What is our scriptural basis for refusing transfusion of products rendered from blood?

[Anna]

32 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

Nothing like saying it like you mean it!

 

I know.....

[Pudgy]

… The “Make Sure…” book, in my not so humble opinion, was the finest and most valuable book the Society ever published!

Just the essential 15% JW Core Beliefs …. the same thing that Sir Isaac Newton figured out 400 or so years ago, WITHOUT the 85% crapola.

 

[TrueTomHarley]

40 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

Nothing like saying it like you mean it!

In fairness, there is a 66 year difference in the quotes. Most things modify within a 66-year period, even when it means backing off a little. It’s a far cry from, ‘To each his own gods, o Israel!’ They still think it’s a good idea to pay attention to them, if not simply on the basis of headship and respect for love shown. As do I. I appreciate the modification, since I know I ought not feel disloyal if I don’t embrace every little thing.

I mean, really. Think back to 1957, when people readily complied with all things without complaint. Back when my dad would shear my hair like the barnyard animals he grew up with, leaving just a little tuft in the front like a hood ornament. He blew his stack when the Beatles came along and I tried to grow my hair one millimeter longer.

[Many Miles]

11 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

In fairness, there is a 66 year difference in the quotes. Most things modify within a 66-year period, even when it means backing off a little. It’s a far cry from, ‘To each his own gods, o Israel!’ They still think it’s a good idea to pay attention to them, if not simply on the basis of headship and respect for love shown. As do I. I appreciate the modification, since I know I ought not feel disloyal if I don’t embrace every little thing.

Yeah. I hear what you're saying about the 66-year differential. Problem is, though they don't put it out there in plain language like they did before, they still expect to have their "voice" obeyed just the same as it was expected 66-years-ago. It's just woven into the cloth in different terms today. Even 66-years-ago they were saying they weren't inspired. But they still said what they said, and sometimes they said it exactly how they wanted it understood. That's what struck me the first time I read that remark from 57.

That said, I agree every little change of improvement is improvement.

And, since you mentioned the haircut thing, I was cut whisker close for years and years. As a teenager I remember letting my hair grow out just a smidge. Our congregation servant (dates me I know) told me he was ashamed to be seen with me because my hair touched my ears. Just touched  my ears! Still laugh about that one. Know what my dad said right then and there to me? "Son, don't get a haircut for a month!" I grinned from ear to ear! The congregation servant (former missionary and close personal friend of Knorr) clinched his jaw like there was no tomorrow. Hadn't thought of that incident in decades. Thanks for jarring my memory!

[Juan Rivera]

3 hours ago, Many Miles said:

A statement I'll never forget reading for the first time is this:

"It is vital that we appreciate this fact and respond to the directions of the “slave” as we would to the voice of God, because it is His provision." (Ref https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1957446?q="the+voice+of+God"&p=sen

Somebody wants to be put on the same plane as the word of God. But then, I always thought that the voice of God was an inspired voice.

Yet:

"The Governing Body is neither inspired nor infallible." (Ref https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2017283?q=inspired+governing&p=sen

Wait. What?

Guess this means we should not respond to the "faithful slave" as we would to the voice of God.

Nothing like saying it like you mean it!

 

Thank you for the comments  @Anna The Bible is a holy book, but it is also a dangerous book, because if you don't interpret it correctly, you can be led into false beliefs. I could point to some groups where you would agree that their misinterpretation of Scripture has led to their spiritual destruction. 

@Many Miles I do not believe that for us (Witnesses) authority is identical to truth. Authority is moral power to which submission and obedience is due from those entrusted to it. But when I submit (so long as agree), the one to whom I submit is me. In other words, reducing authority to truth (or agreement by those under authority that the authority is speaking the truth), conceptually eliminates authority. That doesn't entail that every authority has equal authority. As Witnesses, we obey the rightful ruler of our country, but only under God's greater authority. If the president asks us to do something that violates our conscience, or would require disobeying Jehovah, we must serve God rather than men, because God is greater in authority than any creature. But, that doesn't entail that we must submit to the government only when we agree with the civil law or only when we agree that it is good for our country. We might think some laws are bad, but, so long as they do not require us to violate our conscience or the divine law, we must submit to them, because of their authority.

