Jehovah's Witnesses And Blood - Part 1

The Premise - Fact or Myth?

This is the first in a series of five articles I have prepared that relate to the No Blood doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses. Let me first say that I have been an active Jehovah's Witness my entire life. For the majority of my years, I was a passionate card-carrying supporter of the No Blood doctrine, ready to refuse a potentially life-saving intervention to remain in lockstep solidarity with fellow believers. My belief in the doctrine relied upon the premise that an intravenous infusion of blood represents a form of nutrition (nourishment or food) for the body. Belief that this premise is fact is essential if such texts as Genesis 9:4, Leviticus 17:10-11 and Acts 15:29 (which all relate to eating animal blood) are to be considered as relevant.

May I first emphasize that I am not an advocate for blood transfusions. Studies have proven that a blood transfusion can result in complications both during and after surgery, at times with fatal outcomes. For certain, avoiding transfusion reduces the risk of complications. There are, however, circumstances (e.g. hemorrhagic shock from massive blood loss) where transfusion intervention may be the only therapy for preserving life. A growing number of Witnesses are beginning to understand this risk, but the vast majority do not.

In my experience, Jehovah's Witnesses and their position on the blood doctrine can be separated into three groups:

Those who hold the premise (blood is nourishment) is fact. These are often older ones who refuse even minor blood fractions.

Those who doubt the premise is fact. They have not yet come to realize that the premise (blood is nourishment) is the critical link for the doctrine to be scripturally based. These may have no issue accepting blood derivatives. While they continue to support the doctrine publicly, they privately struggle with what they would do if they (or their loved one) faced an emergency. Some in this group do not maintain updated medical information.

Those who have done extensive research and are convinced the premise is a myth. These no longer carry their No Blood cards. They are informed on medical procedures and advances. If they remain in active association in congregations, they must remain silent regarding their position. These do have a strategy in place in the event of a life-threatening emergency.

For the Witness, it boils down to one simple question: Do I believe the premise is fact or myth?

I invite you to consider the premise again. Understand that the doctrine is scriptural only if the premise that blood transfusions amount to nourishment is fact. If it is a myth, then every day millions of Jehovah's Witnesses are placing their lives at risk adhering to an organizational teaching, not a Biblical one. It is vital that all Jehovah's Witnesses research this for themselves. The purpose of this and subsequent articles is to share the results of my personal research. If this information could accelerate the learning process for even one person currently uninformed before they or their loved one has to face a life-threatening situation, my prayer is answered. The Governing Body does encourage outside research in this area. An essential element to research is learning the early history of the No Blood doctrine.

The Architects of the No Blood Doctrine

The chief architect of the No Blood doctrine was Clayton J. Woodworth, one of the seven Bible Students who were imprisoned in 1918. He was an editor and textbook writer before becoming a member of the Brooklyn Bethel family in 1912. He became editor of The Golden Age magazine at its inception in 1919, and remained such for 27 years (including the years of Consolation). In 1946 he was relieved of his duties due to advancing age. That year the magazine's name was changed to Awake!. He passed away in 1951, at the ripe old age of 81.

Though having no formal education in medicine, it appears that Woodworth fancied himself as an authority on health care. The Bible Students (later called Jehovah’s Witnesses) enjoyed a steady stream of rather peculiar health care advice from him. The following are but a few examples:

“Disease is Wrong Vibration. From what has thus far been said, it will be apparent to all that any disease is simply an ‘out of tune’ condition of some part of the organism. In other words, the affected part of the body ‘vibrates’ higher or lower than normal...I have named this new discovery...the Electronic Radio Biola,....The Biola automatically diagnoses and treats diseases by the use of electronic vibrations. The diagnosis is 100 percent correct, rendering better service in this respect than the most experienced diagnostician, and without any attending cost.” (The Golden Age, April 22, 1925, pp. 453-454).

"Thinking people would rather have smallpox than vaccination, because the latter sows the seed of syphilis, cancers, eczema, erysipelas, scrofula, consumption, even leprosy and many other loathsome afflictions. Hence the practice of vaccination is a crime, an outrage and a delusion." (The Golden Age, 1929, p. 502)

“We do well to bear in mind that among the drugs, serums, vaccines, surgical operations, etc., of the medical profession, there is nothing of value save an occasional surgical procedure. Their so-called "science" grew out of Egyptian black magic and has not lost its demonological character...we shall be in a sad plight when we place the welfare of the race in their hands...Readers of The Golden Age know the unpleasant truth about the clergy; they should also know the truth about the medical profession, which sprang from the same demon worshipping shamans (doctor priests) as did the ‘doctors of divinity.’” (The Golden Age, Aug. 5, 1931 pp. 727-728)

“There is no food that is right food for the morning meal. At breakfast is no time to break a fast. Keep up the daily fast until the noon hour… Drink plenty of water two hours after each meal; drink none just before eating; and a small quantity if any at meal time. Good buttermilk is a health drink at meal times and in between. Do not take a bath until two hours after eating a meal, nor closer than one hour before eating. Drink a full glass of water both before and after the bath.” (The Golden Age, Sept. 9, 1925, pp. 784-785) “The earlier in the forenoon you take the sun bath, the greater will be the beneficial effect, because you get more of the ultra-violet rays, which are healing” (The Golden Age, Sept. 13, 1933, p. 777)

In her book Flesh and Blood: Organ Transplantation and Blood Transfusion In Twentieth-Century America (2008 pp. 187-188) Dr. Susan E. Lederer (Associate Professor of the History of Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine) had this to say about Clayton J. Woodworth (Boldface added ):

"After Russell's death in 1916, the editor of the second major Witness publication, The Golden Age, embarked on a campaign against orthodox medicine. Clayton J. Woodworth blasted the American medical profession as an 'institution founded on ignorance, error, and superstition.' As an editor, he sought to persuade his fellow Witnesses about the shortcomings of modern medicine, including the evils of aspirin, the chlorination of water, the germ theory of disease, aluminum cooking pots and pans, and vaccination,' Woodworth wrote, 'because the latter sows the seed of syphilis, cancer, eczema, erysipelas, scrofula, consumption, even leprosy, and many other loathsome afflictions.' This hostility toward regular medical practice was one element of the Witness response to blood transfusion."

So we see that Woodworth manifested a hostility toward regular medical practice. Are we the least bit surprised that he objected to blood transfusions? Sadly, his personal view did not remain private. It was embraced by the then principals of the Society, President Nathan Knorr and Vice-President Fredrerick Franz.[i] Subscribers of The Watchtower were first introduced to the No Blood doctrine in the July 1, 1945 issue. This article included numerous pages dealing with the biblical command to not eat blood. The scriptural reasoning was sound, but applicable only if the premise was fact, namely; that a transfusion was equivalent to eating blood. Contemporary medical thinking had (by 1945) advanced far beyond such an antiquated notion. Woodworth chose to ignore the science of his day and instead initiated a doctrine that relied upon the antiquated medical practice of centuries past.
Note how Professor Lederer continues:

"The Witness interpretation of the Biblical application to transfusion relied on an older understanding of the role of blood in the body, namely that blood transfusion represented a form of nutrition for the body. The Watchtower article [July 1, 1945] cited an entry from the 1929 Encyclopedia, in which blood was described as the principal medium by which the body is nourished. But this thinking did not represent contemporary medical thinking. In fact, the description of blood as nourishment or food was the view of seventeenth-century physicians. That this represented centuries-old, rather than current, medical thinking on transfusion did not appear to trouble the Jehovah's Witnesses." [Boldface added]

So these three men (C. Woodworth, N. Knorr, F. Franz) decided to create a doctrine based upon the thinking of seventeenth-century physicians. Given that the lives of hundreds of thousands of subscribers to The Watchtower were involved, should we not view such a decision as reckless and irresponsible? Rank-and-file members believed that these men were guided by God's holy spirit. Few, if any, had sufficient knowledge to challenge the arguments and references they presented. A policy that could (and often did) involve a life-or-death decision for thousands depended upon the merits of an archaic notion. This stance had the unintended (or not) consequence of keeping Jehovah's Witnesses in the limelight and perpetuated the impression that JWs were the only true Christians; the only ones who would put their lives on the line in defense of true Christianity.

Remaining Separate from the World

Professor Lederer shares some interesting context surrounding the Witnesses at the time.

"During World War II, as the American National Red Cross mobilized efforts to collect massive amounts of blood for the Allies, Red Cross officials, public relations people, and politicians construed blood donation on the home front as the patriotic duty of all healthy Americans. For this reason alone, blood donation may have aroused the suspicion of Jehovah's Witnesses. In both World War I and World War II, the hostility of Witnesses to secular government created tensions with the American government. The refusal to support the war effort by serving in the armed forces led to the imprisonment of the sect's conscientious objectors." [Boldface added]

By 1945 the fervor of patriotism was running high. Leadership had earlier decided that for a young man to perform civilian service when drafted would be a compromise of neutrality (a position finally reversed with "new light" in 1996). Many young brothers were imprisoned for refusing to perform civilian service. Here, we had a country that viewed donating blood as the patriotic thing to do, while in contrast, young Witness men would not even perform civilian service in lieu of serving in the military.
How could Jehovah's Witnesses donate blood that might save a soldier's life? Would it not be viewed as supporting the war effort?

Instead of reversing the policy and allowing young Witness men to accept civilian service, leadership dug their heels in and enacted the No Blood policy. It mattered not that the policy relied upon an abandoned, centuries-old premise, widely acknowledged as unscientific. During the war, Jehovah's Witnesses were the target of much ridicule and harsh persecution. When the war was over and the fervor of patriotism subsided, might not leadership have viewed the No Blood doctrine as a means to maintain JWs in the spotlight, knowing that this position would inevitably lead to cases in the Supreme Court? Instead of fighting for the right to refuse to salute the flag and for the right to go from door to door, the fight was now for the freedom to choose to end your life or the life of your child. If the agenda of leadership was to keep Witnesses separate from the world, it worked. Jehovah's Witnesses were in the spotlight again, fighting case after case for more than a decade. Some cases involved newborns and even the unborn.

A Doctrine Forever Etched in Stone

In summary, it is this writer’s opinion that the No Blood doctrine was born in response to paranoia surrounding wartime patriotism and the American Red Cross blood drive. We can now understand how such a travesty was put in motion. In fairness to the men responsible, they were expecting Armageddon to arrive at any moment. This surely influenced their shortsightedness. But then, who do we hold responsible for the speculation that Armageddon was so near? The organization became victims of their own speculation. They likely felt that since Armageddon was so near, few would be affected by this doctrine, and, hey, there’s always the resurrection, right?

When the first member of the Organization refused blood and died due to hemorrhagic shock (presumably soon after the 7/1/45 Watchtower was published), the doctrine was forever etched in stone. It could never ever be rescinded. The Society’s leadership had hung an enormous millstone round the neck of the Organization; one that threatened its credibility and its assets. One that could be removed only in the event of one of the following:

Armageddon

A viable blood substitute

Chapter 11 bankruptcy

Obviously, none have happened to date. With the passing of each decade, the millstone has grown exponentially larger, as hundreds of thousands have placed their lives at risk in compliance with the doctrine. We can only guess at how many have experienced an untimely death as a result of adhering to a command of men. (There is a silver lining for the medical profession discussed in Part 3). Generations of Organization leadership have inherited this nightmare of a millstone. To their dismay, these guardians of doctrine have been forced into a position that requires they defend the indefensible. In an effort to sustain their credibility and protect Organization assets, they have had to sacrifice their integrity, not to mention the greater sacrifice in human suffering and loss of life.

