Jehovah's Witnesses Are NOW Taking Blood!

[Madmary1]

Jehovah's Witnesses Are NOW Taking Blood!

In the past few years, we have seen some major policy changes on blood in how God's Name People (Jehovah's Witnesses) are to view the blood policy, as handed down by the Governing Body. However, when closely examined, some of these changes can be very confusing to some who have accepted them as truly "new light." Therefore, let's consider the following information presented below, very carefully, in the light of God's Word and contemplate actually what these recent changes could mean to us as worshipers of the True God, Jehovah.

Please find below a few of the MAJOR CHANGES made by the Watchtower Society on the blood policy in recent years. Please take your time and read all of them.

1. 1961 - An enlightened Christian who accepts a blood tranfusion or a banned blood product or donates blood should be viewed by the congregation, "rebellious opposer and unfaithful example to fellow members of the Christian congregation he must be cut off therefrom by disfellowshipping." (Watchtower 1/15/61, p. 63-64)
2. 1966 - "...the taking of blood is just as despicable to you as cannibalism. Think of eating of the flesh of another human creature! It is shocking! Is drinking human blood any different? Does bypassing the mouth and putting it directly into the veins change it? Not at all!" (Watchtower, 7/1, p.401, par. 7)
3. 1978 - Watchtower Society mentions medical advances of separating blood into primary components (red cells, white cells, platelets, and plasma). Because of these medical advances, a Jehovah's Witness is now allowed to take blood serums made from "a small amount of a blood derivative." (Watchtower 6/15, p. 30, 31)
4. 1982 - "However, Witnesses' religious understanding does not absolutely prohibit the use of components such as albumin, immune globulins, and hemophiliac preparations; each Witness must decide individually if he can accept these." (Awake! June 22, p. 22)
5. 1982 - "Witnesses believe that blood removed from the body should be disposed of, so they do not accept autotransfusion of predeposited blood. Techniques for intraoperative collection are objectionable to them." (Awake! June 22, p. 25)
6. 1989 - The Watchtower Society appears to open the door so that storing one's own blood is permitted. Though not mentioned by name, it is implied that use of scavenging techniques are a "matter of conscience." (Watchtower 3/1/89, p. 30, 31)
7. 1995 - The August 1 Watchtower, p. 30, shows for the first time that it is acceptable to store one's own blood for later use. It says it is, "a technique that some Witnesses may find unobjectionable under certain circumstances."
8. 1996 - The Watchtower Society now contradicts themselves saying: "This means that we must not take into our bodies in any way at all other people's blood or even our own blood that has been stored." (Brochure called "What Does God Require of Us?" p.25)
9. 2000 - In April, Circuit overseers in the United States receive a letter instructing them to inform local bodies of elders not to disfellowship anyone who accepts blood transfusions. If their conduct becomes known and they are deemed unrepentant, they will be considered to have disassociated themselves.
10. 2000 - In June, the Watchtower says, "...when it comes to fractions of any of the primary components, each Christian, after careful and prayful meditation, must conscientiously decide for himself." This lays the foundation for members to accept oxygen carrying RED CELL (hemoglobin) solutions. (Watchtower 6/15/00, p. 29-31)
11. 2004 - The June 15th Watchtower expands on the June 15, 2000 article. For the first time, the rank and file Jehovah's Witness learns that the single largest blood component which are RED CELLS (hemoglobin) is now permitted as a matter of personal choice.
12. Current Understanding - "...when it comes to fractions of any of the primary components, each Christian, after careful and prayerful meditation, must conscientiously decide for himself." The Watchtower June 2000, p. 29-31; June 15, 2004, p. 29-31

Well, after considering all the information above, does these policy changes seem confusing to you? To many concerned Jehovah's Witnesses themselves, these changes appears to present a dilemma of sorts, that we are all caught up in. Actually in the beginning as you have noticed, the blood policy was easy to understand, straightforward. However, in later years, they become very clouded and murky as time progressed under the leadership of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, since this particular arrangement was founded in December 1975.

To help us get a clear picture in our minds of exactly what this information means, here is a graph taken from the June 15, 2004 Watchtower Magazine study article entitled, "Be Guided By The Living God," page 22, to help us see:



As you can see from the graph above, the Governing Body decided to make it possible for all Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide, to take blood fractions and yet claim they were honoring God's clear command to "abstain from blood." (Acts 15:28, 29) They made this possible by saying the plain command to "abstain from blood" was actually, a "matter of conscience" for each individual Jehovah's Witness.