The authority of Scripture is authority with respect to divine revelation. The authority of the Governing body, is interpretive authority with respect to that revelation. These are two different types of authority. They do not compete but complement each other and are mutually dependent according to Witnesses. Witnesses believe that Christ has given divinely appointed men the authority of stewardship and the gift of explaining the Scriptures to His Congregation. So for a Witness the correct way of approaching Scripture is to learn and study it as informed by the guidance of the Congregation. 

That is the choice for a Witness, either they are going to trust and follow Christ by following a divine appointed authority that interprets the faith or follow Christ by determining for themselves and relying on their own judgment on how it is to be interpreted. The Witness who wants to subject the interpretive authority of the governing body to some other interpretive authority to hold them accountable is actually saying whether they realize it or not that they want the Governing body to be accountable to their own interpretation of scripture. This Witness is taking that authority to themselves. And that is another way of showing that the requirement is in essence a denial of their own need for a Governing body.

Some have been concerned that this amounts to authoritarianism. But we all (insiders/outsiders) have to understand the nature of the authority a Witness believes has been given to the Governing Body. If that wasn’t the case, to whom do they wish to make the Governing body accountable? For a Witness there is no higher interpretive authority on earth than the Governing body of the Congregation. So the idea of subjecting the Governing Body to something else presumes that there is something else on earth that has greater interpretive authority than the Governing Body.

So let me ask you guys, I'm assuming we are all Witnesses @Anna @xero @Many Miles @JW Insider   I think we are coming up against the common problem encountered when the authority argument is pressed to its last frontier. Namely, given that the fallible individual (us) must ultimately be the one to make the authority choice, it would seem that whatever authority is embraced will necessarily be tainted with the corruption of our fallibility and choice. If we claim that the Congregation is our authority, but we pick it as our authority, and retain it as our authority, on the basis of their agreement with our own judgment, then performatively they only have semantic authority (is our authority in name only) and is not functioning as our authority.

The apparent incoherencies start to appear when a Witness asks, if a fallible interpretative authority can bind the conscience?... let me explain. Witnesses are called to train or inform their conscience. Part of informing their conscience is coming to understand that the governing body has been divinely appointed as the teaching authority of the Congregation. So thru reason after examining the evidence (history, prophecy, other marks and signs) they come to have moral certainty that this authority comes from God, and that Jehovah has a Congregation, and that Jehovah's Witness are the Congregation Jesus established. So they enter and join this community of faith. A faith which is communicated in part in propositions. Propositions which are professed, believed and shared by its members. These propositions they appeal to, are revealed in Scripture and have to be interpreted by someone if they want to understand their meaning and assent to it. So there is no other way. For JW's it is reasonable to accept the Governing Body’s teaching authority when they interpret scripture because they believe they share the authority of the elders and apostles of the Jerusalem Council in the first century. They also believe they share the assistance of the holy spirit promised by Jesus which would guide them to the truth which gives them reason for confidence in their guidance of the Congregation. This makes it reasonable for Witnesses to be disposed to accept their teaching authority even when it is not infallible because their teaching enjoys the presumption of truth. So far as their conscience knows and understands that the Congregation has divine authority then their conscience tells them to submit. If a Witness doesn't believe the Congregation has divine authority then their conscience is not bound to follow it.

Now the question is if they can extend this binding of the conscience to particular doctrines that have been settled by the Governing Body for the past 100 years. 

Of course the teachings or claims to authority of the Governing Body to make sense they have to be reasonable and consistent and faithful, but their authority does not come from the strength of the arguments, or because Witnesses happen to agree with that teaching, or because it makes sense. If that were true, their teachings would have no more claim to their assent than it does to anyone else outside of their religion who happens to read their teachings on their website or publications.