The clever misapplication of Proverbs 4:18 effectively backfired, as it provided the architects of the No Blood doctrine with rope sufficient to hang the organization. Being convinced of their own speculation regarding the imminence of Armageddon, they became oblivious to the long range ramifications of the action. The No Blood doctrine remains unique in comparison to all other doctrinal teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses. Any other teaching can be rescinded or abandoned using the "new light" trump card that leadership invented for themselves. (Proverbs 4:18). However, that trump card can't be played to rescind the No Blood doctrine. A reversal would be an admission by leadership that the doctrine was never biblical. It would open the flood gates and could lead to financial ruin.

The claim must be that our No Blood doctrine is biblical for the belief to be protected under the Constitution (First Amendment - Free exercise of religion). Yet for us to make the claim the belief is biblical, the premise must be true. If a transfusion is not eating blood, would not John 15:13 clearly allow for donating one's blood to help his neighbor remain living:

"Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends." (John 15:13)

Donating blood does not require one to lay down his life. In fact, donating blood brings no harm to the donor whatsoever. It can mean life to the one receiving the donor's blood or derivatives (fractions) produced from donor blood.

In Part 2 we continue with the history from 1945 to the present. We will note the subterfuge employed by the Society Leadership to attempt to defend the indefensible. We also address the premise, proving it unmistakably to be a myth.
_______________________________________________________
[i] For most of the 20^th century, Witnesses referred to the organization and its leadership as “the Society”, based on a shortening of the legal name, Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society.

Archived Comments

We have moved to the Disqus commenting system. To post a new comment, go to the bottom of this page.

