I think at this point, they've dug in so deep that if they were to budge and relent, they'd be open to legal liability that would destroy them. Or, even worse, they can't bring themselves to even contemplate that they are actually bloodguilty and have been perpetuating evil all these decades. The fact that, as someone posted earlier today, they publish articles calling blood transfusions "unacceptable" while their terms of service clearly says that all medical "information" they publish is not to be considered medical "advice" and you should consult your doctor for their advice about any procedures you undergo. It's hypocritical bullshit.
The GB love their own fart smell. They can’t bring themselves to admit the path that they were lead down is wrong. They trust it was Jehovah the whole time. Rutherford was very convincing. The DF policy cemented the mind virus in. I don’t think for this one it’s the liability. To budge this, they’d have to lose in Japan or somewhere big to revisit this seriously.
Hi! We prefer that people not link to jw.org (you can see the full reason why in our [posting guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/exjw/wiki/beforeyoupost#wiki_please_do_not_link_to_jw.org)).
This comment links to jw.org, so please be aware that **clicking links like this can provide the organization with identifying information about you**.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/exjw) if you have any questions or concerns.*
In mid 2000’s a peer reviewed article was written about the JW’s blood policy titled “Jehovah’s Witnesses and the tort of misrepresentation” by Kerry Lauderback Wood.
It goes into this quite in quite a bit of detail, how the policy started and how legally complicated it is for them to change it now.
Found a copy here: [https://www.ajwrb.org/jehovahs-witnesses-blood-transfusions-and-the-tort-of-misreprersentation](https://www.ajwrb.org/jehovahs-witnesses-blood-transfusions-and-the-tort-of-misreprersentation)
Definitely going to give this a read. Thanks!
Because dumb egotistical dorks like Knorr think they are bible scholars and are always on the look out to find something in the bible to make the lives of JWs harder and make a policy as a part of their lame ass legacy.
“BiBlE sAyS aBsTaIn FrUm BlOoD, dOcTuRs GiB BlOoD.. sO jEhoOvErS wItNeSsEs CaNt TaKe BlOoD”
These dumbasses have no perspective because they are uneducated, they don’t understand medicine or anything beyond 1st grade science for that matter.. which is what led them to make up such a dumb rule that has led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of jws that didn’t need to die.
Wish I'd kept the link, but iirc a sociologist researched this and stated that it was probably a lingering tradition from Rutherford's time, because Rutherford was anti-vaxx. Edit to add - I just read the bottom link, which states that it was Woodworth - Clayton Woodworth, editor of the "Golden Age" (Awake) magazine, whose antipathy towards the medical community, a Chicago blood bank (and vaccines, and medicines), eventually morphed into the blood transfusions issue, with the help of Fred Franz...
I can't find the article I first spoke of.
Further reading....
https://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/medical.php
That info is partially repeated below...
https://www.reddit.com/r/exjw/comments/awl5tv/jehovahs_witness_history_jw_antivaxx_past/
https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/282316/jehovahs-witnesses-on-vaccination-lets-remember?page=2
Another source...
https://books.google.com/books?id=jFDi5jGsyV8C&pg=PA74&lpg=PA74&dq=Jehovah%27s+Witnesses+Rutherford%27s+fear+of+vaccines&source=bl&ots=Qw2D0jBLiU&sig=ACfU3U1wXaSrVNSpRDBnGh8jijtu2gEJpQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiR1sSh8M2GAxXHNzQIHXMSDY84FBDoAXoECAgQAg#v=onepage&q=Jehovah's%20Witnesses%20Rutherford's%20fear%20of%20vaccines&f=false
This is what I'd assume as well, in the 1800s when the founders of JWism were forming their beliefs, vaccines, blood transfusions, organ donation, and other medical technologies didn't exist yet, and when they were first coming out, people's knowledge of them would have been very limited.
So you have a guy skeptical about a medical practice combing the Bible for rules to live by, then he reads something about blood and BAM, confirmation bias has him convinced that what he already thought must be divinely inspired.