So once a person locates, identifies and enters the Congregation, a shift takes place. Meaning their reason submits to this divine authority, where their reason no longer remains the ultimate judge concerning the truth of what the Governing Body teaches. Of course Witnesses search the scriptures, but not to determine whether their doctrines are true, but to seek to understand how they are contained and presented in scripture.

The reason I say this is because the Governing Body doesn’t seem to agree that the apostles anywhere in scripture exhorted other Christians to test the authority of the apostles against their own subjective interpretation of Scripture. (1Th 5:21; Ga 1:7-9; 1 John 4:1; Acts 17:11)

What I'm trying to get at is this. On the one hand JW's have a perpetual openness to correct their understandings of doctrines that deal with faith and morals as the discovery of new biblical arguments overturn current understandings. But on the other hand they are commanded to submit and obey to current teachings. If that is the case, there has to be a way to be able to distinguish between:

Beliefs(teachings/doctrines) that express what is revealed in scripture, thus an interpretation with divine authority.

and

Beliefs(teachings/doctrines) arrived by mere fallible human inferences or a human way of interpreting them.

This seems to create problems:

1) All of the Governing body's conclusions will remain fallible and provisional amounting to mere opinions.

2)If the Governing Body is fallible, and thus could always be wrong, then the assent witnesses render to their teachings are always tentative and subject to substantive revision.

3) It follows that they know next to nothing with any certainty.

4) They can never know with certainty if what they are having faith is a true expression or a true interpretation of scripture.

5)If the Governing Body is fallible how do Witnesses distinguish mere human opinions as opposed to a divine interpretation and how can they have faith that the interpretation is divine revelation?

So ultimately, the problem is if it’s possible for Jehovah’s Witnesses to exercise faith in the interpretations of the Governing Body if the five points above are true?

Do you guys agree with this assessment or is there another Framework the Congregation is operating under?

 

On 11/7/2023 at 7:52 AM, xero said:

That is the problem and it's chronic. To me it's like Moses in Numbers when he overstepped and failed to honor Jehovah. He directed attention to himself. Today you see the same thing only it's a shell game with the organization speaking ex-cathedra as the Vicar of Christ. 

Just stop doing that, and present scriptural arguments for whatever adjustment is being made. The authority is scripture, not the imperfect mouths who might read the scriptures. Make that clear and I'll stop wincing.

Though I can't imagine with imperfect mouths being what they are, that they'd not overstep. Every single organized group including the 1st century Christians had this problem.

 

@xero It seems our epistemological stance is exemplified in the words of Martin Luther at the Diet of Worms:

"Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason. I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other, my conscience is captive to the Word of God."

Luther’s statement captures the very essence of our religious epistemology and his claim that his conscience was “captive to the Word of God” meant in actuality that his conscience was ultimately bound by his own interpretation of Scripture. 

[Many Miles]

1 hour ago, Juan Rivera said:

The Witness who wants to subject the interpretive authority of the governing body to some other interpretive authority to hold them accountable is actually saying whether they realize it or not that they want the Governing body to be accountable to their own interpretation of scripture. This Witness is taking that authority to themselves. And that is another way of showing that the requirement is in essence a denial of their own need for a Governing body.

What you're depicted here looks like a bifurcation to me, and, I think, a false one. The bifurcation is, essentially, either 1) your making your own interpretation or 2) you're not. I'll get back to this.

Your familiar with what internally we term "conscience matters". These are of things that are left to each person to decide without organized communal repercussion because different ones among us may legitimately hold different views on the same subject. Sometimes these different views might stem from different interpretations of information. But that's not always the case. Sometimes the difference in view is not because of an interpretation but, rather, because of a good solid logical argument. Logical conclusions are subject to veracity, but not interpretation. The conclusion of a logical argument is sound if its form is valid and its premises are evidenced. The level of veracity of a conclusion reached by a logical argument is determined by the strength of evidence for the argument's premises. The existence of "conscience matters" shows that different decisions can live in the same room.