Comment by Vassy on 2016-01-06 06:59:51
I would like to share with you an interesting and tragic story related to blood transfusions. As recently as November 2015, Georgiana, a JW woman aged 20, was involved in a train accident. She was a beginner driver and, when wishing to cross the railroad, her engine stopped and the car remained still on the rail. Her father got off the car and started to push the car. Within seconds, the trained appeared out of nowhere and hit the car (the woman was in the car). The collision was disastrous, leaving the girl with multiple and severe spinal, thoracic and head injuries.
After she was carried to the hospital, the family was told the girl needed a blood transfusion (the girl was unconscious, she could not decide for herself and no medical directive was found with her). The doctors were astonished to hear that the girl’s parents (being JWs as well) were not willing to save the girl’s life and, instead, forbade the administration of blood to their daughter. The medical team insisted a transfusion was needed but to no avail: the parents refused the transfusion. As the situation grew worse and worse for the girl, it was decided that the girl be transferred to a university clinic in the nearest big city (Iassy). Unfortunately, the girl died during the transferal after 7 days of hospitalization. The authorities filed lawsuit against the parents and/or the doctors (I don’t know for sure) over the charge of murder.
On the day of the funeral, at least two Romanian Bethelites came to deliver the funeral talk. What is interesting is how they tried to excuse the organization from having anything to do with the girl’s decision. I must mention that the people in the village where the girl lived were highly inflamed against the JWs and wanted to oust them out of the village. So the purpose of the talk was primarily to appease the public. It appealed to a lot of sentiments. However, the following excerpt demonstrates how the organization tries to exonerate itself from any bad consequences resulted from their blood policy. In other words, “we urge you not to take any blood, but if you die, it’s not our fault after all, it’s your own decision”. This was essentially the position adopted by the Romanian JW Bethel when contacted by the media.
“Therefore, the following question is raised: how do Jehovah’s Witnesses deal with this issue [that is, the blood prohibition]? Do Jehovah’s Witnesses require or compel someone not to accept a specific medical treatment or a blood transfusion? The categorical, clear and straight answer to this issue is NO! Jehovah’s Witnesses do not oblige, require or demand on behalf of anyone to accept or not to accept a particular medical treatment. Each Jehovah’s Witness decides for himself/herself, based on his/her conscience [this is a LIE since the individual can only use his conscience in relation to fractions and not whole blood] and the Bible, regardless of which Bible is quoted from, because all Bibles are the same/say the same thing—for example, I have with me the Cornilescu Bible translation published by an orthodox priest, my quote was from another orthodox Bible published by Romanian Patriarchate, the quotes of the previous speakers were from another Bible—all Bibles are absolutely the same. Therefore, each Witness—this is what the community should remember—decides for himself/herself, based on his/her conscience [again the SAME LIE as above] and the Bible, whether to receive or not a medical treatment. Accepting or refusing a blood transfusion is a strictly personal decision having no connection whatsoever with religion or anything else from the community in which someone lives. In other words, not even the family, nobody, not even the family has the ethical, legal or religious right to enjoin a person to accept or decline a blood transfusion. And I want to emphasize this aspect, therefore I repeat: the decision to accept or refuse a medical treatment is not regulated by Jehovah’s Witnesses. No religion has the right to enforce a particular course of action in this regard upon its practitioners as this would infringe each individual’s right to choose. In our case, Georgiana chose by herself and for herself the best medical treatment [I wonder what that treatment was since she DIED after 7 days in the hospital] so that her conscience may not be troubled, and her parents chose to support her decision out of respect for their daughter’s choice.”
What strikes me as hypocritical is their shamelessness in stating that refusing a blood transfusion has nothing to do with religion!!! And if someone is really free to decide for himself/herself in this issue, then why does the Feed the Flock manual stipulates that anyone who willingly and unrepentantly takes blood is subject to disassociation (an equivalent for disfellowshiping)? This is outrageous and no sane person could cope with such double standards!
- Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-01-06 09:35:36
  Vassy,
  Thank you for sharing such a moving story, though it has such tragic ending. Her story is not unique. Countless others have faced the very same outcome.
  Their stories need to be publicized and shared with the world. In the series of articles I've prepared, it is my prayer that the message will reach many active JW's as well as the medical profession and legal authorities..Too many families have suffered, too many parents have lost children, children have lost their mothers, husbands have lost their wives, wives have lost their husbands.How many more lives must be sacrificed over a teaching of man, not God?
  As for the Romanian Bethelites that delivered her funeral talk, their actions are shameful. To imply that she acted upon her own conscience when refusing a life-saving intervention..... is deplorable. In that they speak in behalf of the GB, they are victims of victims.
  To make the claim that the doctrine has "no connection with religion" is is a desperate attempt to avoid financial (and criminal) liability. When word spreads the GB will be forced to claim that these Bethel elders were speaking on their own, not in behalf of the GB (and branch attorneys). They must remove these elders, perhaps disfellowship them. But then those elders go to the media, and tell them the GB (and branch attorneys) told them what to say at the funeral? Oh what a tangled web we weave.
  The doctrine must be a "religious" teaching, or the teaching is not protected under the First Amendment. It becomes an arbitrary "policy" or rule. The court can and will intervene when such a "policy" causes harm (even death) to members. Moreover, compliance with the "policy" is coerced through threat of sanction. A member can decide for himself. His options are:
  1. Comply by refusing an end of life medical intervention
  2. Refuse to comply, willingly and unrepentantly accept the intervention and be involuntarily disassociated (shunned) from the religion.
  These are the only two options.
  If members come to view the no blood doctrine as not religious (biblical), what sane person would refuse medical intervention that could save his/her life?
  I personally feel the day of reckoning has arrived on this horrific "policy". No one should be forced to comply with it. And those responsible for creating it and defending it should be held accountable before Jehovah and the courts of of every country where Jehovah's Witnesses exist.
  Sopater
  - Reply by miken on 2016-01-06 11:09:04
    "Blood is an organ of the body, and blood transfusion is nothing less than an organ transplant.” by Dr. Ciril Godec, chairman of urology at Long Island College Hospital, in Brooklyn, New York. Quoted on page 31 of the August 22, 1999 Awake magazine.
    Watchtower publications have acknowledged that blood is an organ (Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Question of Blood page 41) performing a specific function in the body so if now having an organ transplant is a matter of personal choice why is the transplantation of the organ of whole blood forbidden.
    - Reply by Godswordistruth on 2016-01-06 17:11:04
      So true!
    - Reply by Willy on 2016-01-07 08:32:04
      Thank you Miken, looked for the awake article and printed that important information ?
- Reply by Anonymous on 2016-01-06 19:27:09
  What if you take it and say sorry later? At least you may be alive for the judicial meeting
  - Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-01-09 04:27:26
    Anon,
    Actually there was a provision made for this in the 2010 elders manual. If it becomes known that someone willfully accepted blood, two elders (not a judicial committee) will meet with them to determine if they are repentant (sorry). If the brother/sister asks for forgiveness, and the matter is not public knowledge in the congregation, the matter is handled privately as if a person smoked a cigarette. If it is known in the congregation, an announcement is made:
    "The elders have handled a matter having to do with [name of person]. You will be glad to know that spiritual shepherds are endeavoring to render assistance."
    The "sorry" clause is an excellent "out" for the JW that no longer believes the doctrine is scriptural, but wants to remain in association with the congregation. In the event of an emergency, they would not be carrying their No Blood card, so they will receive any life-saving therapy deemed necessary by the emergency team, no questions asked.
    It is important that if and when the HLC elders and local elders and friends arrive for support, that NOTHING is divulged regarding your personal medical treatment. Let the staff know your precarious predicament. That you are practicing JW, but view the No Blood doctrine of JW is unscriptural. Let them know that if the matter is divulged, it could bring great emotional harm to you and your family, as you will be forced out of the church and shunned. Perhaps by members of your own family.
    If the cat gets out of the bag, the "sorry" clause is the ace in our back pocket.
    With regard to elective surgery, if it is minor, blood is likely not an issue. But if it's major surgery, my personal strategy is to choose the best bloodless surgeon available. This will set everyone's mind at ease (including the HLC and local elders) that the blood issue is not an issue. Moreover, they are probably the most skilled surgeons out there.
    Privately I would discuss my position with my doctor, surgeon, anesthesiologist, nurses, etc., advising them that my conscience rejects the No Blood doctrine as scriptural, therefore I would accept a transfusion if in their opinion, my life was on the line. I would make it clear how crucial it is that my treatment be kept strictly confidential. I would advise that it is not even necessary for them to advise to me if blood was needed or administered. I leave that to their judgment. Again I would emphasize how sensitive this matter is, and that if it became public it could cause great emotional harm to myself and my family. I would be forced out of the church and be shunned.
    If the cat gets out of the bag after all this, we have the ace. I realize this can be used only once, at most twice.
    I pray that I (or my loved ones) do not have to deal with this. It could be that if many awaken regarding blood, the GB will be forced (perhaps by the court system) to remove the threat of sanction for any whose conscience allows them to accept blood. It could be that a viable blood substitute is discovered and it becomes mainstream medicine.
    It could also be that I've moved on by then, so the whole issue is moot.
    Sopater
    - Reply by Father jack on 2016-01-09 08:54:10
      Thats good advice again sopater . How crazy is it though when a sick person has to go to those lengths to protect thier own confidential matters . Im not being funny but WHAT HAS IT GOT TO DO WITH THE ELDERS ANYWAY .or anyone else for that matter , why cant they just but out and mind thier own buisness . Thats a major problem with this religion everybody interferes in everyone elses life .It used to wind me up something awful , in the end i couldnt do anything without someone whinging and complaining just drove me mad .
      - Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-01-09 10:36:46
        Kev,
        The GB created the HLC as sort of a benevolent group to support JW patients (and their families) when under duress. They are actually secret service (SS) agents of the GB. Their first duty it to enforce that when under duress, a JW does not compromise and accept blood. The GB had to put this force in place. It is far too expedient that a JW might (while under duress) break down and accept blood and keep it private.
        If not for the SS, a JW that accepted blood could confide with another facing a critical situation. It would be like "don't ask, don't tell." The willingness to compromise would become widely known among the medical profession. JW's will accept blood so long as it remains confidential.
        Now, imagine the dilemma the GB if half of JW patients were willing to accept blood, but just didn't advertise it? Would the laxity on the GB's part to force compliance be construed as evidence they no longer believe the doctrine is biblical? If they no longer believe the doctrine is biblical, who then bears responsibility (liability) for the many who allowed themselves to die in compliance with a non-biblical teaching?
        To avoid this disastrous outcome, the GB setup the HLC. They are there to enforce that JW's adhere to the doctrine, and their presence is an ever reminder that the patient will have great difficulty hiding the fact they received blood. The enforcement tool is the punishment of involuntarily disassociation.
        These mature elders are trained to "snoop" around, speak with surgeons, doctors, nurses, etc. They are in reality undercover agents for the GB. For the GB and organization, the stakes are incredibly high.
        The HLC directs JW's to hospitals and surgeons that perform bloodless surgery. They also keep anesthesiologists abreast of everything a JW can accept, including all fractions, autologous transfusion, etc. They then advise the JW patient (and his Witness or non-witness family) that the GB has approved everything but a frozen packed red cell transfusion. They make certain the patient is aware to accept these things won't be breaking God's law.
        So the HLC performs two vital roles for the GB: First, as a enforcement group that snoops around to make certain the JW doesn't compromise. Second, to make certain the JW patient (and their Witness or non-witness family has been educated as to what is permissible, AND THEN TO COERCE THE PATIENT TO ACCEPT IT.
        The GB fears that misrepresentation found in past WT publications is the basis for the patient to be making the life or death decision. In addition, many patients are uneducated and unable to understand what is acceptable and what is not. It's too confusing. Many choose to be safe and check no (on their No Blood card) to everything.
        This too presents great potential liability. When a patient refuses a therapy that has been approved by the GB that could have saved their life, and then die? My this is a very bad thing. Thus the HLC must be there to make certain this travesty is avoided.
        Ironically, the GB made things much more perilous for the organization when they called all of these new choices (fractions, etc) a "conscience matter." Calling it this limits how much elders can educate members, for fear we might be damage their conscience.
        I can't remember how many Blood cards I've signed in the last 15 years where the brother/sister checked NO to everything. When I asked why, I get the same response: "I've been saying no to blood of any kind all my life, I'm not going to take any chances now lose Jehovah's favor." One older brother, (a very mature elder for many decades) told me confidentially that he felt the organization had gone astray allowing hemoglobin (which with water, amounts to 98% of blood). He said "I will never ever accept anything that is made from blood."
        A mature sister (in her early 50's) told me she so wishes things were like they used to be, where it was all spelled out and very simply, NO BLOOD of any kind. She said that it's now so complicated and she doesn't know what to choose and not choose. And as an elder I couldn't say a word, else I'm pushing my conscience on her and could damage hers?
        Oh what a tangled mess this doctrine has become.
        Sopater
        Reply by Father jack on 2016-01-09 11:40:05
        Yeah i think thats just about right . I know a brother that used to go around "strengthening " the witness patients in hospital . It caused massive problems with the the non witness relatives , I also know a nurse who used to look after cancer patients and she told me of some very disturbing events regarding the witnesses and the meddling and pressure applied by them in hospital . Needless to say she is disgusted . When i used to do the door to door ministry i used to have a very kind and respectful manner with people and i could never understand why there were some that turned on me . Looking back now though i realise we have been kept in the dark about a lot of things weve actually took a lot of the abuse because of the ills done to people in the name of the religion . One man went mad and was screaming and threating me once because his nephew had commited suicide when he lost his family when he was disfellowshipped . It was awful i did not know what to say . The truth is unlike jesus these people are not hating us without cause are they . How awful what a mess and and a terrible reflection on gods name .
        Reply by Marvin Shilmer on 2016-01-09 14:25:59
        Sopater,
        It's false that, including the water volume of red cells, that hemoglobin amounts to 98% of blood. Before using information like this in your articles you should take a closer look at that numbers.
        Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2016-01-09 14:55:15
        Marvin,
        If you are going to say that a statement is false, you have to provide the basis for the statement. We don't make baseless statements on BP.
        Thank you for understanding.
        Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-01-09 16:09:37
        I should have taken more care before commenting, my oversight.
        I would hope that our brother could be more tactful in the future.
        "False" could be replaced with:
        Sopater, redo your math I think it's incorrect.
        Reply by Marvin Shilmer on 2016-01-09 20:13:24
        Sopater, that was my intent. Please accept my apology for coming across as less than tactful.
        Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-01-10 00:38:21
        Apology accepted Marvin, thank you.
        I admit my work is in process when it comes to the precise percentages of the "dry weight" of blood constituents (water removed). I don't find then listed anywhere.
        I would love to find a chart that defines:
        Water = XX%
        Red Cells = XX%
        White Cells = X%
        Platelets = X%
        Everything else = X%
        In "dry" weight
        I am attempting to convey it in such a way that makes it easy to understand. My point being, water is the primary component of blood, and hemoglobin is next largest constituent considering "dry weight". Together they constitute a large percentage of whole blood content.
        Yet both approved by the GB as acceptable for a Christian.
        Kind regards,
        Sopater
        Reply by Marvin Shilmer on 2016-01-10 20:17:53
        Water is by far the most prevalent constituent of blood, which is true of most tissues of out body. I can probably help you with some educational reference material on this subject. As time allows I'll see what I can find and look for a way to get it to you.
        One thing to keep in mind is that levels of various constituents of our blood are fluid, meaning these levels are in a constant state of change based on diet, time of day, activity, physical condition, not to mention typical variations between male and female. So the best we can do is offer ranges. When it comes to red cells, about 60-70 percent of a red cell is water. The remaining 30-40 percent is mostly the protein we call hemoglobin.
        Something else to keep in mind about blood is that how its constituents are bound and balanced are critical. For instance, we tend to think of water in terms of what we drink when we're thirsty. This is called potable water (or fresh water). But water composed with our blood is present as a saline solution. This saline composition of water is critical to life and health because it maintains osmotic pressure critical to, for instance, red cells. If, for example, the delicate saline solution of our blood were compromised by transfusion of fresh water we'd die from hemolytic shock. Hemolytic shock is a condition where the pressure outside the red cells is less than it should be resulting in the red cell essentially exploding. My blog has a slide showing this reaction. Viewing that slide should help you see in real time hemolytic shock of red cells when exposed to fresh water. I point this out because though water is common and by itself is not blood, how water is composed in our blood is very important. It is the composition of elements making our blood that makes blood a living tissue.
        Slide: http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com/2010/12/blood-processed-beyond-those-primary.html
        Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-01-11 07:38:29
        Marvin,
        Thank you brother. I really appreciate all your research. Please continue to share it with us.
        I used Wikipedia as my resource:
        'In mammals, the protein makes up about 96% of the red blood cells' dry content (by weight), and around 35% of the total content (including water)."
        I'm especially interested in learning about the red cell (96% hemoglobin less water) due to it's vital role in blood, given the fact that the 2006 November Kingdom Ministry listed hemoglobin as a blood "fraction" along with other "minor" fractions.
        While hemoglobin was described as about 33% of the red cell (which is in the range of being accurate), presenting it this way leaves the reader with a skewed understanding of the big picture.
        To be transparent, in addition to the 33% number, they should have included a footnote stating that the 33% number is "wet weight", and that when water is removed from the red cell, 96% of the dry weight is hemoglobin. Presumably the cell membrane is all or most of the remaining 4%.
        I think "dry weight" is the focal point, in that water is no issue to Jehovah.
        The above is something I have written about. I believe it to be true and correct. And it concurs with your findings.
        The water/hemoglobin (98%) number was something said tongue and cheek. A few weeks ago (in surfing) I noticed 92% number, and mistakenly missed the fact that it was water in plasma, NOT water in blood. Anyway, I'm thankful you corrected me, though I hope that my due diligence would have corrected me before stating this as fact in any article.
        I submit that the way the 11/06 KM presented hemoglobin (listing it with "minor" blood fractions) was to downplay its vital role, which is misrepresentation. The reader is left thinking hemoglobin is a "tiny" ingredient of blood, not the "main" ingredient.
        Let's keep it simple, Let's compare whole blood to grandma's apple pie. According the to the No Blood doctrine, we are to abstain from Grandma's apple pie, and its 4 major components:
        Apples
        Flour
        Sugar
        Butter
        The primary component of apple pie is apples (duh) just as the red cell is the primary component of blood.
        Of course, 84% of the apple is water (let's not get nitpicky here Marvin :<)
        Now let's put this in perspective:
        Since 1945 the GB held that the Christian must abstain from apple pie, especially apples. If someone ate apples in any form or fashion, they broke God's law and were involuntarily expelled from the congregation. Of course this would rule out eating applesauce, apple juice, apple jelly, apple cider vinegar, etc. These were all "off limits" for the conscientious Christian.
        Then, in 2004 (and later in 2006) tell us the prohibition to abstain was only for APPLES THAT AREN'T PEELED. They said, if the apple is peeled, we're not really certain if it's prohibited. It is therefore a conscience matter for each to decide.
        Go back in time, imagine the fruit in the garden of Eden was an apple. Now, imagine Eve justifying herself telling Jehovah after she ate it: "But Jehovah you said don't eat the "whole" apple and I didn't, I peeled it first," What's wrong with this picture?
        When the GB allowed hemoglobin, I smelled a big fat rat. When I did research and confirmed hemoglobin's vital role, and how HBOC's were produced (bovine hemoglobin) I was 100% convinced the GB knew the doctrine is unscriptural, and are trying to "pull a fast one" and exploit the limited education of the rank and file. The most important agenda was to get out of dodge.
        I believe they were confident that HBOC's (Hemopure, Biopure) would soon be approved, Now, JW"s could accept the HBOC and then...... finally........ wrongful death liability that has existed for decades (if they were to rescind the doctrine) would vanish, as if overnight. The nightmare would finally be over.
        The GB could then proudly claim:
        "We sincerely believed this teaching was bible based all along. We never changed it, we felt we were being obedient to God's command to abstain. We believe that those who may have died did so acting upon their own conscience, in obedience to God's command.
        Their plan was thwarted when the HBOC's failed miserably.
        This now leaves the GB to explain to the rank and file, the medical profession, and the court system, just how they could have been so mistaken for 60 years prohibiting apples, peeled or unpeeled. Then to change the interpretation and say "to abstain from apples does not apply if the apple is peeled."
        Allowing hemoglobin was the deal breaker for me. My confidence in the GB was shattered. I no longer believed they were looking out for the welfare of myself, my loved ones and dear friends. I realized they would let me sacrifice my life (or my loved one) complying with a man made doctrine which depends solely upon a centuries old premise, that they themselves do not believe? How unconscionable is this?
        This proved to me that they care only about what is expedient for the organization. Their "loyalty" is to what is best for the organization (protecting its assets, their credibility, their retirement package). It is not the welfare of 8 million human beings who could be at risk at any moment..
        This was the lead domino in my awakening, and when it fell, it set in motion a rigorous regimen of deep study and research. From that point, all JW teachings were fair game, deserving of scrutiny, which has brought me to where I am today.
        Sopater
        Reply by Marvin Shilmer on 2016-01-11 12:32:53
        Sopater,
        The reasons you give and more is why Watchtower's blood doctrine is wrong top-to-bottom, both inside and out.
        The distinction Watchtower makes of four primary components is wholly man made. Though blood can be separated into these components the process to achieve this is completely man made, not to mention that these component distinctions represent only one of several perspectives about what blood is composed of. There is no biblical text that addresses these components as though indicative of "blood" or "not blood" and there is no circumstance in the natural world where these four components separate from whole blood as though nature is telling anyone anything about what is or is not "blood". At least with apple pie we see the ingredients you mention in the natural world. But, this is not the case with blood. To get these four components requires very carefully choreographed chemical and mechanical processes which are entirely man made. In the natural world blood separates into two (2) components and not four. The two (2) components are serum and a clot mass. Essentially the serum is plasma less all its clotting factors and the clot mass is everything else. So in the natural world the closest we get to distinctions made by Watchtower is nowhere near the delineations made by Watchtower.
        I look forward to you furthering this topic here at BP. Thanks for all your hard work!
        Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-01-12 00:46:13
        Marvin,
        I have a arrived at a calculation for the water/hemoglobin percentage in whole blood. Check my numbers and see if you concur:
        % Water in Whole Blood
        Water in Plasma is 92% of 55% (55 x.92) = 50.6%
        Water in RBC's is 65% of 45% (45 x.65) = 29.2%
        Total 79.8% (water)
        The "solids" in whole blood must therefore be 20.2%
        % Solids in Whole Blood
        Solids in Plasma are 8% of 55% (55 x .08) = 4.4%
        Solids in RBC's are 35% of 45% (45 x.35) = 15.8%
        WBC's/Platelets (see below)
        Total 20.2% (solids)
        To be most precise assume:
        Plasma is 54.5% of whole blood
        WBC's and Platelets are 05% of whole blood
        RBC solids are 15.8% of whole blood. Hemoglobin is 96% of the RBC (solids).
        (15.8 x .96) = 15.2%
        So, we arrive at the water/hemoglobin percentage in whole blood:
        Water 79.8%
        Hemoglobin 15.2%
        Total 95%
        I missed it by 3% Marvin :<)
        Not bad for a layman.
        Sopater
        Reply by Marvin Shilmer on 2016-01-12 21:24:36
        Sopater, I don't see any major problems with the numbers as you present them here. Things are spelled out sufficiently so readers should not be confused about what the numbers represent. That said, I'd still advise to speak in terms of ranges rather than hard numbers (percentages).
        Something else that's important is what we speak of as essential or vital, and how so. Hemoglobin for instance is vital of course, but it's how the hemoglobin is composed within red cells and how red cells are suspended that allows hemoglobin to carry out its work of oxygenation. Outside this suspended composition hemoglobin is toxic to the system.
        Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-01-12 23:11:00
        Marvin,
        I agree with speaking in ranges, I realize such precision doesn't occur in real world settings. The pont of this exercise is to present a very simple illustration of how major the allowance of hemoglobin was.
        It was presented to the rank and file as a "minor" fraction.
        I also understand that "free" hemoglobin is a problem, which occurs the longer blood is stored (older shelf life). I think this is part of the HBOC's failure, they were produced from free hemoglobin.
        Yes heme (iron) is toxic.
        Thanks for all your help brother.
        By the way, I found the book you recommended online and read chapter 15. Very cool.
        I found a very helpful site that you might enjoy:
        http://www.myvmc.com/anatomy/blood-function-and-composition/
        Sopater
        Reply by Marvin Shilmer on 2016-01-13 16:15:33
        Sopater I enjoy and appreciate your work on this subject. There is a Watchtower staffer named Tomonori Ariga who has been published in academic literature regarding the religion's position on blood. In 1998 he pointed specifically to the hemoglobin as a subset fraction from red cells and responded based on what you point out. He said JWs would not accept it for transfusion of hemoglobin because it is "a major part of red cells". He said this in the context of discussing HBOCs.
        At the same time Ariga pointed out that products rendered from blood such as clotting factors were accepted by JWs, which at the time and even today underscores a huge flaw in Watchtower's minor-major premise. Primarily this is because as a fractionated product the single largest "fraction" accepted under Watchtower doctrine is cryosupernatant plasma. As a product rendered from blood there is nothing minor about this as a blood component. All by itself it represents more than 50% of whole blood. A recent study demonstrates that 96% of Jehovah's Witnesses are willing to accept this product rendered from blood. And when this product is accepted it's often transfused in very large quantity. When I hear Watchtower leadership proclaim that JWs abstain from blood it ranks as one of the most absurd things my ears could have introduced. Please keep up your good work.
        Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2016-01-13 16:46:28
        It is tantamount to a man saying, "I abstain from alcohol. I never drink Scotch or other distilled products. However, I do drink a lot of beer."
        Reply by Marvin Shilmer on 2016-01-13 18:11:39
        Hi Meleti, I'd say it's more like a son whose father has told him to abstain from drinking whiskey and when his father's whiskey bottle is found empty the son responds saying "I didn't drink your whiskey, I separated the ethanol and only drank that."
        Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2016-01-13 19:18:41
        :)
        Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-01-13 17:02:56
        Thank you Marvin for your kind words. I highly value your input.
        Of all JW teachings, I'm most troubled by the blood doctrine, because everyday so many are at risk and countless humans have suffered an untimely death over 70 years of this teaching of man. I pray this research (and the next 4 articles) will be informative to active JW's and medical professionals and even legal professionals.
        Next in line is the two-witness rule applied to reporting a crime.
        Following that is "extreme" shunning, specifically involving families, which may include grandchildren.
        These are teachings that cause irreparable harm to human beings.
        We must prove beyond any shadow of doubt that these harmful teachings are of man, not God.
        Sopater
        Reply by Marvin Shilmer on 2016-01-11 20:17:10
        Sopater,
        Medical science has developed quite a bit and the very basic information you're looking for can be a little hard to find in laymen terms. That said, the composition of blood is something that's been studied exhaustively from multiple perspectives since the mid to late 19th Century. Some of the best basic presentations of blood's composition can be found in some of these earlier works when medical scientists tended to use language that was more understandable to the masses.
        For what you're looking for I recommend a book published in 1921 with the title "A Text Book of Physiology for Students and Practitioners of Medicine" by Russell Burton-Opitz. You'll find this in downloadable form at Google Books. Take a look at Chapter 15 and I think you'll find information that will prove helpful to you. This chapter contains tables that tend to break blood down along the lines you're seeking. I've reviewed these tables and can vouch that they are reliable. Blood hasn't changed.
        Reply by Marvin Shilmer on 2016-01-09 20:11:23
        Meleti, It is better to say a false statement is false if that is the case when it has been asserted as true. It was my intent to do no more than encourage someone to check their math.
        Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-01-09 15:40:53
        Marvin,
        I just went back through my calculation, and stand corrected.
        I only recently shared this and only in a couple comments, no articles have been written.
        I had 92% on my brain, water is 92% of plasma, not 92% of blood.
        However, hemoglobin is 96% of the red cell.
        And this is the main point I'm attempting to make. Hemoglobin as the oxygen carrier, is the "life" that's in the blood.
        I'm glad you're here brother.
        Thank you
        Sopater
        Reply by Marvin Shilmer on 2016-01-09 20:08:14
        Hemoglobin is approximately 96% of a red cell's dry weight, which does not account for water content of a red cell at all. If you account for the water content of a red cell the hemoglobin is nowhere near 96% of the red cell tissue. I'm not trying to nitpick anyone or anything. It's just that an ordinary person is not trained to think of tissue in terms of dry weight. Hence a need to take great care to communicate information that is accurately understood.

