The most DISTURBING news about the BLOOD DOCTRINE, ever

[Evacuated]

23 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

patients are often not aware of what their conscience allows until the "Church Council" lets them know if something is "approved" or not.

Seems this is the truth for many sadly:

WHEN faced with making a personal choice, one woman told a friend: “Do not make me think; just tell me what to do. That is easier.” WT (Study) Feb 2017 p12 para 1

PS NYT said " He and Dr. Smalley quoted a 1977 article in the Journal  ....

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

Well... We have beat this horse to death ...and made dog food out of the ground horse meat ... since the clear and unambiguous command from the Biggies in Jerusalem that even the Apostle Paul respected ..  "ABSTAIN" from blood. ..... how about an observation, and a pressing question?

Did you know that although Jehovah God lamented the desperate times when Jerusalem was under siege ( ... that means enemies using catapult siege engines throwing huge rocks into and over their walls and crushing Jews... ) those starving to death  would EAT THEIR OWN DEAD ...

.... He NEVER once prohibited the practice.

Not even ALLUDING to forbidding it.

Go ahead... be a sport ... look it up.  It's only a CULTURAL taboo.

.Presumably those killed  bled out before being eaten, and we have been talking about how GOD views blood as his own personal property ... um... haven't we?

.... um... that was the pressing question.

.

.

Of course .. if we want to ignore God's viewpoints for PRACTICAL considerations ... like when 6,000 Bethelites and Special Pioneers were recently "laid off" ( .. and hung out to dry ...) given a map to the front door ....

 

[JW Insider]

3 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

What do you think “Gene Smalley” would tell you as a pretender of the truth, that he hadn’t already told past pretenders like “Randy Watters”.

I hate to seem judgmental but . . .  Gene and Randy both acted like jerks, way too often for my taste. Something seemed a little off with both of them. Also, if such a conversation took place --and it seems likely-- it seems to have taken place after the year 2000 based on the subject matter. Randy Watters was a press-room manager until 1980, and was well known for being smug, smart-alec, and sarcastic, even though he was friends with (and worked for) Tom Cabeen who was good-natured, humble, and well-liked. The point is that both Watters and Cabeen were well-known, and they attended all the Bethel Elders meetings with Smalley, but they were both disfellowshipped and kicked out of Bethel. So what made Watters think that Smalley was going to forget that?

If you are asking what Gene Smalley would say to me, I think he would tell me the truth, as long as I told him from whom I heard the rumor, and as long as I approached the matter in a serious way. (I am concerned that he will make me promise secrecy.) In general, I don't think he is a pretender of the truth. Perhaps this one issue is a difficulty at present. Most of us, I think, can deal with one serious issue at a time and not completely lose our bearings spiritually. I think he would preface it with a lot of "couched" language to make sure that I didn't think his current view was too much of a shock, and that I was still "grounded" spiritually. All this is assuming the information I received about it was correct. If it wasn't then I would expect him to clarify without hesitation.

[JW Insider]

6 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

“And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes.”

I think this is saying that the foundation and structure of the congregation results in unity of faith, correct knowledge of the Son of God, and spiritual maturity, resulting in greater stability and less risk of being tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine, or by human cunning, craftiness and deceitful schemes.

I don't think you mean that all these changes (instability) over the last few years about "fractions" were caused by deceitful schemes and craftiness. But I would agree that we have given others the unavoidable impression that our doctrines can change direction as if  tossed to and fro by waves and wind. The "blood doctrine" has actually changed more often than the doctrine about "this generation." 

For example, Acts 15 was at first understood, not to be rules about whether we Christians must avoid blood, but that this was a necessary request for a time when Jewish Christians still considered themselves to be under the Mosaic Law and that it was a compromise necessary by Gentiles to avoid stumbling these Jewish Christians and Jews who were interested in conversion to Christianity. Here is the earliest Watchtower reference to the point:

He further suggested writing to them merely that they abstain from pollutions of idols, i.e., from meats offered to idols (`verse 29`), and from things strangled and from blood–as by eating such things they might become stumbling blocks to their Jewish brethren (See `1 Cor. 8:4-13`)–and from fornication. The eating of blood was forbidden, not only by the Jewish Law, but also before the Law. The same command was given to Noah. (See `Deut. 12:23`; `Gen. 9:4`.) . . . It will be noticed that nothing is said about keeping the ten commandments, nor any part of the Jewish law. It was evidently taken for granted that having received the spirit of Christ the new law of love would be a general regulation for them. The things mentioned were merely to guard against stumbling themselves or becoming stumbling blocks to others. -- Watch Tower, 11/15/92 p.350,351 Reprints p.1473

This began to change in 1909, referring to animal blood, but transfusions were still seen as a good, loving and merciful thing as late as 1945. (Animal blood in food was banned in 1927) Although I have never seen it, the Dutch Consolation (now Awake!) September 1945, evidently said:

"God never issued regulations which prohibit the use of drugs, inoculations or blood transfusions. It is an invention of people, who, like the Pharisees, leave Jehovah's mercy and love aside."  (p.16)

In the July 1, 1951 Watchtower QFR it was clarified that blood transfusions were not for Christians, but it was also clarified in the 1950's that no one would be disfellowshipped over their decision. Then in 1961 it became a disfellowshipping offense to take blood and blood products, including any fractions.Then various fractions began to be included over the years, moving to and fro on several of them before finally settling on turning the majority of usable blood fractions into a matter of conscience. Currently 100% of blood can be accepted in all but four of its various fractions.