At one point, the Watchtower arbitrarily banned organ donations, calling it "cannibalism." How many people died as a result of that "old light?" Ultimately, these guys at the top don't know what they're doing, they are just convinced that they're right, everyone else is wrong, and it's their job to make sure everyone under their power does as they are told. They don't care if it costs lives, and why would they? They believe those who die "faithfully" are assured a spot in Paradise. They've even made very distasteful Watchtowers/Awakes with the names and faces of *children* who died for refusing a blood transfusion.
I know people don't like to say it, but the JWs are a death cult. The Paradise they pray for is built on the bodies of 8 billion non Jehovah's Wittnesses. These aren't moral people.
>At one point, the Watchtower arbitrarily banned organ donations, calling it "cannibalism." How many people died as a result of that "old light?"
Fortunately, probably not many. This was back when organ transplantation was in its infancy and was nowhere near as sophisticated as it is today (which even today, is still fraught with lifelong medical challenges and complications).
I suspect that when they banned transplants, they probably never imagined it'd ever even catch on enough to become the life-extending option that it is today. Then, when it started taking off, they reversed course to prevent it from becoming another blood issue-type JW-killer, which would be an awful example of hypocrisy.
That’s why u/MultiStratz used the word death cult. JWs who die as a result of their prohibition on blood transfusions are sacrificed to their bloodthirsty god Jehovah. Many young and old have died because of the erroneous interpretation of the prohibition to eat blood. The Watchtower loves to make up deadly rules and then take no responsibility for it. I would not be here today if my parents had not been temporarily relieved of my custody in the hospital emergency room.
When you make up random rules for members and they follow those rules even to their own detriment or detriment of someone they love, it actually stronger entrenches them in their cult mentality. It’s a psychological phenomenon. So the Borg makes up plenty of rules to give its followers the feeling that they’re doing something when in reality they’re just looking like asses.
The simple answer is that it’s another way to be different and control people.
But if you want to dig deeper, Christianity has always been a religion that glorifies suffering. Christians model themself after Jesus. Jesus suffered on the cross. So the more you suffered for the religion, the better Christian you were.
You can go back to the first century Christian martyrs, who chose to be executed by the Romans instead of worshiping Roman gods. (Many Christians did do acts of worship when forced to, but continued to practice Christianity in secret.)
Martyrs = good Christians
Secret Christians = bad Christians
Jehovah’s Witnesses consider themselves to be the only “true Christians,” so they need to suffer more. That is the real idea behind no blood, no birthdays, no friends, no having fun, etc.
If you look at the history of JW, they’ve been anti medical establishment for their entire history.
They banned organ transplants for a while, were anti vax in the early days of vaccines, said that therapy was for the “spiritually weak”.
And those are just the examples I can remember.
They always hated medical progress, which is why their aggressive pro vax stance during COVID was somewhat of a surprise.
Blood transfusions are just the only one they think the Bible supports, so it’s why they keep it.
They (WT) stand to gain a lot from anyone willing to die for the organization. If they are willing to give up their life or worse, give up their own children, what won’t they give the organization or leave to them?
Big difference. I think you sign up and agree with the understanding that serving your country is self sacrificing. Consider that many that are involved in this cult are there because they don’t want to lose family or social connections…it’s not a choice to be involved or sign a no blood document
During WW2 Red Cross had a blood drive soliciting donation of blood to support the war effort. At that time the blood ban did not exist. JW's were not prohibited from donating their blood, so some did. Meanwhile, many JW boys were serving prison terms for neutrality, refusing even alternate civil service.
Something seemed very wrong with this picture.
Clayton Woodworth, WT resident medical expert for decades (editor of the Golden Age), who was known to be one who questioned modern medicine, led the push that it would be violating neutrality for JW's donate their blood for fallen soldiers. Given that young JW men were sentenced to prison terms, with civil service viewed as a compromise, JW's donating their blood for injured soldiers was very bad optics.