Comment by Marvin Shilmer on 2016-01-06 08:35:13
The idea that transfusion of blood offers nutritional support to a body has been demonstrably refuted over and over again. When medical science advanced to allow more therapeutic surgical interventions it became obvious that patients who survived advanced interventions rendering them unconscious for days (or otherwise unable to take nutrition orally) were nevertheless doomed unless a means of offering parenteral nutrition was found. Blood was one of the many substances used experimentally to serve this purpose, and it failed for multiple reasons. Ironically the constituents of blood that are viable for service in parenteral nutrition are the plasma components, yet Watchtower doctrine lets JW accept all these components they want!
- Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-01-06 09:44:02
  Thank you for your contribution Marvin. I have gained much wisdom over the years from your blogs and the many comments you have shared in various forums on this hotly debated topic. I hope "Anerin" is reading this and has the courage to post, wouldn't that be interesting?
  We look forward to your valuable research. .
  Thank you brother,
  Sopater
- Reply by Godswordistruth on 2016-01-06 17:10:30
  HI Brother Shilmer... what is the url to your blog ? I am always looking for fresh perspectives re: JW Doctrine ...

Comment by Tom Daniels on 2016-01-06 10:11:45
In the 1898 novel, War Of The Worlds, H.G. Wells speculated that an advanced race might evolve past the need of eating to obtain nourishment and would instead, inject, "...the fresh living blood of other creatures" into their veins.
Wells was not an uneducated man either. The mistaken belief that blood is the food upon which our bodies are internally sustained persisted as a layman's misconception at least into the early 20th century and the architects of the blood doctrine all appear to have been products of this era.
- Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2016-01-06 10:16:12
  Welcome Tom, and thanks for that insight!
- Reply by godswordistruth on 2016-01-06 17:09:03
  Thank you so much for posting this Tom!