 

EXAMPLE OF DOCTRINE CAST TO and FRO

Plasma serum for example was

• Acceptable during WWII
• Unacceptable in 1954
• Acceptable in 1958
• Unacceptable in 1963
• Acceptable in 1965

So perhaps this type of thing is based on some kind of deceit or deception, as mentioned in the verses you quoted from Ephesians, but I don't think it's always purposeful deception. As Melinda pointed out earlier, there is a kind of deception based on desire, which is how Eve, for example, was deceived.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

... JUST A NOTE ALLEN SMITH:

... for what it is worth, and certainly worth the price of electricity of a few photons on a screen ... um ... when someone defends a view that is completely contradicted by actual real world facts, and they are intelligent people, normally prone to use their intellect, as you are ... they have a choice .... change their viewpoint to reflect what is real .... which will almost always involve a great deal of anguish ... and consequences from those who hold the same irrational viewpoints ... or begin that slippery slope that leads to a fractured, and fragile mind.

As the group The Eagles sang in their incredibly perceptive song from the late 1960s or so, (paraphrased) ...

" ... Take it easy, take it easy ... don't let the sound of your own wheels, MAKE YOU CRAZY ..."

I have to daily remind myself of these things ... as the Universe will decide what is true .. and it is without mercy.

" There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." " — Daniel Webster

.

 

 

[Evacuated]

49 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

" There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." " — Daniel Webster

Splendid quote

[Many Miles]

On 3/8/2017 at 2:03 PM, JW Insider said:

I can't describe my feelings very well about something I just learned. I seriously don't know how to handle this issue.

A couple days ago, I made a post in the area of this forum about the blood doctrine. While writing that post, it reminded me that I have been holding on to a couple of questions about the ins and outs of the doctrine, more specifically about why we now accept just about 100% of the products that are made from blood. It's true that we don't accept "whole blood" transfusions, but "whole blood" transfusions are so rarely offered any more that even the word "transfusion" has come to refer to to several blood therapies that JWs regularly accept.

Anyway, it occurred to me that I should have no problem getting a couple of these specific questions answered because I know some of the people who were involved very deeply in the blood issue. About three years ago, at the end of 2013, I talked to Brother Rusk in NYC immediately after the Annual Meeting. I hadn't seen him for many years. He was also good friends with my wife and he gave our wedding talk back in the very early 1980's. When I met with Fred Rusk in his office at Brooklyn Bethel in 1979 and 1980 to talk about the wedding, my fiancee, and leaving Bethel, among other things, he very often took phone calls about the blood issue. He wouldn't send me out of his office, but would usually just say, can you wait a second, and then he would go on for up to an hour (during my work time) talking to doctors, hospital personnel, elders, circuit overseers, patients, or sometimes a brother down in the Service Department who was trying to word a letter correctly about our policy. Our policy was still fairly straightforward back then. Fractions were not a big "thing" yet, but there were still questions about what did and did not contain blood, or whether certain kinds of blood storage machines were acceptable or not (containing the patient's own blood). There were also issues regarding blood decisions that I had never thought of before, related to child custody, headship over family decisions, etc.

Brother Rusk died fairly recently, but he wasn't the one involved so much with the new "fractions" policy anyway. The person who began taking over for Brother Rusk as the Society's subject-matter-expert on blood was Gene Smalley, also from the Writing Department.

These two brothers have very different reputations. Brother Rusk was a very well-loved, peaceful man, who was nearly always soft-spoken, kind, patient and helpful. Even when taking care of a serious issue, you never saw anger. He was a cornucopia of the fruits of the spirit. Gene Smalley was almost the opposite in every way. Spiteful, hateful, bad-tempered, yelling, angry, backbiting, divisive, contentious, etc., etc. (He wasn't that way all the time of course, but often enough to gain a reputation, and more than once threatened with losing his job in Writing.) But his sweet wife Anita just died very recently (from cancer) and I thought this might be a good reason to contact him and, perhaps, if the conversation could be comfortably turned, it could be a chance to get a couple questions answered about fractions. He would know the precise answer. 

Well, I haven't called him yet. Instead, yesterday, I started asking around from friends who may have seen how he is doing recently. This includes one person who worked with him until fairly recently in Writing, and one person who was a close acquaintance of both Gene and Anita.

Here is the most disturbing thing I learned. I was told that I shouldn't ask Gene Smalley about the blood doctrine. Although still on the Writing Committee, evidently he has not believed in the Blood Doctrine since about 1992, according to one of the persons I just spoke with. Yet, he has still promoted it and given interviews about it.

I have always thought of Brother Smalley as the "father of the fractions doctrine." So he would be the perfect person to ask. But the persons I asked are both well known at Bethel, and one of them has even been mentioned in the publications as early as the 1970's. My obvious question was, "Well, if he doesn't believe in it, then why does he still defend it?" Both of the persons I asked gave me the same answer, even though I asked them separately. (Although one could have been repeating the answer they heard from the other.) The answer, paraphrased:

Even though he doesn't believe in it, he still defended it because of all the persons who have died.

 

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. 

[Pudgy]

9 hours ago, Many Miles said:

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.