The following letter which was sent to the Canadian Branch is posted in the interest of creating awareness of basic issues that all thinking Witnesses should be concerned about. The research found at [url] http://www.jwbloodreview.org[/url] appears to be very sound and provides strong Scriptural and logical argumentation that policies of Jehovah's Witnesses regarding blood transfusions are in "possibly" error.
It is reasonable and entirely proper for any who are presently concerned Jehovah's Witnesses to submit and request the Society's perspective on this treatise found at [url] http://www.jwbloodreview.org[/url].
As yet I have not recieved a response from the Society, but perhaps more persons writing in regarding this matter will at least continue to encourage the Society to review what is an inconsistent, confusing and dangerous policy.
Sunday, May 7, 2000Dear Brothers,
My name is xxxxxxxxx and I am a member of the xxxxxxxx congregation in xxxxxx. On the advice of some elders I am writing to you regarding some matters of concern to myself and others.
Last year I was forwarded a copy of an essay by a friend entitled Jehovah's Witnesses and the Apostolic Decree to "Abstain From Blood". While the essay is anonymously written and from sources not verifiable, the information contained is respectfully written and is clearly authored by persons with sound knowledge of Scripture in harmony with what has been written in our publications and our beliefs as Jehovah’s Witnesses.
I am aware that one must be cautious these days about information from “unknown sources”. However the fact of the matter remains that information ultimately stands or falls on it’s own merit and what are solid facts and sound reasoning and truth remain such no matter what the source.
I have enclosed a copy of this essay for your comment on the matter. I am sure others have inquired as well and submitted a copy but I am not personally aware of how the information contained is to be refuted. If the information cannot be refuted Scripturally and logically then the obvious conclusion is that the information must be accepted. Because of the life or death nature of the information contained, if it is not refuted or accepted, knowing the information and not acting on it either way in a prompt manner carries moral and ethical, if not legal implications.
I am aware that the June 15, 2000 Watchtower on page 30 stated that “God’s law on blood is not open to reform”. But the truth of the matter is that that very article itself was an example of reform in that it now permitted the use of all fractions of the major components of blood where previously only some were permitted. Really, if one examines the history of our policy on abstaining from blood, it appears to have always been in a state of reform, especially in the areas of which or any blood fractions could be acceptable to Christians.
Out of necessity I have to hold to our present understandings regarding abstaining from blood. But I do believe that considering the conclusion mentioned in the enclosed essay would put an end to the obvious difficulties and inconsistencies that have been endured under the present policy, particularly in the matter of permissible blood fractions.
By mentioning “inconsistencies” I refer to our claim that we “abstain from blood”. However, we do not abstain from the medical use of blood in products that contain parts of blood. While we do not donate blood ourselves, we do use a large volume of blood that has been donated by others; blood that has been collected, processed and stored, not “poured out on the ground”. We as Witnesses cannot store our own blood for transfusion at a later date, but it remains fine to have blood stored for processing into blood fractions. We cannot accept platelets making up 0.17% of blood or leukocytes making up 0.1% of blood, but somehow can accept hemoglobin making up 13.5% of blood by volume.
There is no way escaping that the present policy is confusing at the very least. Most Witnesses including elders seem to have a very limited grasp of it and a number have made comments out of sheer ignorance of what the facts really are. What was a simple statement that we “abstain from blood”, has become much more complex.
The reality is that we have been mistaken in the past as far as our policies go regarding what is acceptable medical treatment or not. Witnesses have been disfellowshipped for accepting organ transplants or accepting “forbidden” components of blood that are now acceptable as of last June. Conversely, Witnesses have died refusing what was forbidden at the time.
What I would like to know, is who accepts responsibility for “handing these ones over to Satan” for not following what turned out to be a “command of men”? Did these ones really sin or “run ahead of Jehovah”? Or had others making the policy in the first place mistakenly done so? Who accepts responsibility for the deaths of those who thought they were being loyal to “God’s laws” when in reality they died loyal to policies we don’t even believe and teach anymore?
*** w76 5/15 298 Preaching Christ-Through Envy or Goodwill? ***
It is a serious matter to represent God and Christ in one way, then find that our understanding of the major teachings and fundamental doctrines of the Scriptures was in error, and then after that, to go back to the very doctrines that, by years of study, we had thoroughly determined to be in error. Christians cannot be vacillating—‘wishy-washy’—about such fundamental teachings. What confidence can one put in the sincerity or judgment of such persons?While many might not consider “organ transplants” or “blood fractions” to be one of our major teachings, they were major in a life-or-death way to those who needed them. They were major enough to disfellowship individuals suffering from disease and illness that accepted these treatments. They were major enough that men, women and children died for them.
It is easy to forget that at the time these Questions from Readers articles were written, they were the latest “light”, supported with Scriptures and to disagree would mean apostasy. In reality, that light was mistaken and wrong the day it rolled off the printing presses. One would be hard-pressed to say that such mistakes brought honor and glory to Jehovah.
I ask the same question that the 1976 Watchtower article I quoted above asked. In view of our past teachings and the changes made, “What confidence can one put in the sincerity or judgment of such persons?”