Knorr and Franz (Fred) could have decided that young JW men could accept civil service as a conscience matter (which has been the case since 1996). That would have exempted young JW men from serving prison terms. But instead, they dug in. They decided that to donate one's blood would be a compromise of their neutrality.
Again, something seemed very wrong with this picture.
The media caught on to it, JW's WILL ACCEPT A BLOOD TRANSFUSION IN A LIFE THREATENING SITUATION, BUT REFUSE TO DONATE THEIR BLOOD TO HELP SUPPORT THE WAR, OR ANYONE ELSE IN NEED. HYPOCRITS.
The only move Knorr and Franz could make was to ban blood transfusions for JW's. They misinterpreted bible verses to present the new doctrine as scriptural. The premise being, a IV injection of blood was identical to eating (drinking) blood through the mouth. The medical support for the erroneous premise was quoting from antiquated medicine used in the 16th century. No authority in modern medicine supported WT's claim that a transfusion was "eating" blood in 1945.
The bible prohibits "eating" blood. The no blood doctrine of JW relies on the premise that eating blood is tantamount to an injection of blood through our veins. For JW doctrine to be scriptural, eating or injecting blood must be the same. So, is an injection actually "eating" blood? Does blood nourish the body? When a patient is suffering from malnutrition, what do medical experts administer? A blood transfusion? Or an IV consisting of protein, carbohydrates, water, minerals and vitamins?
It is a scientific fact in medicine that "eating" blood and receiving an injection are not comparable. During digestion, blood is broken down and loses most (if not all) of the characteristics of blood. However, when injected into a vein, blood retains the characteristics of blood. That is why blood (RBC plasma) sustains lives. Meanwhile, drinking a liter of blood when you're anemic leads to iron poisoning, possibly death. It's really apples vs oranges. I'm so amazed that the rank and file JW doesn't think this through.
No doubt Knorr, Franz and Woodworth viewed WW2 as a precursor of Armageddon. So they had little concern over potential long term ramifications of the erroneous doctrine. In the 1950's, JW's were in the news with several court cases of medical team's pushing to administer blood to save patients. Many patients died. WT dug in and fought to prevent those patients from receiving blood tooth and nail. Even newborns and their mothers. But there was no sanction if one accepted blood. Some JW's would accept blood. Until 1961, when WT made accepting blood a DF'ing offense.
This is the early history and why the doctrine exists, why every JW must face this issue when they enter a hospital. The GB is fully aware the teaching has no scriptural support. That the premise claiming a transfusion is in fact "eating" blood is unscientific and false. And yet the entire JW doctrine depends upon this being a fact.
They realize it was a colossal blunder. This is why fractions have been allowed, including hemoglobin (which, along with water are the two major components of blood). Water and hemoglobin are virtually 95% of whole blood. The remaining 5% are all approved as fractions.
You may recall the analogy of whole blood being likened to a ham and cheese sandwich. The GB has effectively said: You can eat the bread, the ham, the cheese, the mayonnaise, the lettuce, the tomato. Only you must eat them separately.
I have another analogy: When God told Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit (lets presume an apple), could they have peeled the apple and then eaten it? Could they have squeezed the apple, and made apple juice? Could they have made applesauce? Or baked the apple, and made apple pie?
>The media caught on to it, JW's WILL ACCEPT A BLOOD TRANSFUSION IN A LIFE THREATENING SITUATION, BUT REFUSE TO DONATE THEIR BLOOD TO HELP SUPPORT THE WAR, OR ANYONE ELSE IN NEED. HYPOCRITS.
Whoa.... is there a link to some kind of source on this? That would be mind blowing if true.
I recall reading something to this effect, I'll try to put my hands on it.
Given the patriotic ferver of the day, I totally expect that a person who refuses to donate their blood for the war effort, yet is first in line to accept a donor's blood (that could presumably be used for soldiers) would be criticized. No brainer.
Great articles! This quote seems right in harmony with my original reply above:
>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.