So, back to my opening statement. The bifurcation you present is because there is an option other than simple interpretation. The option is making oneself accept conclusions of logical arguments, whether we like those conclusions or not. Logical conclusions have no bias, and are always falsifiable. I can say for certainty (because I've felt the pain!) that accepting certain conclusions has proven to be very hard, because of biases that I held. I have to force myself to accept a conclusion different than my preference because I couldn't deny the mathematical equation staring me in the face, especially after I verified its form and values over and over again to make sure. I was not submitting to what I wanted to accept (my preferential interpretation). I was submitting to something else.

Here's a scenario that's very real:

JW 1 conscientiously accepts multiple plasma exchange therapies with more than half his circulating blood replaced multiple times with cryosupernatant plasma donated by anonymous donors.

JW 2 conscientiously rejects multiple plasma exchange therapies with more than half his circulating blood replaced multiple times with cryosupernatant plasma donated by anonymous donors.

We respect both persons despite the fact that these two individuals hold diametrically opposing views on a life and death decision. We do this because both persons hold views that each had soundly reasoned to different ends based on premises applied within their respective logical arguments.

My point here when there are competing conclusions each of which is the result of a logical argument (in our case, as logical scriptural argument) then each conclusion should be respected, and the differentiation is not based merely on personal interpretation.

Christians are like anyone else. They need teachers. But teachers should teach us how to think, not what to think. If a teacher has a conclusion they think is solid the burden is on that teacher to demonstrate that conclusion is as sound as they would have us accept and act upon it. If they can't then they've failed as teachers, or we could have failed as students, or perhaps both have failed. But the burden is always on the teacher. Always. Of course, a student has a duty to learn as best they can. Otherwise they've cheated themselves.

Oh, and the two JWs above, they can remain unified in common cause despite their opposing differences, which is what unity is.

 

[Many Miles]

1 hour ago, Juan Rivera said:

So ultimately, the problem is if it’s possible for Jehovah’s Witnesses to exercise faith in the interpretations of the Governing Body if the five points above are true?

It's possible for JWs to unify around the ever-fallible governing body you've described so long as that governing body does not ask those governed to ignore soundly reasoned conclusions.

Early Christians were subject to being stoned to death. But early Christians never stoned anyone to death.

[Juan Rivera]

@Many MilesThank you for your comments. Let me take some time to think and consider and wrestle with your criticism/ response in light of your other comments as well, and try to reply tonight

[Many Miles]

5 minutes ago, Juan Rivera said:

Let me take some time to think and consider and wrestle with your criticism/ response in light of your other comments as well, and try to reply tonight

Juan, take all the time you need. It's apparent to me that you are sincere and genuine. (All decisions are not based on logic, though all decisions are subject to logical analysis!) Even if we end up disagreeing, it won't be because you don't care. You care about me. That says a lot. I care about you too.

[Thinking]

On 11/7/2023 at 2:51 PM, George88 said:

Many, Anna and Pudgy, I fail to comprehend what aspects of these articles you all fail to grasp in regard to the application of the Mosaic laws. Before and after, there were instances where certain requirements of the law were unnecessary for Gentile Christians. This is due to the fact that the Jewish High Court extended the laws and considered themselves the ultimate authority. Regarding the matter of transfused blood, there shouldn't have been any issue since it didn't exist back then and wouldn't have been applicable based on that understanding. The only scenario where it would have been a concern is if someone chose to consume an animal without properly draining its blood or if they indulged in the gruesome practice of drinking the blood, as done by certain Roman nobility who would consume the blood of fallen gladiators.

So, let me ask you all, what part of the transition do you fail to understand when a person repents? We have been presented with the following questions in those articles. Based on scripture, what biblical foundations do you oppose, under the conditions outlined in the understanding of the Word, not your personal interpretation?

Nevertheless, it will undoubtedly result in an intriguing book, much like the works of Carl Olof Jonsson.

Carl was very very wordy and hard to read 

 

[Thinking]

On 11/7/2023 at 9:14 AM, Many Miles said:

I thought long about that comment. My story is no more and no less a story about a boy who was raised to respect truth.

Many generations of my family have been associated with JWs, even before JWs were a thing. My paternal side goes back to Russell.