However, lets reason upon what is shown above in the chart taken from the June 15, 2004 Watchtower magazine. (Please review.) Now, did you notice that now, since June of the year 2000, Questions From Readers pages 29-31 (and re-emphasized with the release of the June 15, 2004 Watchtower magazine), Jehovah's witnesses are now allowed to take Red Cell fractions, White Cell fractions, Platelet fractions, and finally Plasma fractions. In the case of Red Cell fractions, Jehovah's witnesses are now allowed to take hemoglobin which represents about 97% of the makeup of the Red Cell. Yes, Jehovah's Witnesses can now take fractions from all four (4) components of blood. This is a fact. (See also article on "Governing Body's Approval of Cow's Blood For Jehovah's Witness Transfusion".) In fact, there was no mention in the above chart or the articles written that specify whether any particular part of the Red Cell components or White Cell components, etc., etc., were off limits for Jehovah's witnesses to take. Did you notice this?

When we think back, Jehovah's Witnesses originally held the clear viewpoint of total abstention blood should be observed for all christians. (Act 15:28, 29) For example, lets look at what the Insight On The Scriptures publication (1988) plainly says on the original view of taking blood. It says:

*** Insight Book Volume 1 p. 344 Blood ***

In the Bible, the soul is said to be in the blood because blood is so intimately involved in the life processes. God's Word says: "For the soul of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have put it upon the altar for you to make atonement for your souls, because it is the blood that makes atonement by the soul in it." (Le 17:11) For like reason, but making the connection even more direct, the Bible says: "The soul of every sort of flesh is its blood." (Le 17:14) Clearly, God's Word treats both life and blood as sacred.

Also in the same Insight Book Volume 1, under the subheading, "Proper Use of Blood," page 344, it adds:

As shown above, there was only one use of blood that God ever approved, namely, for sacrifice. He directed that those under the Mosaic Law offer animal sacrifices to make atonement for sin. (Le 17:10, 11) It was also in harmony with His will that His Son, Jesus Christ, offered up his perfect human life as a sacrifice for sins. -Heb 10:5, 10.

Then on the next page of Insight Book Volume 1 [page 345] under the subheading, "Under the Mosaic Law," it says:

Anyone who ate blood of any sort of flesh was to be 'cut off from among his people.' Deliberate violation of this law regarding the sacredness of blood meant being "cut off" in death. -Le 17:10; 7:26, 27; Nu 15:30, 31.

And down a little farther down on the same page of the Insight Book Volume 1 [page 345] it adds:

Under the Christian arrangement, the governing body of the first-century Christian congregation, under the direction of the holy spirit, ruled on the matter of blood. Their decree states: "For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you, except these necessary things, to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper. Good health to you!" (Ac 15:22, 28, 29) The prohibition included flesh with the blood in it ("things strangled").

This same book also adds on next page of Insight Book Volume 1 [page 346] further reasoning:

About seven years after the Jerusalem council issued the decree, Christians continued to comply with the "decision that they should keep themselves from what is sacrificed to idols as well as from blood and what is strangled and from fornication." (Ac 21:25)

Therefore we can see given the above comments taken from the Insight Book Volume 1, we realize fully the Watchtower Society under the Governing Body's direction, knows full well what God's Word, the Bible has to say on this subject of taking in blood. So then, why are they saying to God's Name People that a clear commandment of God can be sidestepped as a matter of conscience? Yes, why are they saying now it is entirely permissible for God's Name People, Jehovah's Witnesses, yes since 1978, to take blood fractions or products made with blood derivatives in them? Also, are these recent Blood Policy Changes really true "NEW LIGHT" from Jehovah God? What do you think?

Actually, if we are truly honest about this entire matter, we would have to say the Watchtower Society, under the Governing Body's direction, is telling us as Christians NOT to take whole blood or it's four primary components BUT we CAN take fractions of components of whole blood, into our bodies. But really, are not blood fractions, blood components themselves, a part of whole blood? Is this reasoning sound, reasonable, or dishonest, misleading, deceitful -- which?

