Anna

Going back on topic, (of a post that hasn't been on topic, lol) in reading everyone's comments I see the reasoning behind both the against and the for blood. Personally I can see why someone would abstain (which means both eating and transfusing). My main issue is that the organization says this is a conscience matter, whereas in practice this is not true. It is the societies conscience we are told to obey. We were always taught to tell the doctors that our conscience will not allow us to break God's law on blood. But what if someone's conscience did allow them, for whatever reason? This is why I think the blood issue (whole blood) should be something between them and Jehovah only. (Someone said well then we could say the same about fornication. Well, if no one in the congregation finds out about it, then it will still be between them and Jehovah, and they will have to answer to Jehovah for it in the end. In line with this, I have noticed that elders on the HLC no longer "interfere" or are privy to a person's medical decision. In the USA hippa laws are strict, and absolutely no one should be able to find out if someone has had a blood transfusion, even relatives. So if someone does get a blood transfusion, it remains between them and Jehovah. I think Tom's handling of the situation with the young brother in hospital was very good. No elder should be persuading another person to follow his (the elder's) conscience, or anybody else's conscience for that matter. The conscience is each person's their own. (This is why the conscientious objection to alternative service was a farce because the brothers who objected, for the most part, didn't know why they were objecting, they were just following the societies conscience). The stance now is we do not fight the Superior Authorities when it comes to transfusing children. Which makes me wonder where the principle "obey God as ruler rather than men" went to? Did we decide this because we do not want to make a spectacle of ourselves, fighting court battles and making it look like JW parents want their children to die? Don't get me wrong, I am glad about it, but where in truth does it leave "obey God as ruler rather than man?" It seems like the organization has compromised... or not? Same with the fractions becoming a conscience matter. I get why this was so, they "didn't want to get "dogmatic" (a phrase we will probably be hearing a lot more). But how much of this was also for practical reasons? The guidance about blood fractions itself says that people should realize that many vaccines (which members of Bethel used) and other therapeutic medicines contains blood fractions. So the person who says no to blood fractions should realize this, and then make an informed decision. I wonder if the covid vaccines had been based on blood fractions, or contained blood fractions, how would the organization have handled that? Probably they wouldn't have been able to "push" it like they did, and would have just had to say it's each person's decision, based on their own conscience. For me, when it comes to the question of blood, we don't want to be putting our life at risk just for man made rules. We have to be sure it is Jehovah's law, and by the looks of it this camp is split into two. Some say yes and some say no. I feel like we should apply Occam's razor and go with the simplest and clearest explanation. It's all giving me a headache...

You mean Jehovah created sub humans like he created dinosaurs?

I think that was his point, that we are no longer under the mosaic law.

Is that for real?

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".

And there you have it. In a nutshell.

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 assuming by millions you mean any amount, even a small amount, but one he could not really afford. When reading his website, not sure if it's still up, it looked more like he was a wannabe enterpreneur and a strange and unrealistic one at that. It all smacked of someone that had mental problems. On the website he promised he could make potential clients millions (or something like that). I know you also read the same thing. I have not heard that he gave lots of money to the organization, what source is that from?

How to survive Armageddon. (Just kidding).

Is that something that was actually a thing back then, people eating bits off live animals? Is that why they had to expressly forbid it? Or were they just expanding on the law in a Phariseical way?

Thanks. I was thinking more of the blog. But now I don't need to search for it in the book.

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.

I have his book 'A Separate Identity: Organizational Identity Among Readers of Zion’s Watch Tower: 1870-1887' It seems to cover the right time period. I will see if I can find something.

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

Same answers as you except for the last one. I do not think God meant for Noah to eat animals while they were still alive and kicking. He had to kill them first, and then drain the blood out so he would not be eating flesh with blood.

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 🤪

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!

Ahh, interpretation of scripture, who can get it right? That is the question. In my opinion, the most important scriptures, those that help us to live as Christians, do not need much interpreting. When read in context they are self explanatory. It is prophetic books that are written in riddles that need interpreting. Also some of Jesus' illustrations about the Kingdom etc. We have made a number of adjustments to our interpretation of prophecies, but there is no quarantee that we have got even the latest right. (It always makes me laugh when we say that sometimes prophecies are understood after they have occurred. I always wonder, what is the point of the prophecy then, lol. At the same time, I believe that full understanding of prophetic words won't happen until they are revealed not by people, but by Jesus himself in a supernatural way. And I think this will occur when other supernatural things are already occurring, i.e. during and after Armageddon). The point is, if you live your life as best as you can, according to what you know the scriptures that need no interpretation say about it, then that is all you can do presently. If you are unsure about the interpretation of something the GB teaches, especially things that pertain to the future, like the order of what will occur during the great tribulation etc. and who will attack who, then you have to evaluate if that is something God will judge you on. Or will he rather judge you on how you lived your life. I think the latter. I believe the Witnesses are the only group that teach people how to live their life in order to be pleasing to God, using scriptures which need no interpretation. The book Enjoy Life Forever covers it all. There are just three lessons out of a total of 60 which personally I am unsure about. Those three I put on the back burner. I have not covered them with a Bible student yet but when I do, I will let the Bible student form their own opinions, of course. It will be up to them how they receive them, I am definitely not going to influence them either way. And if they by any chance ask my opinion, I will tell them my opinion is irrelevant, they have to form their own opinion on the information they have read...

I know.....

Unless some of these materials are speculative, dogmatic, or going beyond what is written. "Make sure of all things, hold fast to what is fine" "But let God be found true even if every man be found a liar"

I do not oppose anything, I just think it should be a conscience matter, purely because the scriptures you are talking about could be interpreted a few different ways, as has been shown.

@Many Miles I second all of what Thinking said in the last post.