, as you suggest, stop short of saying that if JWs see something the society asserts as a belief is incorrect that they should then reject it as false; that in such a case the governing body should be accursed, to borrow Paul’s term to Galatia.

It’s noteworthy here that Jackson went on to say the governing body is the guardian of doctrine and beliefs hence it is the decision maker about interpreting what they Bible says. If it’s true that all JWs can read their Bible and know what is correct vs incorrect teaching, then why a need for interpretation by anyone?

Taken together, this is pretty circular. In essence he’s saying we can tell if what the governing body says is true based on what the Bible says, but the governing body is who has the final say about what the Bible says. If what the Bible says is what the governing body asserts it to say then what the governing body says is not falsifiable, which makes the notion useless in terms of rational thought.

So, on one hand it’s nice to see a contemporary governing body representative acknowledge that we can read our Bibles for ourselves to determine correctness of teaching, yet the same representative stops short of saying we should hold them as accursed if we find what they say is false. That’s the difference between what Paul did in writing Galatia compared with our contemporary governing body. At no point does our contemporary governing body say there is a point at which they should be rejected. Paul and the early apostles did that. The society does not.

Exactly. If Paul was in the wrong and deserving of condemnation, and if the GB is also wrong and deserving of condemnation, then it is only fair to also condemn those who manipulate or distort scripture. However, the crucial question we should be asking is: who has the authority to pass judgment on Paul and the GB in the first place?
In Galatians 1:8, Paul's message to the Galatians carries a significant meaning that is well expressed in this statement. This verse reads, "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed." Here, Paul is emphasizing the importance of gospel authenticity and imparting a warning against false teachings or distorted versions of the gospel. 
The statement captures Paul's strong conviction that any deviation from the true gospel, regardless of the source, should be unequivocally rejected and condemned. The Galatians were being influenced by false teachers who were attempting to impose legalistic requirements on them, questioning the sufficiency of faith in Christ alone for salvation. Paul adamantly opposes these teachings and seeks to reinforce the purity of the gospel message he initially proclaimed to the Galatians. 
By asserting that even if he or anyone else, including celestial beings, were to contradict the true gospel, they should be considered accursed, Paul leaves no room for compromise. This powerful statement underscores the urgency of sticking to the authentic gospel, shedding light on the importance of preserving its integrity and safeguarding the Galatians' faith. In conclusion, this statement effectively captures the essence of Paul's message in Galatians 1:8, conveying his unwavering stance on the need to defend and uphold the true gospel while utterly rejecting any form of deviation or distortion.
Who, then, is the "false teacher"? Is it Paul, the Governing Body, or those who interpret scripture for personal gain, much like the Pharisees?

The question can be posed in multiple ways but ultimately leads to the same outcome. Paul wasn't only talking about himself; he was also referring to those who are ready to manipulate scripture for their own benefit. This aligns with the stance that the GB take when it comes to biblical subjects. If you carefully analyze the majority of the Watchtower articles, you'll find that this implication is apparent. They are just as resolute as Paul was in their commitment.

Thanks for sharing that piece of video. I had not recollected that part, if I ever saw it at all. He gave quite a bit of testimony.

What he says does, as you suggest, stop short of saying that if JWs see something the society asserts as a belief is incorrect that they should then reject it as false; that in such a case the governing body should be accursed, to borrow Paul’s term to Galatia.

It’s noteworthy here that Jackson went on to say the governing body is the guardian of doctrine and beliefs hence it is the decision maker about interpreting what they Bible says. If it’s true that all JWs can read their Bible and know what is correct vs incorrect teaching, then why a need for interpretation by anyone?

Taken together, this is pretty circular. In essence he’s saying we can tell if what the governing body says is true based on what the Bible says, but the governing body is who has the final say about what the Bible says. If what the Bible says is what the governing body asserts it to say then what the governing body says is not falsifiable, which makes the notion useless in terms of rational thought.

So, on one hand it’s nice to see a contemporary governing body representative acknowledge that we can read our Bibles for ourselves to determine correctness of teaching, yet the same representative stops short of saying we should hold them as accursed if we find what they say is false. That’s the difference between what Paul did in writing Galatia compared with our contemporary governing body. At no point does our contemporary governing body say there is a point at which they should be rejected. Paul and the early apostles did that. The society does not.

Yes, you remember well about that. However, I did not think of that when I listed those 5 points. It is in connection with Gal 1:8.
He spoke to the thesis that JWs are so independent that they can on the basis of the Bible itself, the Bible alone, "notice" (his word) whether the directive/instruction/doctrine that the GB publishes is correct or incorrect.
It is significant that he stopped there, giving no indication that the followers would be allowed to be disobedient. He continues with the thesis that if the directive is in accordance with the Bible, then how can GB expect JWs to accept it.

Notice: to see or become conscious of something or someone
Video- from 3:20
 
 

It's not unclear at all to me. It means we should abstain from blood the same as Noah was to abstain from blood. If Noah wanted to use a living animal's flesh as food to eat he had to kill the animal and he was to abstain from eating the blood of the animal he killed to eat.
Arguably, the same phrase also means we should abstain from unjustifiable homicide, just like Noah was to do.