I was raised to trust the society. So that's what I did. And, that was my mistake. 'Do not put your trust in nobles, nor in the son of earthling man, to whom no salvation belongs.' I should have listened to that with more care than I did.

When it came to the society's blood position, when I was baptized I trusted that someone higher up and smarter than me understood the details, and I trusted them.

Way, way later down the road, I found out the society could not and would not answer for important underpinnings of its position on blood. This was the case regarding physiological aspects of blood as a substance, and medical aspects of transfusion medicine. This was also true of biblical statements regarding blood, and particularly as it relates to Noah. Ultimately, what lit me up to take a closer look at this whole thing were things I read in our own publications. I realized the scriptural truth of the whole thing was already spelled out in our literature! So I showed it to the society. Crickets.

Compare these two articles:

Here: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1983290

Here: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101983099

In the second article, pay careful attention to paragraphs 7 and 8. Very close attention, as you look back over the first article linked above. This material was all published in the same year. None of it is the result of "new light" that changed. Remember there are biblical characters who worshiped the only true God who were never under Mosaic Law. Men like Noah, Job, Elihu and Cornelius. These latter had to obey the decree issued to Noah. But not to the different standard issued to Jews under Mosaic Law.

Those internal articles are just the tip. 

People are still dying over something that should be left for each person to decide on their own, without religious coercion of being potentially shunned.

In the end, my story doesn't and shouldn't matter. What matters is truth.

 

 

Well I dont know ..I read those articles and I don’t see a problem….I think I’ve got the grasp of them but I’m asking others here to comment as you seem so strong in this..understanding you have….so your going to have to spell it out for me

Also you seem to have a few irons in the fire and I get a bit confused ..so I’m just speaking on the blood issue here .

The me…thinks one shouldn’t be disfellowshipped for taking blood but going by all those scriptures in the articles…it would amount to a death sentence by Jehovah himself…before and after Noah’s time and it was of such importance out of three things from the Law …blood was one of them for the new Christian’s.

We are talking about blood here..Frank blood.

Im guessing someone like you wrote in and explained how fractions of blood were in vaccines and certain injections…( which was good )..so then the fractions had to be explained.

As to some of the treatments you have explained and as to why one would get disfellowshipped and not for the other…I wouldn’t have a clue.

I read in one of our articles some one felt okay to transfuse cows blood…..( I remember thinking,,,,what the heck,,,and why would they even publish that)

I guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree …..for me..it’s like taking the fruit…..but I would never look down on or judge anyone if they took it or disagreed with me,

You go back a long time and it’s a shame in those days there seemed to be blind obedience with children and youths of your time…no internet…some had not even a library to compare things. In a way you could say you were a victim of your era

I on the other hand come from the 70s and questioned everything….I could see a number of worrying things….wrong things…but I was like one of those no good Egyptians grabbing hold of the hem of that Jew…. .not sure where he was taking me nor not really wanting to go…but I knew he was heading in the right direction.

You’re expecting too much Miles….lives have been lost because of wrongful beliefs pushed on us ( organ transplants)…just as King David lost tens of thousand of lives …for his error…so it happens today as then….and will until Michael comes and finishes it.

Your an interesting man with a lot of fascinating experiences…I hope we hear more of them…you sure write really well….now I wonder where you learnt to do that hey 😉

[Srecko Sostar]

12 hours ago, George88 said:

Therefore, it is clear that you do oppose something biblical when you are providing the evidence

Please, it's nonsense. GB says they proves own teachings, supposedly, on the basis of the Bible and verse/s in the Bible or so called "biblical context".

After some time, thye refutes these teachings on the basis of the same or some other biblical passages. What is the statement even supposed to mean - that someone is against what is "biblical"?

GB lives in contradictions. 

Joshua David, JW PR in India, stated that JWs are guided by their conscience whether or not they want to accept a blood transfusion, but the Shepard book outlines the procedure that JW elders should take if someone has received a blood transfusion.

Deceiving the public. There is no freedom of choice because members are sanctioned if they take blood.

"Biblical"? haha