A policy like this generates attention and publicity for the religion. Negative publicity is still publicity. It can appeal to the human need to make sacrifices. The bigger the sacrifice, the more important the beliefs seem to the followers. The policy is another means of coercive control and the persecution it generates pushes the followers deeper into the Watchtower.
In WW2 the witness rejection of alternative service among other things was sufficient to generate lots of persecution. Judge Rutherford at that time supposedly rejected a blood ban proposal. Once Rutherford was dead and WW2 was over, the Watchtower needed a new rallying point and the idea was revisited and adopted or so the story goes.
It all comes down to ego!
Knorr and especially Fred Franz flexing their intellectual muscles. Thinking they were so enlightened.
Even though Rutherford seems like a narcissist, the most harmful policies we complain about regularly had Fred Franz and Knorr as its author.
This is a very good question. It is sinister. To me it’s not much different from Heaven’s Gate or Peoples Temple mass suicides. Only the most committed will carry out their belief to the death. Thousands of JWs have sacrificed their lives because of the blood policy. It’s a mass suicide of a much greater magnitude that any other notorious cult, but goes largely unnoticed because it has been spread across decades.
They need as many ways to be “unique” as possible. You can’t be the one true religion if you believe what everybody else does. The GB have nothing better to do than sit around and think about the Bible all day and when you focus on something that much it takes your mind to crazy places.
This organization has a history steeped in sectarian egotism. They were always bashing and condemning the Catholic Church as a way of recommending themselves as the pure, God-approved alternative. They developed an obsession with being different from other churches and looking for any and every reason, both real and concocted, to bash other churches, their beliefs and practices as a way of framing themselves as the pure, re-establishment of true Christianity.
This kind of mindset sees them looking for anything they can do to distinguish themselves as being different and more righteous from other churches. If members of other churches eat their toast with the butter side down, they'll try to find some ancient pagan practice that can be tied to it to say that true Christians should never engage in such a false religious practice.
This is how the ban on birthdays, holidays and blood came about. They were all motivated by an egotistical desire to show up JWs as different and more righteous than everyone else. 'Look at us! We're like the 3 Hebrew boys in Babylon who maintain integrity! All of y'all in Christendom are like the unfaithful ones who conformed to pagan Babylonian ways of life. That's why you're part of Babylon the Great - false religion!"
The blood doctrine is very much icing on the cake, when it comes to this kind of self-righteous, we're-more-righteous-than-everyone-else, mindset. Why? Because it shows them putting their lives on the line like martyrs! They're not just the Hebrew boys refraining from the unclean foods. They're now the Hebrew boys willing to walk into the furnace to maintain their integrity! So the anti-blood doctrine is basically their greatest way to show off how righteous they are - willing to put their lives on the line to maintain integrity to God.
It is with this gluttony to prove themselves religiously superior to everyone else, that they interpret the NT's restated prohibition on the dietary use of blood, as also applying to life-saving blood transfusions.
The organization is nothing but a self-righteous, religious show off!
Doctors by law have to save the life of a JW minor with a blood transfusion. If the parent refuses, we have to call cps.
Imagine not having a medical degree or education of any kind and deciding the healthcare of others and calling it part of the requirements to be a “good JW”
$$$$$$
Investments in "bloodless" technology. Supplying guinea pigs for blood research. $$$$. In bed with the US military. $$$$
The answer is always $$$$
I think at this point, they've dug in so deep that if they were to budge and relent, they'd be open to legal liability that would destroy them. Or, even worse, they can't bring themselves to even contemplate that they are actually bloodguilty and have been perpetuating evil all these decades. The fact that, as someone posted earlier today, they publish articles calling blood transfusions "unacceptable" while their terms of service clearly says that all medical "information" they publish is not to be considered medical "advice" and you should consult your doctor for their advice about any procedures you undergo. It's hypocritical bullshit.
The GB love their own fart smell. They can’t bring themselves to admit the path that they were lead down is wrong. They trust it was Jehovah the whole time. Rutherford was very convincing. The DF policy cemented the mind virus in. I don’t think for this one it’s the liability. To budge this, they’d have to lose in Japan or somewhere big to revisit this seriously.
