I asked my best friend how the GB makes its decsions last night...

by dontplaceliterature 29 Replies latest jw friends

  • dontplaceliterature


    I've read half of the letters. I am now out to run an errand and won't be back to the site until tomorrow, likely. I try to avoid tinkering around here too much when my wife is home.

    I can only say: WOW.

    I'll probably start another thread with commentary, and perhaps even consider some of these letters with my wife and relate her comments.

    Meanwhile, does anyone know if there are actual photocopies of those letters available anywhere? She would be less likely to view them as "Apostate" material, or even fake if I could have such available for discussion. I haven't made up my mind whether or not to enter them into or Family Worship discussion next week, but having a "real" copy of the letter would greatly impact my decision. Althought I hate to "steal" his reasoning points, I may feel obligated to take some notes and present the information that way, rather than reveal to her that it came from the EVIL INTERNET.

    I probably won't sleep tonight. If so, I'll be back....

  • bohm

    DPL: Do you know about these letters?


  • Ding

    Once a person decides the WTS is "God's organization" and gets baptized, they are supposed to stop thinking and meekly accept whatever the organization says whether they understand it or not, whether they agree with it or not, and whether it matches what the Bible says or not.

    The conclusion that the organization speaks for Jehovah can never be re-examined by a JW. If they do, they become "a dog returning to its own vomit."

    JWs, what would you say to a householder who told you his religion had those kind of rules and hold over him?

    Doesn't this exalt the organization over a commitment to the truth and to Jehovah, the God of truth?

  • manicmama

    I don't know how good of a friend you have, but you probably just tagged yourself for questioning the governing body. Expect a sheperding call at any time.


  • GrandmaJones

    When discussing the blood issue, don't forget to laugh good-naturedly and bring up fractions. How you just don't get the fractions. Even take the side that taking blood may be wrong, yes wrong, but what about this deal with the fractions? It is a stumbling point for you, a little. Some of these fractions takes the stored blood of a thousand or more people. What's up with that? How can that be right? (You looked this up because someone recently brought it up to you, so you checked into these fractions, and what they entailed on the internet.)

    Don't be too serious. Being good-natured is part of the plan, you know.

  • dontplaceliterature


    Thanks for the tips. Of course, I would approach this subject in an inquisitive, good-natured way, so as not to implicate myself. That's what I apprecaited the most about the Jensen letters. By questioning the Scriptural reasoning on whether or not we could accept certain blood fractions and not others, he exposes that this is something that the Bible is not clear about at all. This then forces the listener to question why we even have "a stance" on an issue that is so foggy in the scriptures.

    We are constantly reminded to examine the "spirit" of the law. The fact is, that the Bible writers could never have fathomed that blood would have any life-saving ability via transfusion or other medical use. So, this application, in my mind, must automatically be removed from the equation. The concern, as Jensen points out, was about respect for life. I really enjoyed the comparison he draws on regarding fornication, and how just one small aspect of "porneia" would never be acceptible according to the scriptures and JW doctrine. As also with the fruit from the tree in the center of Eden. Eve likely would have faced the same penalty if she'd only eaten the skin of the fruit. She was threatened not even to "touch" it. So, Jehovah's Witness, if they want to reason from the Scriptures, should be "All or Nothing" when it comes to the use of blood it seems.

    Ray Franz points to the fact though, that rules such as this are likely never to change, due to long standing tradition. (Matt 15:6) The implications of relaxing the stand regarding blood would be Earth-shattering. The resulting defection would be immense. Not to mention the lawsuits. So, they are trapped, hanging on to this teaching probably for good. If anything happens, I could see it going the other direction, with the rule becoming more strict - a complete restriciton against all blood fractions, particles, components of any sort.

    There is some really solid SCRIPTURAL reasoning that exisits in these letters from Jensen. I'm glad I took the time to read them (though a bit repetitive and LONG). I'm going to start pulling all of the publication references tomorrow so I can use them in my Family Worship, if I decide to approach this subject from such a contradictory angle.


    We are like fleshly brothers. We have been friends since infancy. We have both exchanged "apostate" views in the past. This is not new territory for us. I would never have said anything to him if I thought there was any risk that he would report me or try to implicate me.

  • dontplaceliterature

    Does anyone know if R. Jensen is still an active Jehovah's Witness? Does anyone know if he is a member of this site or another ex-JW forum? Just curious. I'd be interested in corresponding with him if he could be reached, and would be interested in fielding some of my questions.

  • Soldier77

    After some more exchange, he just said that he "think(s) it's Jehovah's Organization, and even if they change their mind about things, we need to follow them."

    Yup, I've had recent discussions with a few friends still 'in' and it all comes to this thought-stopping ingrained and mind-controlled statement. Even if they have doubts, they believe that it's all part of "Jehovah's organization" and there is no argument.

    Lemmings I tell ya. LEMMMMMMMMMINNNNNNGS!

  • dssynergy

    Q1-why do Jews and Jewish hospitals see no problem with blood transfusions?

    @Moshe: I asked a business associate of mine, who is a practicing orthodox jew about this, and her response was that saving a life trumped everything else. So, despite the fact that they maintain a kosher home, observe sabbath and all high holy days, they would if it came down to it accept a blood transfusion. I don't believe they would see it as a violation of their obedience to any of the laws or traditions and if they did, I would expect there is some sort of act of contrition that can be performed to correct the situation.
  • dontplaceliterature

    I think it's really pointless to consider what Jews do today. Their current vision of the Mosaic Law seems far removed from what the ancient Israelites practiced. Animal sacrafices are coming to mind......

    So with respect to the Jehovah's Witness interpretation of the importance of the scripture in the Mosaic Law about blood, a Jew's opinion isn't likely to be respected by your average Witness/GB member.

Share this