Would the Society guarantee in writing that blood will never become a conscience matter like organ transplants in the past? I sincerely doubt it. And yet if the Society wouldn’t guarantee me that they wouldn’t change their policy, how much confidence could I have staking my life on it?
There remains an issue of responsibility and accountability that remains unaddressed. For these areas where the Society enforced unscriptural policies, has an apology ever been issued to those wrongly disfellowshipped? How do those who are responsible for past policies feel about their mistakes and those who were harmed by them? Have they sought out such ones and welcomed them back? Has an announcement humbly been read to make amends for the announcement read the night they were disfellowshipped?
We all rejoice to read “new light”. But sometimes I stop and think about those who gave their lives believing in what was once “new light”. Changes come and there is rarely if ever an apology or acknowledgment of the past. I am embarrassed to admit we believed and taught certain things and sometimes I try to hide that from people or am evasive when such topics come up. I am not proud of certain mistakes. Many times I am ashamed and embarrassed. I feel sick sometimes to think of how some people’s lives were affected in a major and detrimental way when they did what a “good Witness” did in believing with full confidence in what were “present teachings”. Many who thought they were putting their trust in Jehovah ultimately had placed it in men.
It is ironic that the magazines have touted several “success stories” of Witnesses who have had successful organ transplants without blood, when only a months or years earlier these same ones would have been disfellowshipped for doing the same thing because it was believed to be “cannibalism”. How would mothers who lost a child or others who lost loved ones in death due to past policies feel as they read these “wonderful experiences”?
My confidence in the present is admittedly shaken because of the past. And while there are a number of things that bother me, it is the matters that I am writing you regarding that bother me the most. I know the “last resort” answer; “wait on Jehovah, keep busy in service and study and meetings and prayer”. Such an answer seems always to be the solution when answers are hard to come by.Jehovah blesses activity and most change and “new light” appears to have been through individuals writing into the Society or out of necessity. This is apparent when most “new light” is introduced through Questions from Readers. I believe I have done my part in following the proper process in approaching elders, and then writing you. And now I wait patiently for the answers.
I do believe answers exist. It exists in men who made such rules taking responsibility for their actions. Men should be men. If one demands loyalty to the arrangement at the cost of life or at the penalty of being “handed over to Satan” so that all of his family and friends will have nothing to do with him, then when they are mistaken they should humbly apologize and accept what accountability their actions bring.
A double standard should not be allowed to exist. Leaders cannot be permitted to “run ahead of Jehovah” and demand things he hasn’t required while at the same time individuals get removed for not following “commands of men” and be accused of “running ahead of the Organization”.
In the past we have come down very hard on the leaders of the Catholic Church for things that we now have done ourselves, such as making changes that disturb people.
*** g70 4/22 8 Changes That Disturb People ***
Changes That Disturb People
THE churches are in rapid decline. Even in the United States, where religion still enjoys perhaps the greatest popularity, nearly three out of four persons polled said that it is losing influence. Why is there this decline in religion?One of the reasons is that people are disturbed by what is happening in their churches. Yes, millions of persons have been shocked to learn that things they were taught as being vital for salvation are now considered by their church to be wrong. Have you, too, felt discouragement, or even despair, because of what is happening in your church? A businessman in Medellín, Colombia, expressed the effect the changes have had on many.
“Tell me,” he asked, “how can I have confidence in anything? How can I believe in the Bible, in God, or have faith? Just ten years ago we Catholics had the absolute truth, we put all our faith in this. Now the pope and our priests are telling us this is not the way to believe any more, but we are to believe ‘new things.’ How do I know the ‘new things’ will be the truth in five years?”
What are some of these changes that disturb people?
Exactly what these “disturbing” changes were, the following article goes onto say. The articles, while discussing changes made by Catholics, apply even more so to us as Witnesses who have also made substantial changes in our teachings in our recent history. Especially notice the “effect” and “what becomes evident” when religions change their teachings.
*** g70 4/22 8-10 Should Meat Be Eaten on Friday? ***
Should Meat Be Eaten on Friday?
FOR centuries Catholics abstained from eating meat on Fridays. It was a Church law. Many sincerely believed it was a law of Almighty God. But now this has changed.The fact is that the meatless-Friday rule was made an obligation only some 1,100 years ago. Pope Nicholas I (858-867) was the one who put it into effect. And how vital was it considered that Catholics abide by this rule?
A publication that bears the Catholic imprimatur, indicating approval, states: “The Catholic Church says that it is a mortal sin for a Catholic to eat meat on Friday knowingly and wilfully, without a sufficiently grave and excusing reason.” It adds: The “Church says that if a man dies in unrepented mortal sin, he will go to hell.”—Radio Replies, Rumble and Carty (1938).
Thus the devout carefully avoided eating meat on Fridays. They sincerely believed that failure to obey could lead to their eternal punishment in a fiery hell.