Comment by Father jack on 2016-01-06 11:56:29
The bible does say to abstain from blood . I think where the hierarchy have made a massive mistake though they have not left it up to the individual to decide what that means and worse have tried to enforce it as a rule violating the personal right of many people . For goodness sake such a serious issue has to be left to the individual to decide . While the witnesses may say that it is and ultimately it may be . Its the sort of decision that is made with the elders holding a figurative shotgun to your head if you makethe "wrong "choice . What sort of choice is it when you have someone breathing down the neck threatening to disfellowship you. If you have one .
- Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-01-06 13:14:56
  Yes Father Jack, the bible does say to "abstain" from blood. Along with blood were mentioned three other seemingly unconnected prohibitions: things (meat) sacrificed to idols, things (meat from an animal) strangled, and fornication.
  I will be commenting at length on the very clear connection these 4 items shared in Part 5 (Acts 15:20,29).
  The greek word translated "abstain" comes from two words apo (which means against, away from) and echo (which means to hold or possess, to own), Together the two words are apecho (which means to hold back, keep away from, be distant from). The decree then was to "stay away from" or be "distant from" these four things. When we understand the connection it is easy to rule out the word "abstain" has anything to do with an intravenous injection of blood.
  Again, since the premise is flawed (blood is nourishment) Acts 15:29 has no connection.
  Phileo,
  Sopater
  - Reply by Father jack on 2016-01-06 14:11:58
    Thanks mate i didnt know that about the greek words .looking forward to part 2 of this series then . FJ
    - Reply by sopaterfberoea on 2016-01-06 15:52:00
      It will be Part 5 my brother.
      - Reply by Father jack on 2016-01-06 17:07:51
        Yes thanks
        Part 5 deals with acts 15 im looking forward to that as well . Haha keep smiling bro
      - Reply by Willy on 2016-01-07 08:35:45
        Looking forward too the whole serie thank you brother Sopater?
  - Reply by Joel on 2016-01-07 06:49:04
    How is the prohibition on things strangled "unrelated" to the prohibition on blood? The fact the blood has not been poured out is exactly the reason why it is in the list of 4, which means that the issue of blood is on this list twice, alongside fornication and things tainted by idolatry.
    - Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-01-07 08:44:17
      Joel,
      Thanks for the question, and yes, all 4 "things" are closely related.
      I don't view the prohibition related specifically to the blood of an animal not being poured out.
      If we are to consider the Apostolic Decree as strictly about not eating blood, how is it Paul could be so cavalier when directing the Corinthians not to ask about the origin of meat sold in the market or served on the table of an unbeliever. Specifically, if that meat was idol meat? (1Cor 10:25,27)
      Of course, some idol meat came from an animal strangled.
      So eating idol meat, including meat from "things" strangled was apparently not taboo to Paul. Otherwise, how could he have said eating idol meat meant nothing, which surely included "bloody" idol meat? (1 Cor 8:4,8)
      2 of the 4 "things" to Christians were told to "abstain" from were invalidated when Paul said "don't ask" about the meat's origin. How do we reconcile this? Was Paul teaching contrary to the apostolic decree?
      Or was the apostolic decree about something else?
      Sopater
  - Reply by Meg on 2016-01-07 14:51:43
    Three things come to mind, when reading this.
    Point 1) There were brothers/sisters in the twin towers on 9/11, who knew they were facing imminent death, and perhaps made a choice to leap from the window and fall to their deaths, as opposed to burning to death. Suicide is 'self' murder. Technically, the choice would be tantamount to disfellowshipping offense, if we are SPLITTING HAIRS.
    How would Jehovah/Jesus feels about that choice?
    Point 2) A woman suffering from a flow of blood BROKE the law, and touched Jesus garment to be healed. We all know the story. What did he do? (Matt 9:18-26) What was the purpose of the law in the first place? According to the Draw Close book, Chpt 13, it served two purposes: 1) health & physical cleanness 2) Separation from the nations around them, and keeping Jehovah's favor.
    Chpt 13: v. 8
    8 The Law upheld Jehovah’s standard of holiness. The words “holy” and “holiness” occur over 280 times in the Mosaic Law. The Law helped God’s people to distinguish between what was clean and unclean, pure and impure, citing about 70 different things that could render an Israelite ceremonially unclean. These laws touched on physical hygiene, diet, and even waste disposal. Such laws provided remarkable health benefits. * But they had a higher purpose—that of keeping the people in Jehovah’s favor, separate from the sinful practices of the debased nations surrounding them.
    Dropping down to v. 15, we read more on the subject of justice and 'mercy'. Not the statement 'At the same time, this law emphasized the great value of human life'
    15. How did the Law ensure both mercy and justice in the case of one who killed a person by accident?
    15 The Law mercifully acknowledged that not all wrongs are deliberate. For example, when a man killed someone by accident, he did not have to pay soul for soul if he took the right action by fleeing to one of the cities of refuge scattered throughout Israel. After qualified judges examined his case, he had to reside in the city of refuge until the death of the high priest. Then he would be free to live wherever he chose. Thus he benefited from divine mercy. At the same time, this law emphasized the great value of human life.—Numbers 15:30, 31; 35:12-25.
    Where I personally struggle, is teaching a bible student that Jehovah wouldn't 'burn children in fire', and that such a thing had 'never come up into his heart', and as such would NEVER burn people forever in hellfire, BUT
    he would require a parent to sit idly by while a child dies from massive hemmoraging. I cannot reconcile this.
    Jesus CLEARLY explained the course to take, at Matt 9:13:
    13 Go, then, and learn what this means: ‘I want mercy, and not sacrifice.’ For I came to call, not righteous people, but sinners.”
    Point 3) Was Jehovah not merciful with King David, when guilty of murder and adultery? Compare the two scenarios.
    I really feel, for these reasons, that the choice should be an individual decision/conscience matter.

Comment by noblemindedthinker on 2016-01-06 12:05:04
"A reversal would be an admission by leadership that the doctrine was never biblical. It would open the flood gates and could lead to financial ruin."
I've heard this argued many times on different sites. I'd like to genuinely ask how do we know this is true? Is there a lawyer that has commented on this or is there a similar case that set a precedent for asserting such reasoning.
- Reply by sopaterfberoea on 2016-01-06 15:44:28
  NMT,
  Good question.
  In Part 2 I quote Kerry Louderbach Wood (attorney) in her essay, "Jehovah's Witnesses, Blood Transfusions, and the Tort of Misrepresentation." (2005)
  You can find it online for free.
  Her position is basically that tort liability exists due to misrepresentation in WT publications produced by the organization.
  In that the GB's official position is that "nothing" has changed since 1945, a case would have to be developed proving this is false. At face value, the statement (that JW's don't accept whole blood or any of its 4 major components) remains true. However, in 2004 hemoglobin was allowed, and this is a real game changer.
  Here are interesting stats regarding hemoglobin:
  Hemoglobin is 96% of the dry weight of the red blood cell (the remaining is the cell membrane).
  When water (92%) is separated from blood, hemoglobin is 75% of the remainder.
  Hemoglobin and water constitute 98% of blood.
  By allowing hemoglobin, the GB has basically said membership can eat he apple, so long as it's peeled. Should the GB deem that frozen packed red cells are a conscience matter, in effect they would be admitting that they misinterpreted scripture when they deemed it was prohibited. Either scripture prohibits red cells, or it does not.
  Is allowing 96% of the red cell (less water) not accepting the red cell? Is not the "life" that is in the blood hemoglobin?
  Imagine an auto manufacturer early on realized a flawed design could cause their car to catch on fire. A few years passed, and there were a few cases. The manufacturer said nothing. A few more years passed, hundreds died. The manufacturer insisted the part was not defective, and took no responsibility. They continued to install the same part on newer models, and more folks died.
  Finally they recall all the vehicles with the flawed part. Is the manufacturer not liable for those harm caused by before the recall?
  If the GB does a recall on the blood doctrine, are they not liable for the harm caused by the flawed premise and interpretation before the recall?
  Hope this helps.
  Sopater
  - Reply by Marvin Shilmer on 2016-01-06 22:10:20
    I agree Watchtower has potential liability for misrepresenting information. But I'm not too sure there is much potential for liability for changing its blood doctrine. The misrepresentation is whatever it is whether Watchtower changes its doctrine or not.
    Regarding hemoglobin, it is paradoxical for Watchtower to say it's definitely wrong to accept transfusion of the product rendered from known as red cells yet says it's not definitely wrong to accept transfusion of the product rendered from blood known as hemoglobin. Yet this product of hemoglobin is not the largest single component rendered from blood that Watchtower lets JWs accept transfusion of. The single largest product rendered from blood that JWs can accept under Watchtower doctrine is known as crypsupernatant, also called cryo-poor plasma. This single product represents more than 51% of the volume of whole blood, and JWs can accept transfusion of as much of it as they wish without fear of organized reprisal of any sort. Another product JWs can accept is cryoprecipitate. Cryoprecipitate and cryosupernatant combined represent the sum total of the entire volume of fresh frozen plasma, and JWs can accept transfusion of both these products in whatever amount they wish without fear of organized congregational action against them.
    The thing is that the Bible offers no more detail about products like cryosupernatant than it does packed red cells. Yet Watchtower doctrine treats one as definitely prohibited and the other as not definitely prohibited. When pressed on this point Watchtower has replied the reason for this distinction is because, according to Watchtower, blood products like packed red cells, platelets, plasma and white cells naturally settle out from blood whereas other products do not. The problem with this premise is simple: it's false. There is no recorded instance in the natural world of blood of any sort naturally settling out to render the products known as packed red cells, platelets, plasma and/or white cells.
    Watchtower's blood doctrine is about as wrong and upside down as a doctrine can possibly get. At every detail and at every turn the whole thing is wrong. And, worst of all, Watchtower knows this perfectly well.

Comment by Kamil Levi Pyka on 2016-01-06 12:40:46
The Watchtower organization is literally BLOOD guilty of Non Blood to their followers to strictly follow.As we know they twist understanding of the scriptures and when court cases appear then they blame their members and never apologize of wrong doings.
How hypocritical,delusional and self-righteous.