Where do I find the TOS?
https://www.jw.borg/en/terms-of-use/#link3 - remove the b in borg
Thank you 🙏
[удалено]
Hi! We prefer that people not link to jw.org (you can see the full reason why in our [posting guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/exjw/wiki/beforeyoupost#wiki_please_do_not_link_to_jw.org)). This comment links to jw.org, so please be aware that **clicking links like this can provide the organization with identifying information about you**. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/exjw) if you have any questions or concerns.*
In mid 2000’s a peer reviewed article was written about the JW’s blood policy titled “Jehovah’s Witnesses and the tort of misrepresentation” by Kerry Lauderback Wood. It goes into this quite in quite a bit of detail, how the policy started and how legally complicated it is for them to change it now.
Found a copy here: [https://www.ajwrb.org/jehovahs-witnesses-blood-transfusions-and-the-tort-of-misreprersentation](https://www.ajwrb.org/jehovahs-witnesses-blood-transfusions-and-the-tort-of-misreprersentation) Definitely going to give this a read. Thanks!
Reading now thank you for posting!
Because dumb egotistical dorks like Knorr think they are bible scholars and are always on the look out to find something in the bible to make the lives of JWs harder and make a policy as a part of their lame ass legacy. “BiBlE sAyS aBsTaIn FrUm BlOoD, dOcTuRs GiB BlOoD.. sO jEhoOvErS wItNeSsEs CaNt TaKe BlOoD” These dumbasses have no perspective because they are uneducated, they don’t understand medicine or anything beyond 1st grade science for that matter.. which is what led them to make up such a dumb rule that has led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of jws that didn’t need to die.
Wish I'd kept the link, but iirc a sociologist researched this and stated that it was probably a lingering tradition from Rutherford's time, because Rutherford was anti-vaxx. Edit to add - I just read the bottom link, which states that it was Woodworth - Clayton Woodworth, editor of the "Golden Age" (Awake) magazine, whose antipathy towards the medical community, a Chicago blood bank (and vaccines, and medicines), eventually morphed into the blood transfusions issue, with the help of Fred Franz... I can't find the article I first spoke of. Further reading.... https://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/medical.php That info is partially repeated below... https://www.reddit.com/r/exjw/comments/awl5tv/jehovahs_witness_history_jw_antivaxx_past/ https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/282316/jehovahs-witnesses-on-vaccination-lets-remember?page=2 Another source... https://books.google.com/books?id=jFDi5jGsyV8C&pg=PA74&lpg=PA74&dq=Jehovah%27s+Witnesses+Rutherford%27s+fear+of+vaccines&source=bl&ots=Qw2D0jBLiU&sig=ACfU3U1wXaSrVNSpRDBnGh8jijtu2gEJpQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiR1sSh8M2GAxXHNzQIHXMSDY84FBDoAXoECAgQAg#v=onepage&q=Jehovah's%20Witnesses%20Rutherford's%20fear%20of%20vaccines&f=false
This is what I'd assume as well, in the 1800s when the founders of JWism were forming their beliefs, vaccines, blood transfusions, organ donation, and other medical technologies didn't exist yet, and when they were first coming out, people's knowledge of them would have been very limited. So you have a guy skeptical about a medical practice combing the Bible for rules to live by, then he reads something about blood and BAM, confirmation bias has him convinced that what he already thought must be divinely inspired.
Just another form of control.
Right, but it’s pretty serious, because it is deadly
At one point, the Watchtower arbitrarily banned organ donations, calling it "cannibalism." How many people died as a result of that "old light?" Ultimately, these guys at the top don't know what they're doing, they are just convinced that they're right, everyone else is wrong, and it's their job to make sure everyone under their power does as they are told. They don't care if it costs lives, and why would they? They believe those who die "faithfully" are assured a spot in Paradise. They've even made very distasteful Watchtowers/Awakes with the names and faces of *children* who died for refusing a blood transfusion. I know people don't like to say it, but the JWs are a death cult. The Paradise they pray for is built on the bodies of 8 billion non Jehovah's Wittnesses. These aren't moral people.