But then, early in 1966, Pope Paul VI authorized local Church officials to modify this abstinence requirement in their countries as they saw fit. The pope was acting in line with recommendations made at the recently completed Second Vatican Council. Thus, in one country after another, meatless Fridays were virtually abolished—in France, Canada, Italy, Mexico, the United States, and so on.
The Effect
The effect upon many devout Catholics has been devastating. “All these years I thought it was a sin to eat meat,” explained a housewife in the midwestern United States. “Now I suddenly find out it isn’t a sin. That’s hard to understand.”If you are a Catholic, can you understand how a practice that was considered by the Church a “mortal sin” can suddenly be approved? if it was a sin five years ago, why is it not today? Many Catholics cannot understand.
When a woman in Canada was asked how she felt about the changes in her church, she replied: “I don’t know. Maybe you can tell me. What are they going to do with all those people sent to hell for eating meat on Friday?”
Not just a few Catholics have asked such questions. The change in teaching has shaken their confidence in the Church. Would you not feel the same way if what you had always been taught to be vital for salvation was suddenly considered unnecessary? Would you not be inclined to question other teachings of your church also?
The Catholic Church, however, has not completely changed its position on Friday meat abstinence. Even now Catholics are still required to abstain from eating meat on “Good Friday.” Also, in some places they must not eat meat on Fridays during the Lenten season.
But why is it considered wrong to eat meat on “Good Friday,” but permissible to do so on other Fridays of the year? It has caused thinking persons to wonder.
Many persons have begun to ask questions regarding the basis for this teaching, as well as about other Church teachings. And what especially disturbs them is that they have not received satisfying answers.
What Becomes Evident
The inability of the Church to explain its position Scripturally makes evident an important fact: The Catholic Church has not based its teachings upon what God’s Word says. Rather, it has founded many of its beliefs and practices on the unstable traditions of men.This is obviously true with regard to Friday meat abstinence. For, look as you may, nowhere in the Bible will you find that Christians were ever instructed to refrain from eating meat on any Friday of the year, or on any other day. It is not a requirement of God. In fact, the Catholic edition of the Revised Standard Version Bible says that enjoining or commanding “abstinence from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving” is an evidence of a departure from the faith.—1 Tim. 4:1-4.
Thus, many truth-seekers are having their eyes opened to see that the Catholic Church has not been holding strictly to God’s Word. And they are wondering whether any religion that does not do so is worthy of their confidence and support.
In view of the changes we have made as Jehovah’s Witnesses to our beliefs and teachings, it is almost ironic that such articles were ever written. That two whole articles were written lambasting the Catholic Church for changing their position on eating meat on a Friday is absolutely ridiculous. But forbidding someone from eating meat on a Friday is rather minor in comparison to forbidding someone who needed an organ transplant or certain blood fractions to have them when they needed them. No one ever died from not eating meat on Friday.
The information and comments made in those articles regarding what would be the equivalent of “new light” for Catholics and how one would feel about changes are hard to disagree with. But does a double standard exist? What would happen to a Witness if he drew the same conclusion that Catholics were encouraged to come to?
I leave this letter for your consideration. A written reply would be appreciated. I would appreciate comments on the enclosed essay stating how we refute such arguments and why we cannot accept the conclusion. An explanation of the seeming inconsistencies in our stance on blood fractions would be appreciated. Further, I would appreciate comments as well on the matters of accountability and responsibility that I raised as well as what basis for confidence Witnesses can have at the present time in view of past policies and the absence of any apology for them.
Some might sidestep the questions by questioning my motive or intent in asking these questions. The irrelevance of such a concern aside, I assure you the spirit with which the questions have been raised are genuine and sincere. Your attention in these matters of personal concern has been greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Brother xxxxxxxxxx
Enclosed document: Jehovah's Witnesses and the Apostolic Decree to "Abstain From Blood". ([url] http://www.jwbloodreview.org[/url])
PS. Feel free to copy this letter to my congregation, although I have sent copies to elders there and elsewhere in the circuit who have an interest in either myself or the matters expressed herein. As well a copy has been forwarded to the Circuit Overseer in addition to the City Overseer for xxxx as they also have an apparent interest in affairs pertaining to myself. Permission is granted for this letter to be copied, provided it is done so in full. This letter and the enclosed document are comprised of 24 pages.
Please allow me the courtesy of a personal reply in writing. I have no further comment on the information expressed herein until a written reply is received. I will gladly clarify any concerns in writing that you may have regarding this letter.If a letter is sent to my congregation elders to be discussed with me, I will not oblige. This is not meant as any disrespect to the arrangement, but in the recent past my comments have been distorted and unsavory assumptions without basis have been made regarding myself. Further, several elders, while with good intentions, have used unsound reasoning and demonstrated a basic ignorance of matters discussed herein. In the spirit of the Society’s “get it in writing” policy to prevent misunderstandings, I have done just that and stand by my words. I trust you will as well.
Brother xxxxxxxxx who I am sure you know in Bethel is familiar with myself and the genuine desire I have to resolve these issues should you have any concern regarding motive and intent. I do hope however, the focus is on the issues raised and not sidetracked by any concerns without basis or speculation and assumption regarding myself.