Comment by ResLight on 2016-01-06 19:05:27
The basis of not eating blood as spoken of in the Bible is the fact that a life had been taken. The blood represented that life that had been taken away. In blood transfusions, however, usually the donor's life is not sacrificed in order to give blood, thus the Biblical principle does not apply.
I noticed, however, the statement concerning "Bible students" that they were later called "Jehovah's Witnesses". This is misleading since the majority of the "Bible Students" rejected Rutherford's "Jehovah's visible organization" dogma and thus were never called "Jehovah's Witnesses". Today the Bible Students still preach the good news of great that will be for all the people, and they have found no scriptural reason to reject blood transfusions.
- Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-01-06 20:55:15
  ResLight,
  Thank you for your comment and welcome.
  It has been my understanding that during the Rutherford takeover (1917-1918) about 75% of Bible Students opposed his actions and were supportive of the 4 directors that had been illegally removed. Thus, from 1917 two factions existed within the Bible Students, those holding to Russell's will (Last Will and Testament) and teachings, and the smaller group that supported Rutherford. Over the next decade, those sympathetic to Rutherford grew to far outnumber those who remained devoted to Russell.
  In the late 1920's Rutherford denounced the God's great stone witness (as well as certain other teachings of Russell) and the factions separated. Both groups carried the same name until 1931. It is my understanding that confusion surrounding who were the "real" Bible Students, and the fact that the name itself could not protected, contributed to Rutherford abandoning the name and renaming the group "Jehovah's Witnesses".
  Given these specifics, perhaps a more concise statement may have been that "Rutherford's" Bible Students were later called Jehovah's Witnesses. However, since Rutherford's group represented the vast majority of Bible Students, I see no problem with my statement, nor that it is in anyway misleading.
  I understand that the much smaller "Bible Student" group (IBSA) continues to use the name to this day.
  If any of the above is mistaken and you can provide hard statistics, I will be happy to adjust my statement.
  Respectfully,
  Sopater
  - Reply by Marvin Shilmer on 2016-01-06 21:56:05
    From the Spring of 1927 to the Spring of 1928 the Watchtower organization suffered more than an 80% decline in those associating with it. It was the largest schism in the history of the organization known as Watchtower.
    - Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-01-07 07:49:22
      Thanks Marvin,
      Can you provide the reference for this?
      Was this Russell's BS separating from Rutherford's BS?
      Sopater
      - Reply by Marvin Shilmer on 2016-01-07 11:47:38
        You'll find supporting reference information in a blog article of mine titled "Watchtower — emergence of the business end" at: http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com/2011/08/watchtower-emergence-of-business-end.html
        Check reference item 1.
        Reply by Menrov on 2016-01-08 04:38:48
        Hi Marvin, I downloaded the Messenger but cannot find the words on the picture on your site. Can you help?
        Reply by Marvin Shilmer on 2016-01-08 08:25:02
        Hello, Menrov, the information at issue is not found in the Messenger but in the material referenced at footnote 1 in my blog article.
        Reply by Menrov on 2016-01-08 04:57:51
        Ok, found it. disegard my previous message. Thanks
      - Reply by Anonymous on 2016-01-07 15:02:47
        I thought for a split second you meant something else ;-)
        Reply by Marvin Shilmer on 2016-01-07 18:22:28
        That too. That too!
      - Reply by Chris on 2016-01-09 08:30:48
        Yes. In the thirties many left and formed the Dawn Bible Students association. I'm a Bible Student and we are alive and well.
    - Reply by Chris on 2016-01-09 08:30:07
      Yes I'm a Bible Student. They all left.
      - Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-01-09 09:10:55
        Hi Chris and welcome.
        I have a few questions for you, none are doctrinal related.
        1. I wonder if what your referring to relates to Bible Students leaving when the name JW was adopted in 1931? Marvin has provided a reference that shows that in 1928 there was a huge decrease in memorial attendance. If memory serves, wasn't this about the time Rutheford declared what had been God's Great Stone Witness as the Devil's Stone Witness? Could that (and other negative statements from Rutherford leading up to the memorial) have contributed to the mass exodus?
        2. The many that left in 1928....... what name did they call themselves? Were they still associated with the IBSA as it Bible Students? Or did they use a different name? (Millennial Dawnites, Russellites) I see it extremely problematic had they continued to call themselves Bible Students.
        3. Within your organizational belief structure, is having fellowship within BP (a hybrid of JW's) or any other religious group considered inappropriate? Would any in your group view you in a negative light for being here?
        I certainly hope not, but if they would, I would hope that you feel safe and comfortable here. You bring a very interesting perspective and have historical knowledge of the pre-Rutherford era not widely known within our group.
        ResLight made one post on this article. I hope he will continue to share. Given we are in agreement on the No Blood doctrine being unscriptural, we are in union. And I feel certain we are in union on many things.
        Kindest regards,
        Sopater

Comment by Anonymous on 2016-01-06 22:11:28
Didn't Jesus mention David and his men ate the showbread to save their lives even though it was forbidden? I find it hard to imagine Jesus leaning over someone dying on the hospital bed and saying "Don't you take that blood or you are trampling on my sacrifice". But that's just my thoughts. So here we go. My doctor says I can't eat cake. So I make sure that I just eat the flour, sugar, eggs, and milk individually. So I can truthfully say when I see him next "I haven't eaten cake since I last saw you". And what about snake anti-venom? Anyone researched how that is made? Are you going to refuse a life saving injection because of how this is done? Once you go down this path the madness never stops, and people die, unfortunately.

Comment by CX516 on 2016-01-06 23:40:58
Thanks Sopater,
Regarding the reality of whether or not Christians should "eat" blood, I've lately liked using Matthew 15:11 "Not what enters into [his] mouth defiles a man; but it is what proceeds out of [his] mouth that defiles a man.”
So does blood defile us if we ingest it? I interpret Jesus statement above as meaning we're not defiled. Blood has always been symbolic in nature and we JW's have taken it too literally.
I actually just finished reading the section on blood in 'In Search Of Christian Freedom' and look forward to your series of articles.
- Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-01-07 08:07:42
  Excellent point CX516 and welcome,
  Some of the meat sold by the Priest (in the idol temple) to local butchers was from animals that had been strangled in sacrifice.
  Also, it is reasonable to conclude that some meat served at the table of an unbeliever came from an animal strangled sacrifice. About this bloody meat, Paul said don't ask of its origin. (1 Cor 10:25,27).
  He was aware that some of the meat was "bloody" meat.
  So to answer your question I ask, Did Paul take issue with a Christian eating congealed blood that remained in the meat of an animal that had been strangled in sacrifice?
  It appears not.
  Look forward to many more of your thoughtful comments.
  Phileo,
  Sopater

Comment by markchristopher on 2016-01-08 18:10:43
It seems that jews today have no problem with blood transfusion even though they are very strict on abstinence on blood.A quote from an online source called Chabad.org says "According to Jewish belief, saving a life is one of the most important mitzvot (commandments), overriding nearly all of the others. (The exceptions are murder, certain sexual offenses, and idol-worship—we cannot transgress these even to save a life.) Therefore, if a blood transfusion is deemed medically necessary, then it is not only permissible but obligatory."

Comment by markchristopher on 2016-01-08 18:12:44
Interesting article.Looking forward to the next instalment.

Comment by Menrov on 2016-01-10 04:40:53
Well done. Another rather controversial topic, in particular among JW's. Not because of what the bible really say but because of how the WT organization has interpreted it over the years and imposed their views and obligations on its members. The verses (Acts 15:20,29) also talk about sexual immorality. I believe that sexual activities with minor and little children is to be considered a sexual immoral thing. However, those who do this are treated differently that those who accept blood. Also, those who commit adultery do not feel that this is equal to accepting blood. In other words, the results of the doctrine of the organization regarding blood is that the latter has become a life or death issue with regard to your future salvation. But, as it has become apparent, driven by fear of legal consequences, the organization is just as easy changing their doctrine.
For me, and this is for about the entire set of commands one finds in the bible, it is in the end up to each individual to believe these commands, to believe its interpretation or meaning and how to cope with it. In the old Jewish days, there were judges and priest who had authority to judge and provide punishment. But after 70AD, that type of system was definitely gone. Only Jesus is the Judge, appointed by His Father. What does that mean? It means that by the end of one's life, that person is judged. And as Jesus can read the hearts, His judgement will be righteous and fair. Looking at how Jesus treated all the people He met when on earth, it should give a great comfort to all believers that it is Jesus who is our Judge. Not a human, not an organization. Humans or even organization might give counsel, out of love for the followers or new-to-be followers of Christ, regarding certain aspects of life. But only counsel, no punishment.
The various revisions of their blood doctrine makes their views and interpretation even less credible and most confusing to its members.
So to abstain from blood. The Greek word that is translated as ABSTAIN is also used in in 4 other instances besides in Acts:
1 Thessalonians 4:3
1 Thessalonians 5:22
1 Timothy 4:3
1 Peter 2:11
Abstain From Fornication, From evil, From lusts. I guess most would agree that this means to avoid all influence of these things or the related activities. If one believes the same principle applies to blood, then one should avoid ALL things that have blood. Not cherry picking but the complete package. Like one would treat evil, or fornication or lust. This shows that the WT blood doctrines is not scriptural, because their doctrine means a cherry-picking approach or very selectively abstain from blood.
If it is the complete package, it means no vaccins, almost no medicines, no meat at all (as all has some blood in it), and stop eating a great number of foods as one of the ingredients might have blood.
Therefore, to believe the rule meant to completely abstain from blood would meant that such a command would seriously increase the burden on the Gentiles and the verse Acts 15:28 said that the objective was not to increase the burden.
So, in my view, the blood rule must mean something else. And not sure what the other 4 articles will say, so I will not completely explain my views here but I do believe it has to do with the use of blood in the worship traditions of the Gentiles. Like the use of women/lusts and use of strangled animals / meat in their worship. Acts 15:19 “Therefore I conclude that we should not cause extra difficulty for those among the Gentiles who are turning to God"
In other words, these Gentiles were willing to turn to God but there was a risk they would also keep their type of worship. The main reason why I believe it had to do with worship is that the whole discussion started with the push from the Jews to circumcise the Gentiles.
- Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-01-10 12:42:38
  Hello Menrov,
  You make very excellent points.
  The GB (guided by branch attorneys no doubt) have gone as far as they can possibly go to minimize future harm to members, without officially rescinding the doctrine.
  Allowing hemoglobin in 2004 was tactical in that HBOC"s (Hemoglobin Based Oxygen Carriers) were doing quite well in FDA trials at that time. The GB needed hemoglobin approved before the HBOC's became mainstream, so no one would connect the dots, that hemoglobin was allowed to allow JW's to accept the HBOC.
  By sliding hemoglobin in the mix, they could say hey, hemoglobin has been a conscience matter since way back in 2004, it has nothing to do with the HBOC. Sadly for the GB and branch attorneys and practicing JW's, HBOC's have been pulled from FDA trials because a high percentage of patients suffered cardiac arrest.
  The GB slipped the elephant (hemoglobin) in the room in a clever way, disguising it as a "minor" fraction. Then, "smoke and mirrors" (making fractions a conscience matter) kept us from noticing the elephant had entered. We were all so busy trying to reconcile how it could be that we could conscientiously accept all these blood products, which all came from donor blood, and not be breaking God's law? We never saw the elephant.
  Making it a conscience matter gave the appearance that the GB themselves weren't certain, they weren't endorsing, and that each is responsible to God. The design of this is if challenged, the GB can say members refused blood due to their own conscience, not because of coercion from an organization. It being a conscience matter also kept us from talking about it among ourselves, sharing our concerns, questions, and research. It was like a court decision with sealed records.
  So, it's not that they have cherry picked, it's that they have allowed everything possible. Which has gained the attention of trial lawyers snipping at their tail (Kerry Louderbach Wood)
  But the risk was worth it, given that that HBOC's looked so promising.
  I can only imagine the disappointment and dismay at Brooklyn and Patterson when the HBOC's were pulled from FDA trials. The clock is ticking, and more and more are waking up to the elephant in the room.
  When we learn the vital role of hemoglobin, we realize it is not a tiny, miniscule fraction, along with the list of other fractions. It is the "life" that is in the blood, as our oxygen transport system.
  A human body can survive several weeks without food, three days without water. The brain suffers serious injury in just 3 minutes without oxygen, in 10 minutes we the damage is irreversible, in 15 minutes the brain is dead.
  How important is hemoglobin?
  You're on track with the connection between the 4 things. I'll save more for Part 5.
  Sopater

Comment by Anonymous on 2016-01-10 15:39:26
The Governing Body is not yet ready to crucify themselves over the blood doctrine. They believe: "the Romans (xjws) will come and take away both our place and our nation,” and rightly so.
The raw truth is that they have not only betrayed those who gave their lives and their children's lives for this man made doctrine; they have also betrayed and sullied God and His Son while doing so.
Thanks Sopater.
Joshua
- Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-01-10 16:01:46
  So true Joshua.
  Time is working against them, more are waking to the elephant in the room.
  Sopater

Comment by WT Study: Jehovah Is the God of Love | Beroean Pickets on 2016-01-12 18:47:38
[…] Witnesses. This would make Jesus responsible for all the medical silliness of Woodworth’s editorship (1919-1945), Rutherford’s 1925 prediction of the end of the world, Franz’s 1975 fiasco, the […]