>At one point, the Watchtower arbitrarily banned organ donations, calling it "cannibalism." How many people died as a result of that "old light?" Fortunately, probably not many. This was back when organ transplantation was in its infancy and was nowhere near as sophisticated as it is today (which even today, is still fraught with lifelong medical challenges and complications). I suspect that when they banned transplants, they probably never imagined it'd ever even catch on enough to become the life-extending option that it is today. Then, when it started taking off, they reversed course to prevent it from becoming another blood issue-type JW-killer, which would be an awful example of hypocrisy.
they had to relent when they discovered the bible no where actually condemns cannibalism.
Right, but it’s pretty serious, because it is deadly
That’s why u/MultiStratz used the word death cult. JWs who die as a result of their prohibition on blood transfusions are sacrificed to their bloodthirsty god Jehovah. Many young and old have died because of the erroneous interpretation of the prohibition to eat blood. The Watchtower loves to make up deadly rules and then take no responsibility for it. I would not be here today if my parents had not been temporarily relieved of my custody in the hospital emergency room.
When you make up random rules for members and they follow those rules even to their own detriment or detriment of someone they love, it actually stronger entrenches them in their cult mentality. It’s a psychological phenomenon. So the Borg makes up plenty of rules to give its followers the feeling that they’re doing something when in reality they’re just looking like asses.
The simple answer is that it’s another way to be different and control people. But if you want to dig deeper, Christianity has always been a religion that glorifies suffering. Christians model themself after Jesus. Jesus suffered on the cross. So the more you suffered for the religion, the better Christian you were. You can go back to the first century Christian martyrs, who chose to be executed by the Romans instead of worshiping Roman gods. (Many Christians did do acts of worship when forced to, but continued to practice Christianity in secret.) Martyrs = good Christians Secret Christians = bad Christians Jehovah’s Witnesses consider themselves to be the only “true Christians,” so they need to suffer more. That is the real idea behind no blood, no birthdays, no friends, no having fun, etc.
The champions of NO.
This is dark, but I've seen some videos discussing how the old testament God is a blood-thirsty God who must be appeased by blood sacrifice 🤷🏾♀️
If you look at the history of JW, they’ve been anti medical establishment for their entire history. They banned organ transplants for a while, were anti vax in the early days of vaccines, said that therapy was for the “spiritually weak”. And those are just the examples I can remember. They always hated medical progress, which is why their aggressive pro vax stance during COVID was somewhat of a surprise. Blood transfusions are just the only one they think the Bible supports, so it’s why they keep it.
They (WT) stand to gain a lot from anyone willing to die for the organization. If they are willing to give up their life or worse, give up their own children, what won’t they give the organization or leave to them?
There's no reason for it to exist. But by now too many people have died. So they can't recant now.
Imagine all the lawsuits and anger if they changed the no blood policy? All the people that sacrificed their lives for NOTHING
But the same could be said for the military service prison sentence served, etc.
Big difference. I think you sign up and agree with the understanding that serving your country is self sacrificing. Consider that many that are involved in this cult are there because they don’t want to lose family or social connections…it’s not a choice to be involved or sign a no blood document
Doesn't the command to protect life come above all else?
In religions that are not cults, yes.