One has to wonder if this situation of taking fractions of blood, in some ways very similar to the illusion Satan used in the Garden of Eden. Remember, the serpent [Satan] told Eve to just take a bite [fraction] of the "forbidden fruit" and you will be like God." She bought it! Just like each and everyone of the Jehovah's Witnesses who were also told they could take fractions or a [bite] of blood components.

Not surprisingly, we've found people often fall prey to "intellectual dishonesty" and reveal by their private reasoning, that they do not really want to hear the truth, preferring instead "to have their ears tickled." (2 Timothy 4:3)

For example, what if you were allergic to peanuts? Would you then conclude that you could consume PEANUT OIL or perhaps PEANUT BUTTER or for that matter, anything else extracted from the peanut, and think that you were safe? Of course not! Therefore, if God's Word, the Bible, clearly says NOT to take blood, but even ABSTAIN completely from it, doesn't it mean for us to NOT take parts, components or fractions of blood, no matter how small or minute those parts are? Isn't that a reasonable conclusion to reach?

Some important questions to ask ourselves:

• Am I one who would rather have my "ears tickled" or do I want to adhere to Divine Law completely, as God's Word recommends? -- 2 Timothy 4:3; 1 John 5:3
• Why has the Governing Body been showing an obvious STEADY DECLINE in their spiritual outlook on the use of blood over the years? And why are so many Jehovah's Witnesses NOT aware of this decline?
• Finally, could the so-called "New Light" Blood Policy Changes received from the Governing Body in recent years, have anything to do with the acute RISE IN LAWSUITS against the Watchtower Society over the World Wide Blood Policy of Jehovah's Witnesses?

After considering all the above and the information from the Watchtower Society's publications and from God's Word, the Bible, ask yourself…

IF THE NON-CONSUMPTION OF BLOOD IS TO BE VIEWED AS A DIRECT COMMAND FROM GOD, THEN HOW CAN MEN MAKE IT A MATTER OF CONSCIENCE?

So in conclusion...

what does this all mean for you, as one of Jehovah's Witnesses?


THIS: Because of the current Blood Policy, the congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses on a world wide scale, we would have to admit, has indeed become completely polluted, contaminated or become as "leaven" before God as a result of the Governing Body's wicked decision to allow individuals within the congregations at large, to accept BLOOD FRACTIONS, BLOOD COMPONENTS or BLOOD PRODUCTS, which are manufactured from blood derivatives. Furthermore, in making such a wicked decision, clearly exposes this vile group of men to be the infamous "Man of Lawlessness" of Bible Prophecy (since their conception in the year of 1975), who thereby have caused God's Name People, Jehovah's Witnesses today to be shown as utter DISGRACEFUL HYPOCRITES before all mankind earth wide today and outright TRANSGRESSORS of God's Unchangeable Law and Commandment to "ABSTAIN" from blood, totally! Think about it. -- See Luke 12:1; Galatians 5:9; Acts 15:28, 29; Acts 21:25; 2 Thessalonians 2:3-12.


****

[Abaddon (Ex. 23:21)]

Please find below a recent newspaper article written on the conflicting blood policy taught by Jehovah's witnesses, specifically in their accepted use of blood components and fractions. It is clear, to the outsider, Jehovah's witnesses now have a very confusing policy on the use of blood after so many changes in recent years. Many find this new policy on the use of blood totally inconsistent and unreasonable.

-------------------------------------snip--------------------------------------

The Future is in Our Past

Source of Article

The truth shall set you free?

Audrey Manning
The Beacon

The first case of sextuplets born in Canada occurred in Vancouver on Jan. 6 to Jehovah’s Witness parents.

The Vancouver babies were premature and needed blood transfusions to cope with low volumes of blood. Jehovah's Witnesses believe the Bible says they should abstain from blood (Acts 21:25) and therefore refuse blood transfusions for themselves and their children.

The care of the babies presents an ethical dilemma for the doctors. Medical authorities do not generally have the authority to overrule the parents’ wishes. However, when a child is in danger of dying, the doctors can lodge a complaint with government authorities that can get a court order to enforce treatment.

Religious authorities cite the special relationship between parent and child as something to be fostered and protected because it is the fundamental elemental upon which society and culture is constructed. The big question is: should the state intervene to save the life of a child?