Maybe I didn't know how to explain better. Uniformity is visible through, for example, the same magazine (content) which is published almost simultaneously or at the same time and is studied in all congregations all over the world at the same time, so a conclusion is made about the existence/visibility of the unity of the international brotherhood. Or conversely, unity is seen through uniformity when all JWs study the same Watchtower on the same day. 
That's why I combined the two concepts in a perhaps clumsy way, especially since I think in my native language, and I'm trying to convey it in another language.

I've not isolated the above comments to have them suggest something other than what you wrote in context. I isolated the above to speak to two notions they contain.

First, the phrases "unity of uniformity" and "uniform unity" are, I think, self-contradictory. Uniformity is a state of being the same in all things all the time without differences. Unity is a state of being united or joined as a whole, despite differences.

All people are different from the next person, including the things they believe and why they believe those things. Because of difference, trying to achieve uniformity is, ultimately, impossible. It’s going to grind people down rather than build them up.

But there are many historical instances of humans who, though not uniform in belief, come together as a group to unify for common cause. Because a common cause draws these people (with all their difference) together for that common cause, the effect is to raise up the people that are unified.

Second, whatever tools are employed to compel people to be uniform will, I agree, lose their power because the overall effect grinds people down rather than raising them up.

 
 

Paul (and presumably his cohorts agreed) told Christians the point at which they should not obey (follow, accept, chose your verb) what he was telling them. He put it in writing.
So what is today's governing body's version of "Whoever is declaring to you as good news something beyond what you accepted, let him be accursed"?
Where has today's governing body put in writing the point at which we should not obey something they tell us, that they should be accursed? In the super abundance of written words they have published have they provided this litmus test of themselves? I just haven't seen it. Where is it? Also, given their penchant for "organization", in all of their layers upon layers of organizational policies have they clarified how to employ that litmus test of themselves?
To me this is a conspicuous absence of something fundamental about what leaders think of themselves, and how they would expect to be treated by those who look to them as teachers.

Of the biblical decree of record to Noah, since he had no means of removing every trace of blood from an animal slaughtered as food, I think it most reasonable to conclude it was sufficient to make an effort to bleed out an animal before eating of that animal. Also, Noah was not to eat the blood he let drain out. Other than this, Noah was not prohibited from using the blood for other purposes, and neither was he required to use blood for anything in particular (e.g., sacrifice). The act of bleeding out an animal (and animals are souls) appears to be intended as an act of respect for the taking of a life when killing an animal to eat it as food. On the other hand, and unlike killing animals, to kill a human was depicted as a capital offense worthy of life forfeiture of the offender.
As for eating blood being equated with IV administration of blood, transfusion of products like red cells is demonstrated to offer no nutritional support when administered intravenously. Oddly enough, the products from blood proven to have efficacy as parenteral nutrition are products JWs can accept as much of as they want, as a personal decision. Those parts would be, primarily cryosupernatant but also cryoprecipitate.

So what is today's governing body's version of "Whoever is declaring to you as good news something beyond what you accepted, let him be accursed"?
What is the litmus test today?
 

I think the organization (which I grew up calling the society) operates under an unstated premise that it's okay to hold divergent views so long as you don't attempt to create schism.
Over the years of its existence the society has suffered some pretty horrendous schisms, which understandably birthed fear of schism. For example, in the late 1920s the number of persons associating with the society dropped by about 80 percent. That will leave a wound to be felt for quite awhile. Resulting fear has, in my view, led to a position that confuses uniformity with unity. The society wants every person who submits to it to be uniform in belief, including when a teaching or teachings change. Uniformity of people is not unity of people, and eventually it grinds people down. Unity of people is people who maintain a common cause despite having differences, and it raises people up. Uniformity of people is people who maintain a common cause because they have no differences. But humans always have differences. We are all unique. The uniformity created by the society is an outcome of tools of conformity. But it still remains the case that humans are unique and will always have differences. The society knows this. In the end, unity can only thrive when its comprised of people who hold common cause despite their differences.
One thing I wish our contemporary governing body would do is to express a litmus test of themselves for sake of those who they ask obedience from. The early Christian leaders offered a means by which those they asked obedience from to legitimately say, in effect, "No, I'm not obeying that", and it was okay to do so. In the opening of the letter to Galatia such a litmus test was put in writing for all to see. That was a pretty bold thing to put out there for early Christians. It let them know their obedience did not require them to accept and promote something just because they were told to do so. What was said to Galatia served the purpose of falsifiability. It was a litmus test, and it was spelled out and in writing. Among early Christians, there was unity not because everyone agreed on everything. There was unity because despite differences they might have and share they were still united in a common cause to follow Christ and share the good news of his kingdom rule sure to come.
Getting back to the point, today's governing body knows perfectly well they are fallible, but they still want JWs to unite around common cause despite that fallibility. What they do not want is anyone to openly express disagreement so that it causes a schism. That's a fine line to walk, but there it is.