Comment by charles on 2016-01-13 11:34:31
RE Biola electronic vibrations. Up to the end of WW11 there was a medical practice called "Diathermy" which heated tissue with very strong electromagnetic fields. Don't know how much harm was caused,but it became illegal in N.Y.S.
- Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-01-13 16:44:21
  That's a very interesting piece of information Charles, thanks for sharing.
  May I say I'm not surprised.
  Sopater

Comment by wish4truth2 on 2016-01-13 19:36:22
very good article! We look forward to studying them all as a family
- Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-01-14 07:17:46
  Thank you wish4truth2.
  I pray that many within the JW community do likewise.
  Most active JW's view compliance with the doctrine as simply the Christian thing to do. Few have done any research outside of WT publications. Only if one researches "outside the box" can he see the big picture.
  After fractions were allowed, I recall a conversation with a very close elder friend and his wife regarding blood. She said that she wished things had never changed. She lamented that before fractions became a 'conscience" matter, it was so easy to simply say no to anything made from blood. She was dismayed at how complicated and confusing it all is now.
  I think her comment fairly represents the thinking of most in our JW community. Better to be safe than sorry they say. Saying no doesn't require any research, it doesn't require trying to rationalize the GB's official position that the doctrine hasn't changed, When breaking blood down into its constituents, a Christian can now accept about 99% of whole blood.
  From my research, putting things very simply, the only thing we can't accept are blood cell membranes (red, white, platelet). We can accept all that is inside of the cell membranes after the cells are fractionated.
  Let me use a very simple illustration. I think of the blood cell as being like a water balloon. Our doctrine used to teach that the entire balloon was off limits, including all of the water inside. No matter how thirsty you are, don't pop it and drink the water. Throw it on the ground.
  We are now advised that if we stick the balloon with a needle, we can drink all the water inside. Only the rubber skin is off limits.
  Back when NO BLOOD meant NO BLOOD, imagine yourself stranded somewhere and very seriously dehydrated in desperate need of water. You came upon some balloons filled with cool, refreshing potable water. Complying with the GB's No Blood doctrine meant that, no matter how thirsty, no matter how dehydrated your body was, you had to throw the balloons on the ground (and watch them explode).
  And now can stick the balloon and drink all the water inside? Has anything changed?
  I do give credit to the GB for being so clever and cunning as to slip this past the rank and file. Amazing.
  Sopater
  - Reply by Karen on 2016-01-18 00:45:01
    We seemed to have stopped doing our own research after baptism .... We then accepted everything coming from the GB as fact. As the article written by 'Sopater' comments .... The issue of blood cannot be changed in the form of a new light... Now we can make our own choices once we have researched the many fractions of blood... Of course it would have been easier just to kick back and wait to be told what we do or don't believe this year, this month .....
    - Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-01-18 10:48:00
      Karen,
      It has become so obvious to those of us enlightened (including medical professionals) that JW’s accept blood. The confusion is purely semantics. While the GB (and staff attorneys) insist that the official No Blood doctrine has not changed since 1945, namely:
      I REFUSE WHOLE BLOOD, AND ANY OF BLOOD’S FOUR MAJOR COMPONENTS
      The reality is, when the GB allowed ALL minor fractions and even HEMOGLOBIN was approved, JW’s are now approved to accept about 99% of whole blood. To be most accurate and aboveboard, the No Blood Card should now read:
      I REFUSE WHOLE BLOOD, AND ANY OF BLOOD’S FOUR MAJOR COMPONENTS.
      I WILL, HOWEVER, ACCEPT 100% OF ALL THE CONSTITUENTS OF THE 4 MAJOR COMPONENTS
      IF YOUR TOTALLY CONFUSED, LET ME CLARIFY,
      THIS MEANS I ABSTAIN FROM 1% OF WHOLE BLOOD.
      From a laymen's perspective, the 1% that is taboo is the blood cell membranes. Everything inside the membrane is acceptable as a fraction. Here’s how I arrive at my calculation:
      Plasma (<55% of whole blood) is 92% water, and the remaining 8% of solids in plasma are 100% acceptable as blood fractions.
      Red Cells (45% of whole blood) are 65% water, of the remaining 35% of the red cell, 96% is hemoglobin. A Christian can accept hemoglobin.
      White cells and Platelets are less than .05% of whole blood. What is inside their cell membranes is acceptable as a blood fraction.
      I'm not hereby implying that blood can be separated with such precision. I'm only attempting to take a very complex matter and make it something simple to visualize. It appears that only the cell membranes are officially taboo.
      Generations of GB have proven themselves pusillanimous by refusing to courageously eradicate this teaching. One that was founded on a myth promoted by centuries old physicians. The current GB has employed a covert strategy to allow Jehovah's Witnesses to accept 99% of whole blood, yet at the same time continue to claim that nothing has changed. This is all subterfuge. The GB want to have their cake and to eat it too. What I'm saying is, they want JW's to enjoy the benefits of accepting blood, but not the consequences of abandoning the doctrine.
      By allowing JW's to accept 99% of whole blood, has not the GB allowed us to view their hand? How can anyone conscientiously claim that JW's obey the command to "abstain" from blood? The GB have approved 99% for one reason, and one reason alone. They no longer believe the doctrine is scriptural. There is no other logical explanation.
      So, it's a high stakes poker game. The GB that conceived the erroneous doctrine passed on a horrific hand to the next generation of GB. Each generation of GB has had the opportunity to FOLD (and lose their ante and prior bets). But instead, each generation has bluffed and placed higher bets. The reason? Armageddon was so near. And, surely a blood substitute would come along soon. Well, we're still waiting…..
      The current GB has put everything on the table to buy themselves time to stay in the game. They've reduced the penalty for accepting blood (sorry clause), they no longer push us to keep our medical information current, we no longer have meeting parts and videos regarding blood, and…… they allow us to accept 99% of whole blood. What more can they possibly do to demonstrate they don't believe the doctrine?
      All they can do now is put on their best poker face……. and wait.
      How much longer before members do their own due diligence and reject the doctrine altogether? Before they tear up their No Blood cards, and force the GB to lay down its hand? How much longer before the legal system intervenes in behalf of protecting the health and well being of JW members? The clock is ticking…… tick tock, tick tock.
      Some may empathize with GB, given the outrageous hand they inherited. But their choosing to remain in the game instead of folding allows the lives of more members to be impacted. They are in effect placing the value of the organization's assets above the value of members. Moreover, the teaching has now become so confusing to members that many say NO to everything. They say no due to ignorance. They don't know the GB says they can accept it. This is in part the design of HLC. To educate members (and their families) at the hospital. The GB realizes how complex they've made it, and they can't put it in print that JW's can accept 99% of whole blood. Members aren't that stupid. So the HLC PRIVATELY tells advises them of all they can accept. But what of those who were in an emergency and the HLC hasn't arrived yet?
      How does Jehovah and Christ Jesus, the head of the congregation, view all this? Are they not dishonored? Does this not reflect very poorly on an organization that would allow, no, even coach its members to remain faithful to a man made teaching, even to death? Has this doctrine not been a major stumbling to medical professionals and even the world?
      If it were just another anti-typical prophecy interpretation, so what? If just another end time prediction, so what? If just another twist on the "generation" teaching…… who the heck cares? The GB can create and replace the most preposterous teaching on a whim..... when no one is physically harmed. We just chalk it up to "new light" and move on.
      But this is horse of a very different color, and the color is RED. Around the world, everyday hundreds (if not thousands) of our dear brothers and sisters are in hospitals with plastic bands around their arms with the note JW - NO BLOOD.
      This is a HUGE matter to the collective conscience of all here involved with BP and DTT. It is the reason I am driven to do research and share it here. I feel it my duty and an act of brotherly love.
      Of course, Jehovah can (and will) correct any injustice that has occurred in the resurrection. But why should he depend upon the resurrection to correct matters?
      Why not correct those who continue to defend the God dishonoring teaching?
      Sopater
      - Reply by Marvin Shilmer on 2016-01-18 12:01:50
        Sopater, Watchtower's current position does not limit which or how many "fractions" JWs can accept from blood.
        In the case of red cells, current Watchtower doctrine would allow JWs to accept any and all "fractions" thereof, which would include the protein membrane so long as it is first "fractioned" from the red cell. This is similar to the fresh frozen plasma component. Once it's fractioned into cryoprecipitate and cryosupernatant both these constituents can be accepted by JWs even though these two fractions are 100% of the original fresh frozen plasma. Hence current Watchtower doctrine allows JWs to accept transfusion of 100% of a unit of allogeneic whole blood so long as it is sufficiently dissected beforehand.
        Then we have autogeneic whole blood which JWs can accept 100% of so long as it has not been officially banked ("stored" in Watchtower lingo).
        Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-01-18 13:24:30
        Marvin,
        You have adjusted my thinking again. :) So I'm off 1% huh?
        So based upon your findings, I now feel comfortable with the statement that Jehovah's Witnesses can accept 100% of whole blood, so long as it's sufficiently dissected beforehand.
        Thank you Marvin, our collective research on this subject is going to be like an uppercut followed by the left hook.
        Sopater
        Reply by Marvin Shilmer on 2016-01-18 16:32:12
        LOL. I suppose the difference between 99% and 100% is somewhere in the neighborhood of 1%. Seriously, the notion that Watchtower claims it's position on blood has JWs abstaining from blood is only made more hollow once the reader realizes that same position lets JWs literally accept 100% of the volume of a donated unit of whole blood if only it's sufficiently dissected first. So 100% becomes an ominous figure in the discussion.
        On another note, this idea of "fractionation" in relation to nutrition only becomes more absurd given the fact that the first step in our digestive tract is the mouth where our teeth are used precisely to "fractionate" food as the initial step in taking in nutrition. Yet Watchtower doctrine uses "fractionation" as a mechanism to delineate that which is "blood" verses that which may not be "blood". When a human literally swallows whole blood one of the first things that happens is fractionation of that blood in our digestive tract! Like I've said before, the whole policy is upside-down and inside-out ridiculous. There is not one shred of it that makes even a single lick of sense.
        Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-01-18 20:34:51
        It started out ridiculous, then went down hill from there.
        The GB's of each generation have performed all kinds of convoluted somersaults while sliding down the slippery slope of attempting to defend it
        How do you defend the indefensible?
        Reply by Marvin Shilmer on 2016-01-18 21:07:09
        Sopater, I understand your rhetorical question. It's frustrating to realize a teaching you once held as valid is ridiculous. We've all felt that pain over one belief/teaching or another. Perhaps the biggest disappointment is learning those who you thought cared about truth turn out to have little if any regard at all for it. That level of betrayal is hard to reconcile. Judas comes to mind.
        Changing gears just a bit, I've noticed Watchtower waffle around between a nourishment premise and a sanctity premise in relation to blood. You might want to give the latter subject some treatment in future articles you write. The notion that as a substance blood holds some special significance to God is not hard to refute, but it's a corner of the discussion you might want to consider addressing. Among other things, the text of Genesis 6:21 does, to me, completely undermine any notion that as a substance blood is somehow something humans could not eat regardless of source, as though God holds it sacred as a substance. But I'm sure you'll address this in your own way as you see the need, if any.
      - Reply by Karen on 2016-01-18 17:30:18
        Thank you again Sopater, I never thought I would say or in fact do this....
        As a person with a medical background, with tears in my eyes have just thrown away my blood card..... What next with this organisation? Devastating all the years I pushed and drove my children to despair to be the very best we could be in Jehovah's eyes? no in the elders eyes ....
        Yes again you are correct, as a sole parent every man and his male dog in our congregation believed they could tell me and mine what to do ... They were good at it too .... Turned me from a confident young woman to a blithering idiot too afraid of causing upset to ever stand against them..... UNTIL they turned on my daughter .... THEN and only then did I return as ME the individual not as the collective .... To defend and act against their cruel and unscriptural advice.
        Thank you all for this wonderful site, it gives strength and courage and a place to go when lost ....
        Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-01-18 20:24:51
        We feel your pain. We have been brought together to support each other.
        Warm Christian love,
        Sopater