Here we have a conundrum. The same religious authorities who would champion the rights of the unborn and turn every stone to prevent a woman’s right to choose will not go out on a limb for the born, preferring to leave the matter to the courts.

The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada cites three main principles at stake — the rights of parents, respect for religious beliefs and protection of children. In the unborn debate, protection of the unborn is paramount. After the child is born, protection comes after parental and religious rights.

There is an ethical assumption parents should have care and custody of their children because parents love their children and strive to help them to become honourable human beings. This assumption does not stand up to scrutiny. If parents are abusing children, society intervenes to protect the children. The question is: who needs protection more than a child who will die if medical treatment is not administered?

The argument is reduced to: are children individuals with human rights? It seems the only way to protect all children is to make the ethical assumption parents do not own their children. Parents are guardians charged with the task of helping their children to grow physically and emotionally. Life-and-death decisions regarding children should not take into consideration the religious beliefs of the parents.

Parents have rights, but they are not absolute. Outside religious rules, parents can’t make decisions that have the potential to harm their children. Children are regularly taken away from their parents when they’re deemed to be at risk. Thus, while society may accept parents are free to become martyrs, they are not free, in indistinguishable circumstances, to make martyrs of their children.

That parental rights do not give parents life and death authority over their children is especially relevant in the case of Jehovah’s Witnesses. This is because their teachings have changed radically, over the years, with regard to medical treatment.

As well as whole blood, the Watchtower Society used to prohibit taking into the body any of the components that make up whole blood. Over time, while sticking to the banning of whole blood, they have gradually permitted the use of virtually all the components that make up whole blood.

They first sanctioned globulin, then the clotting factors, plasma proteins and finally hemoglobin in June 2000. According to the Watchtower, June 15, 2000, Questions From Readers, essentially every component or fraction derived from whole blood and its primary components are allowed in medical treatment.

Religious authorities often view new technologies with suspicion. Throughout the 1940s and 1950s many religious communities objected to vaccinations. Vaccinations were denounced as harmful and morally wrong. Jehovah’s Witnesses saw vaccination as a direct violation of the everlasting covenant that God made with Noah after the flood (the Golden Age, precursor to the Awake, Feb. 4, 1931).

Between 1967 and 1980, the Watchtower Society and others held a dim view of organ transplants.

Major religions, including Catholicism, Judaism and Islam, issued warnings against transplants. Some religions objected because the procedure involved cutting an organ from a living body. Others, like the Witnesses, viewed transplants as an extension of cannibalism (the Watchtower, Nov. 15, 1967).

In 1980, the Watchtower Society made transplants a matter for personal decision, accepting the procedure as one that saves lives. Until the rules were relaxed, loyal Witnesses chose blindness rather than a corneal transplant and death rather than a kidney transplant.

Some branches of the Jewish and Muslim faiths continue to voice concerns over the rapid advance of medical research. However, religious thinkers have been forced to consider scientific technology when dealing with theological issues. Questions relating to stem-cell research, fertility, contraception and abortion remain the focus of religious debates.

There is no doubt society is conflicted over religious truths. Yet, even the most dogmatic views evolve. Is it reasonable to place the lives of children into this mix of personal beliefs and truths? Is it reasonable to give parents, like the parents of the sextuplets, the power of life and death over their children when their decisions are based on the whim of religious interpretation, which change over time?

[Janet B]

Evening Don,

Another excellent article on how...Jehovah's Witnesses are now taking blood.

I find it interesting to see how the society has ever so slowly changed their views and policies on the blood. So slow the followers weren't even bothered by the changes. Interesting how sly one works!

In 1961 the Society went from it being a disfellowshipping offence down through the years, 47 years, to it currently being a conscientious decision for oneself.

So sad, again, the 'Governing Body' has made a bad decision for all it's members by saying it's OK, it's just a matter of conscience, "You Decide"! Now, due to this we are all affected and we all will have to answer to Jehovah individually. However...we all have an individual responsibility to search the scriptures and make up our own minds according to what the scriptures says and Acts 15:28 & 29 is clear, black and white.

Sincerely, JJ

[Madmary1]

Interesting how sly one works!

Hi Julian,

You are correct...but doesn't that sound like someone else???

Yep, "sly", hmmmmmm, can you say SATAN?

Now that is interesting!

Madmary1