I think the organization (which I grew up calling the society) operates under an unstated premise that it's okay to hold divergent views so long as you don't attempt to create schism.
Over the years of its existence the society has suffered some pretty horrendous schisms, which understandably birthed fear of schism. For example, in the late 1920s the number of persons associating with the society dropped by about 80 percent. That will leave a wound to be felt for quite awhile. Resulting fear has, in my view, led to a position that confuses uniformity with unity. The society wants every person who submits to it to be uniform in belief, including when a teaching or teachings change. Uniformity of people is not unity of people, and eventually it grinds people down. Unity of people is people who maintain a common cause despite having differences, and it raises people up. Uniformity of people is people who maintain a common cause because they have no differences. But humans always have differences. We are all unique. The uniformity created by the society is an outcome of tools of conformity. But it still remains the case that humans are unique and will always have differences. The society knows this. In the end, unity can only thrive when its comprised of people who hold common cause despite their differences.
One thing I wish our contemporary governing body would do is to express a litmus test of themselves for sake of those who they ask obedience from. The early Christian leaders offered a means by which those they asked obedience from to legitimately say, in effect, "No, I'm not obeying that", and it was okay to do so. In the opening of the letter to Galatia such a litmus test was put in writing for all to see. That was a pretty bold thing to put out there for early Christians. It let them know their obedience did not require them to accept and promote something just because they were told to do so. What was said to Galatia served the purpose of falsifiability. It was a litmus test, and it was spelled out and in writing. Among early Christians, there was unity not because everyone agreed on everything. There was unity because despite differences they might have and share they were still united in a common cause to follow Christ and share the good news of his kingdom rule sure to come.
Getting back to the point, today's governing body knows perfectly well they are fallible, but they still want JWs to unite around common cause despite that fallibility. What they do not want is anyone to openly express disagreement so that it causes a schism. That's a fine line to walk, but there it is.

So what is today's governing body's version of "Whoever is declaring to you as good news something beyond what you accepted, let him be accursed"?
What is the litmus test today?
 

I think the organization (which I grew up calling the society) operates under an unstated premise that it's okay to hold divergent views so long as you don't attempt to create schism.
Over the years of its existence the society has suffered some pretty horrendous schisms, which understandably birthed fear of schism. For example, in the late 1920s the number of persons associating with the society dropped by about 80 percent. That will leave a wound to be felt for quite awhile. Resulting fear has, in my view, led to a position that confuses uniformity with unity. The society wants every person who submits to it to be uniform in belief, including when a teaching or teachings change. Uniformity of people is not unity of people, and eventually it grinds people down. Unity of people is people who maintain a common cause despite having differences, and it raises people up. Uniformity of people is people who maintain a common cause because they have no differences. But humans always have differences. We are all unique. The uniformity created by the society is an outcome of tools of conformity. But it still remains the case that humans are unique and will always have differences. The society knows this. In the end, unity can only thrive when its comprised of people who hold common cause despite their differences.
One thing I wish our contemporary governing body would do is to express a litmus test of themselves for sake of those who they ask obedience from. The early Christian leaders offered a means by which those they asked obedience from to legitimately say, in effect, "No, I'm not obeying that", and it was okay to do so. In the opening of the letter to Galatia such a litmus test was put in writing for all to see. That was a pretty bold thing to put out there for early Christians. It let them know their obedience did not require them to accept and promote something just because they were told to do so. What was said to Galatia served the purpose of falsifiability. It was a litmus test, and it was spelled out and in writing. Among early Christians, there was unity not because everyone agreed on everything. There was unity because despite differences they might have and share they were still united in a common cause to follow Christ and share the good news of his kingdom rule sure to come.
Getting back to the point, today's governing body knows perfectly well they are fallible, but they still want JWs to unite around common cause despite that fallibility. What they do not want is anyone to openly express disagreement so that it causes a schism. That's a fine line to walk, but there it is.

Cryosupernatant plasma (also known as cryo-poor plasma, cryoprecipitate depleted [or reduced] plasma) is a product rendered from blood that is left to individual JWs to accept or decline purely as a personal choice.

For whatever reason(s), cryosupernatant plasma has never been mentioned in our publications addressing use of products rendered from blood. This despite cryoprecipitate plasma finding ready reference in the general search bar at jw.org.

Medical use of cryosupernatant plasma is said to have markedly improved medical outcomes for JWs who accept it, and particularly for those suffering from acquired thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP). In this case the use of cryosupernatant is as a plasma exchange. The procedure uses an IV tube placed in a vein to remove blood from a TTP patient. The blood will traverse a cell separator to remove plasma from the blood. The non-plasma part of the blood is saved, and the donated cryosupernatant plasma is added to it (replacing the patient’s own blood plasma). The blood is then put back into the patient’s system through an IV line. This process can take a couple hours, and the plasma replacement therapy will continue daily for days or weeks until symptoms improve.

Because plasma makes up the majority of our circulating blood, as you can imagine, this procedure requires a lot of donated blood plasma.

Recently I have found this blood product cited for therapeutic use at jw.org, but not in the general search engine. To find this reference you have to navigate to the link for Medical Information for Clinicians page and use the search engine there. I’m unsure how long this reference has been there, but it is now.

So, though we don’t find this product on any of our diagrams, it is there, and it can save lives.