Comment by Karen on 2016-01-18 00:38:40
Is there nothing we have been taught as witnesses that is actually true?? Very well written but has left me shattered. I was refusing blood transfusions long before I became a witness for medical reasons alone ... More confusion ... Thank you for your well written article!!
- Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-01-18 06:27:07
  Karen,
  Thank you dear sister for your kind words. Your comment touches my heart. I share your view that it is prudent to avoid a blood transfusion for medical reasons. I would accept one only as a last resort intervention to preserve my life.
  I view transfusion intervention similar to tethering a life raft on a sailboat when traveling across on the ocean. I have no intention of using the life raft, ever. But prudence dictates that I tether it and take it along, just in case. If in a severe storm the vessel took on water and began to sink, I accept that getting on the life raft in the middle of the ocean in shark infested waters with limited supplies of food and water carries risk, I accept the fact I may not survive. But I believe the life raft could keep me alive just long enough to be rescued.
  I can't imagine the thought of having the life raft tethered to the sailboat, then while it was sinking, refusing to untether the life raft and allow it to sink with the boat. And that is exactly the situation each JW faces when they are in grave medical condition. The "No Blood" card essentially orders the medical team to let you and the life raft sink with the boat.
  Is there anything we have been taught as witnesses that is actually true? Yes. But the list of what we teach that is not supported in God's Word is much longer. I invite you to remain with us and prove this for yourself.
  Phileo,
  Sopater
  - Reply by Karen on 2016-01-18 17:17:24
    Thank you for your kind and clear response. You write very well and use illustrations as Jesus would have done in assisting others to understand, I thank you again and intend to keep reading. For now I cling to basic (milk food as previous accusations from the WT), the resurrection hope, the fact that there is a God whatever his name is (I wish I new). The fact that we will inherit a clean and honest new earth, (we will wont we) ?
    - Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-01-18 20:14:59
      Karen,
      I have been exactly where you are. My entire life, I was so certain I was standing on solid ground. I was happy, as they say, ignorance is bliss. When the GB allowed hemoglobin, I started researching and my awakening. The ground began moving, and I realized I was standing on a mudslide. Like you, I didn't know what to believe anymore.
      I'm so thankful for this site. We are not alone my sister.
      Our Father is looking after us.
      Phileo,
      Sopater

Comment by Anonymous on 2016-03-17 12:43:10
The July 1, 1945, Watchtower article mentioned blood transfusion, but the article was not primarily about blood transfusions. It asserted a new position in the old Christian debate about the applicability of Acts 15 and the Noachian covenant. The Watchtower had received complaints from readers in reference to a previous article called the “The Stranger's Right Maintained” (which I haven't found yet). Page 199 says: “In commenting thereon, some Watchtower readers have said that such prohibition against eating and drinking blood applied only the the Jews under the Mosaic law covenant but not to Christians who are under the new covenant.” There had an long argument among Christians whether Christians could eat blood since the early centuries. In my opinion, the Watchtower discovered in 1945 that it had been on the wrong side of the blood issue because of research. This July 1 Watchtower said on page 200: “And quite interestingly, in our consultation of various works on the subject of blood, this related item came to light on page 113, column one, of Volume 4 of The Encyclopedia Americans, Revised Edition of 1929: ...” This passage reveals that the Watchtower consulted “various works” before writing this article, which took a firm stand that the prohibition against eating blood in Apostolic Decree of Acts 15 and in the Noachian covenant still applies to Christians today: “They wrote such instruction concerning blood, not because Christians were under the Mosaic law covenant, but because they were under the covenant made after the flood with Noah and which embraced all mankind, Gentile and Jew alike ... (page 199).” I think the Watchtower would have printed this article even if Clayton Woodworth had never existed. Many Christians who were not Witnesses had had arguments indistinguishable from the Watchtower's, and the Watchtower learned its new position from that older literature. I do not believe Dr. Susan E. Lederer's theories about the motives for the blood doctrine.

Comment by Anonymous on 2016-03-18 11:03:11
John Harvey Kellogg was a still Seventh Day Adventist at the time he wrote the passage hereunder (in 1901), long before the 1945 Watchtower article. If he had lived till the time of blood transfusions, he would have had to decide whether they were forbidden by Acts 15 and the Noachian Covenant. From Medical Missionary and Gospel of Health Volume X; page 259: “But,” says the flesh eater, “that was in the old dispensation, under the law of Moses. The eating of blood may have been a sin then, but not at the present time.” This can not be admitted, for the command to abstain from the use of blood came with the permission to use flesh, and was a command given by God to the whole human family after the flood, when Noah and his family represented the entire human race; that this injunction is as applicable to the Christian dispensation as to the Jewish and to the immediate descendants of Noach, is clearly shown by the letter sent by the apostles at Jerusalem to the Gentile brethren at Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia, recorded in Acts 15: ... This passage affords the strongest kind of evidence that the command to abstain from blood applies to the present dispensation as much as to any which has ever been; for the apostles gave the injunction, not on their own authority alone, but upon that of the Holy Ghost ...'

Comment by 2016, Dec 19-25 – Our Christian Life and Ministry | Beroean Pickets - JW.org Reviewer on 2016-12-19 17:13:06
[…] doctrines of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society constitute false teachings. If the teachings on blood, disfellowshipping, 1914, 1919, the overlapping generations, and the other sheep are false, how can […]

Comment by Anonymous on 2017-04-30 18:02:15
Hate WTS. Ok then go find an organization that keeps God's laws and standards and does the preaching work Jesus instructed. Oh, there isn't one. Right there isn't one. Only groups that continue to accept behavior that the WORLD deems modern and acceptable. JW don't answer to an organization. God see all things. We answer to him.
- Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2017-04-30 20:59:09
  Actually, Christians answer to Jesus Christ to be accurate. However, Jehovah's Witnesses most definitely do answer to the Governing Body since they are expected to accept the teachings of the Governing Body as if from God himself.

Comment by Jack Sofield on 2018-02-02 18:04:54
Just last week in a discussion with a very active JW I asked, in regard to the allowed fractions vs. whole blood, just what was the actual difference between 100 pennies and a dollar bill? The silence was deafening.
Have enjoyed your site for some time. Your calm and loving tenor is refreshing.
- Reply by SopaterOfBeroea on 2018-02-05 06:37:28
  Thank you Jack, what an excellent analogy.

Jehovah's Witnesses And Blood - Part 1

The Premise - Fact or Myth?

The Architects of the No Blood Doctrine

Remaining Separate from the World

A Doctrine Forever Etched in Stone

Archived Comments

Comment by Vassy on 2016-01-06 06:59:51

Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-01-06 09:35:36

Reply by miken on 2016-01-06 11:09:04

Reply by Godswordistruth on 2016-01-06 17:11:04

Reply by Willy on 2016-01-07 08:32:04

Reply by Anonymous on 2016-01-06 19:27:09

Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-01-09 04:27:26

Reply by Father jack on 2016-01-09 08:54:10

Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-01-09 10:36:46

Reply by Father jack on 2016-01-09 11:40:05

Reply by Marvin Shilmer on 2016-01-09 14:25:59

Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2016-01-09 14:55:15

Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-01-09 16:09:37

Reply by Marvin Shilmer on 2016-01-09 20:13:24

Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-01-10 00:38:21

Reply by Marvin Shilmer on 2016-01-10 20:17:53

Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-01-11 07:38:29

Reply by Marvin Shilmer on 2016-01-11 12:32:53

Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-01-12 00:46:13

Reply by Marvin Shilmer on 2016-01-12 21:24:36

Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-01-12 23:11:00

Reply by Marvin Shilmer on 2016-01-13 16:15:33

Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2016-01-13 16:46:28

Reply by Marvin Shilmer on 2016-01-13 18:11:39

Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2016-01-13 19:18:41

Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-01-13 17:02:56

Reply by Marvin Shilmer on 2016-01-11 20:17:10

Reply by Marvin Shilmer on 2016-01-09 20:11:23

Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-01-09 15:40:53

Reply by Marvin Shilmer on 2016-01-09 20:08:14

Comment by Marvin Shilmer on 2016-01-06 08:35:13

Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-01-06 09:44:02

Reply by Godswordistruth on 2016-01-06 17:10:30

Comment by Tom Daniels on 2016-01-06 10:11:45

Reply by Meleti Vivlon on 2016-01-06 10:16:12

Reply by godswordistruth on 2016-01-06 17:09:03

Comment by Father jack on 2016-01-06 11:56:29

Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-01-06 13:14:56

Reply by Father jack on 2016-01-06 14:11:58

Reply by sopaterfberoea on 2016-01-06 15:52:00

Reply by Father jack on 2016-01-06 17:07:51

Reply by Willy on 2016-01-07 08:35:45

Reply by Joel on 2016-01-07 06:49:04

Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-01-07 08:44:17

Reply by Meg on 2016-01-07 14:51:43

Comment by noblemindedthinker on 2016-01-06 12:05:04

Reply by sopaterfberoea on 2016-01-06 15:44:28

Reply by Marvin Shilmer on 2016-01-06 22:10:20

Comment by Kamil Levi Pyka on 2016-01-06 12:40:46

Comment by ResLight on 2016-01-06 19:05:27

Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-01-06 20:55:15

Reply by Marvin Shilmer on 2016-01-06 21:56:05

Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-01-07 07:49:22

Reply by Marvin Shilmer on 2016-01-07 11:47:38

Reply by Menrov on 2016-01-08 04:38:48

Reply by Marvin Shilmer on 2016-01-08 08:25:02

Reply by Menrov on 2016-01-08 04:57:51

Reply by Anonymous on 2016-01-07 15:02:47

Reply by Marvin Shilmer on 2016-01-07 18:22:28

Reply by Chris on 2016-01-09 08:30:48

Reply by Chris on 2016-01-09 08:30:07

Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-01-09 09:10:55

Comment by Anonymous on 2016-01-06 22:11:28

Comment by CX516 on 2016-01-06 23:40:58

Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-01-07 08:07:42

Comment by markchristopher on 2016-01-08 18:10:43

Comment by markchristopher on 2016-01-08 18:12:44

Comment by Menrov on 2016-01-10 04:40:53

Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-01-10 12:42:38

Comment by Anonymous on 2016-01-10 15:39:26

Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-01-10 16:01:46

Comment by WT Study: Jehovah Is the God of Love | Beroean Pickets on 2016-01-12 18:47:38

Comment by charles on 2016-01-13 11:34:31

Reply by sopaterofberoea on 2016-01-13 16:44:21