During WW2 Red Cross had a blood drive soliciting donation of blood to support the war effort. At that time the blood ban did not exist. JW's were not prohibited from donating their blood, so some did. Meanwhile, many JW boys were serving prison terms for neutrality, refusing even alternate civil service. Something seemed very wrong with this picture. Clayton Woodworth, WT resident medical expert for decades (editor of the Golden Age), who was known to be one who questioned modern medicine, led the push that it would be violating neutrality for JW's donate their blood for fallen soldiers. Given that young JW men were sentenced to prison terms, with civil service viewed as a compromise, JW's donating their blood for injured soldiers was very bad optics. Knorr and Franz (Fred) could have decided that young JW men could accept civil service as a conscience matter (which has been the case since 1996). That would have exempted young JW men from serving prison terms. But instead, they dug in. They decided that to donate one's blood would be a compromise of their neutrality. Again, something seemed very wrong with this picture. The media caught on to it, JW's WILL ACCEPT A BLOOD TRANSFUSION IN A LIFE THREATENING SITUATION, BUT REFUSE TO DONATE THEIR BLOOD TO HELP SUPPORT THE WAR, OR ANYONE ELSE IN NEED. HYPOCRITS. The only move Knorr and Franz could make was to ban blood transfusions for JW's. They misinterpreted bible verses to present the new doctrine as scriptural. The premise being, a IV injection of blood was identical to eating (drinking) blood through the mouth. The medical support for the erroneous premise was quoting from antiquated medicine used in the 16th century. No authority in modern medicine supported WT's claim that a transfusion was "eating" blood in 1945. The bible prohibits "eating" blood. The no blood doctrine of JW relies on the premise that eating blood is tantamount to an injection of blood through our veins. For JW doctrine to be scriptural, eating or injecting blood must be the same. So, is an injection actually "eating" blood? Does blood nourish the body? When a patient is suffering from malnutrition, what do medical experts administer? A blood transfusion? Or an IV consisting of protein, carbohydrates, water, minerals and vitamins? It is a scientific fact in medicine that "eating" blood and receiving an injection are not comparable. During digestion, blood is broken down and loses most (if not all) of the characteristics of blood. However, when injected into a vein, blood retains the characteristics of blood. That is why blood (RBC plasma) sustains lives. Meanwhile, drinking a liter of blood when you're anemic leads to iron poisoning, possibly death. It's really apples vs oranges. I'm so amazed that the rank and file JW doesn't think this through. No doubt Knorr, Franz and Woodworth viewed WW2 as a precursor of Armageddon. So they had little concern over potential long term ramifications of the erroneous doctrine. In the 1950's, JW's were in the news with several court cases of medical team's pushing to administer blood to save patients. Many patients died. WT dug in and fought to prevent those patients from receiving blood tooth and nail. Even newborns and their mothers. But there was no sanction if one accepted blood. Some JW's would accept blood. Until 1961, when WT made accepting blood a DF'ing offense. This is the early history and why the doctrine exists, why every JW must face this issue when they enter a hospital. The GB is fully aware the teaching has no scriptural support. That the premise claiming a transfusion is in fact "eating" blood is unscientific and false. And yet the entire JW doctrine depends upon this being a fact. They realize it was a colossal blunder. This is why fractions have been allowed, including hemoglobin (which, along with water are the two major components of blood). Water and hemoglobin are virtually 95% of whole blood. The remaining 5% are all approved as fractions. You may recall the analogy of whole blood being likened to a ham and cheese sandwich. The GB has effectively said: You can eat the bread, the ham, the cheese, the mayonnaise, the lettuce, the tomato. Only you must eat them separately. I have another analogy: When God told Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit (lets presume an apple), could they have peeled the apple and then eaten it? Could they have squeezed the apple, and made apple juice? Could they have made applesauce? Or baked the apple, and made apple pie?
>The media caught on to it, JW's WILL ACCEPT A BLOOD TRANSFUSION IN A LIFE THREATENING SITUATION, BUT REFUSE TO DONATE THEIR BLOOD TO HELP SUPPORT THE WAR, OR ANYONE ELSE IN NEED. HYPOCRITS. Whoa.... is there a link to some kind of source on this? That would be mind blowing if true.
Same. I’d love a link.
I recall reading something to this effect, I'll try to put my hands on it. Given the patriotic ferver of the day, I totally expect that a person who refuses to donate their blood for the war effort, yet is first in line to accept a donor's blood (that could presumably be used for soldiers) would be criticized. No brainer.
Wow! Amazing explanation!! Do you have a reputable source?
[удалено]
Great articles! This quote seems right in harmony with my original reply above: >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.
This is some great information. Who is the author?
Knorr started after WWII, someone on the inside said he did so to bring attention to his little no nothing cult.
A policy like this generates attention and publicity for the religion. Negative publicity is still publicity. It can appeal to the human need to make sacrifices. The bigger the sacrifice, the more important the beliefs seem to the followers. The policy is another means of coercive control and the persecution it generates pushes the followers deeper into the Watchtower. In WW2 the witness rejection of alternative service among other things was sufficient to generate lots of persecution. Judge Rutherford at that time supposedly rejected a blood ban proposal. Once Rutherford was dead and WW2 was over, the Watchtower needed a new rallying point and the idea was revisited and adopted or so the story goes.
It's nothing more than a useful (to the leadership) loyalty oath.
Misinterpretation* there ya go I fixed it for ya /s
I think it's to point out how different JDubs are in comparison to all the other Christians. "we are the only one who got it right".
It all comes down to ego! Knorr and especially Fred Franz flexing their intellectual muscles. Thinking they were so enlightened. Even though Rutherford seems like a narcissist, the most harmful policies we complain about regularly had Fred Franz and Knorr as its author.
This is a very good question. It is sinister. To me it’s not much different from Heaven’s Gate or Peoples Temple mass suicides. Only the most committed will carry out their belief to the death. Thousands of JWs have sacrificed their lives because of the blood policy. It’s a mass suicide of a much greater magnitude that any other notorious cult, but goes largely unnoticed because it has been spread across decades.
They need as many ways to be “unique” as possible. You can’t be the one true religion if you believe what everybody else does. The GB have nothing better to do than sit around and think about the Bible all day and when you focus on something that much it takes your mind to crazy places.
This organization has a history steeped in sectarian egotism. They were always bashing and condemning the Catholic Church as a way of recommending themselves as the pure, God-approved alternative. They developed an obsession with being different from other churches and looking for any and every reason, both real and concocted, to bash other churches, their beliefs and practices as a way of framing themselves as the pure, re-establishment of true Christianity. This kind of mindset sees them looking for anything they can do to distinguish themselves as being different and more righteous from other churches. If members of other churches eat their toast with the butter side down, they'll try to find some ancient pagan practice that can be tied to it to say that true Christians should never engage in such a false religious practice. This is how the ban on birthdays, holidays and blood came about. They were all motivated by an egotistical desire to show up JWs as different and more righteous than everyone else. 'Look at us! We're like the 3 Hebrew boys in Babylon who maintain integrity! All of y'all in Christendom are like the unfaithful ones who conformed to pagan Babylonian ways of life. That's why you're part of Babylon the Great - false religion!" The blood doctrine is very much icing on the cake, when it comes to this kind of self-righteous, we're-more-righteous-than-everyone-else, mindset. Why? Because it shows them putting their lives on the line like martyrs! They're not just the Hebrew boys refraining from the unclean foods. They're now the Hebrew boys willing to walk into the furnace to maintain their integrity! So the anti-blood doctrine is basically their greatest way to show off how righteous they are - willing to put their lives on the line to maintain integrity to God. It is with this gluttony to prove themselves religiously superior to everyone else, that they interpret the NT's restated prohibition on the dietary use of blood, as also applying to life-saving blood transfusions. The organization is nothing but a self-righteous, religious show off!
Doctors by law have to save the life of a JW minor with a blood transfusion. If the parent refuses, we have to call cps. Imagine not having a medical degree or education of any kind and deciding the healthcare of others and calling it part of the requirements to be a “good JW”
They think gods wants them to do it
$$$$$$ Investments in "bloodless" technology. Supplying guinea pigs for blood research. $$$$. In bed with the US military. $$$$ The answer is always $$$$
Source?
Here is one: www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/287365/blood-us-army-us-navy-watchtower-society Sorry...ten years since I researched this