Frustration of Discussion
Discussions with my fellow Jehovah’s Witnesses (JW) is not an easy affair when difficult subjects and questions are addressed to ones who pride themselves on an ability to answer for all doctrines as published in The Watchtower, which we know as the chief journal of the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses and published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York (WTS) and associated corporations. A recent experience exemplifies this difficulty and how it poses a considerable hindrance to growth in knowledge and understanding among JWs.
A few days ago I had a brief exchange with a fellow JW, a JW that gives all indications of one who wants and tries hard to answer whatever question is put before him about doctrines and policies published in The Watchtower. Because this JW publishes his responses publicly on the Internet and because he is quick to quote other authors by name, and because recent of his open actions are the subject of this article, I will name him. His name is Ron Rhoades.[1]
What is the specific subject and event prompting this article? A few days ago Ron Rhoades replied to an email I sent to someone else where I shared some brief but precise concerns of the WTS’ doctrinal position on blood. I had no real objection to this email being shared because all I wanted to do was share my concern as a fellow JW. It is good to share concerns among family members and fellow believers because usually these are the ones who care most for us and will respond helpfully if they can. Following is the email I sent[2]:
Dear Webmaster of ----------.org:I have read some threads on your forum, and mostly they are interesting. It is good to see more or less free exchange on topics related to our beliefs and brotherhood, that is of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Two subjects have recently come up that have my attention. Since I am not a registered member, I thought it appropriate to share my thoughts more informally by email.
The first subject relates to the Society having been a registered NGO with the UN for approximately the last 10 years. I read the polarized dialogue between contributors like [Jon] and Ron Rhodes. I think both persons have missed (or avoided) the troublesome aspect of the circumstance, which is the decision made by the Society to voluntarily associate itself as closely as it did, registering as an NGO and remaining so for a decade.
I realize registration as an NGO with the UN was not and is not one of membership with the UN or of breaching the Christian ideal of neutrality toward political affairs. However, association as an NGO meant the Society voluntarily chose non-essential association with an organization that is an idol “image of the beast,” and that is what has raised hackles. Certainly none of us can get out of the world. (1 Cor. 5:10) But we all have a prerogative regarding voluntary association, whether that association is by means of registration or otherwise. How we exercise our prerogative is how others determine our godliness and wisdom.
This NGO circumstance would not be too bad if it were not for a few troublesome facts.
1) The Society has, apparently, recently admitted that, at some point, NGO status became unfitting for Christians. Since this registration and continued registration as an NGO was carried on at the highest levels of our earthly organization, it makes one wonder if the decade of unfitting registered status with this idol organization has had some spiritual effect on our brotherhood. The principal of “spoiling useful habits” applies equally to us all, as individuals and as an organization.
2) The Society has, apparently, offered an explanation that something changed regarding what is expected of NGOs since 1991 when they originally applied. Since public records have not supported this assertion, and appear to contradict it from what I can tell, it becomes suspicious that the Society has not offered its own records of the 10 year involvement as an NGO. I know that love believes all things in that Christians should be trusting. But trusting does not mean naivety. Since UN officials have no reason to hide or obfuscate its stipulations for NGO status before, during or after 1991, suspicions are natural and should not be quickly dismissed.
So, as an active Jehovah’s Witness and longtime supporter of the Society, on one hand this situation does not bother me. I agree with Ron and others that the Society has not violated Christian ideals like that of neutrality. On the other hand there is, I believe, serious cause for concern as related above. There is reason for concern over what effect this NGO association has had on our brothers at Bethel and our overall brotherhood as a result. Since even our governing body has, apparently, admitted this registration is unfitting for Christians, not to be minimized is the serious question of how does Jehovah view this episode? (Remember that David too once participated in an unfitting registration, and there were consequences. [2 Sam. 24:1-17] This was an act of one man at headquarters that had an adverse impact on the whole brotherhood of Jews!) There is also good reason for the natural suspicions that persons like [Jon] apparently feel. I suppose we will never have enough facts to ful ly satisfy these concerns, and for that reason it is incumbent that we act as Christians should by leaning on Jehovah rather than any man, and then acting in good conscience. (Rom. 3:4)
The other subject of interest on your discussion board is that of our policies regarding blood, and agents made from or using blood. On that subject there are, I fear, many grave concerns. Certainly there are many unanswered questions. One real life circumstance that exemplifies these concerns is the following scenario.
We are instructed to shun publishers who conscientiously accept a platelet agent for sake of their child’s well-being. Yet on the other hand we are instructed to respect publishers who conscientiously accept a similar or greater amount of a hemoglobin agent for sake of their child’s well-being, by continuing to view them as “in good standing.” I cannot explain this peculiarity because there is no scripture making such a distinction possible.
Of accepting infusions of blood parts in forms other than white cells, red cells, platelets or plasma, the Watchtower of June 15, 2000 wisely says on page 30, “Should Christians accept these fractions in medical treatment? We cannot say. The Bible does not give details, so a Christian must make his own conscientious decision before God.” Well, likewise the Bible does not give details regarding white cells, red cells, platelets or plasma as elements. The Bible is just as silent about those blood parts as it is of other blood parts like hemoglobin and albumin. So, what scriptural detail directs us to shun fellow Witnesses over conscientiously accepting infusions of an agent containing a blood part such as platelets when we do not shun them for using a blood part such as hemoglobin? An answer to this question is crucial to defending our teaching and enforced shunning on the subject, that it is a solid scriptural position, rather than just a “religious position” as was emphasized at the most recent kingdom ministry school for elders.
I have thought long and hard about our apparent argument that some components of blood are, in effect, blood by means of them being major or primary parts of whole blood. My conclusion is that this argument is unsound and contradictory for at least two reasons.
1) I can find no biblical support for distinguishing between portions of blood as if one definitely amounts to blood that must be abstained from and that other portions of blood maybe do not amount to blood that must be abstained from.
2) An argument that major components of blood equate with blood is contrary to what we teach about the very thing blood was first said to stand for, soul. What do I mean here?
We teach a distinction of what equates with blood based on what is referred to in our publications as “major” or “primary” components of blood. For example, in effect we teach that “abstain from…blood” means, among other things, “abstain from…red cells.” Do we apply the same reasoning, the same distinction, when it comes to the very thing blood is said to stand for, soul?
Scripturally, what is soul? Soul has two major components, “physical body” and “breath of life.” Fleshly life does not exist without both these components together. In our reasoning and teaching we are very specific that neither of these components, though major, equate with soul. We teach that soul is nothing less than a combination of these two major components. (pe 72) If we applied the same reasoning to the scriptural symbol of soul, blood, then we would teach that no component of blood (major or not) equates with blood. We would teach, for instance, that “red cells” is no more blood than “breath of life” is soul. We would teach that blood is nothing less than a combination of major components just as soul is nothing less than a combination of major components. I am speechless to explain why we apply diametrically opposed reasoning between what equates with soul versus what equates with a symbol for soul, blood.
Our reasoning about what equates with soul is basic, simple, sound and, most importantly, scriptural. Why we do not apply the same fundamental reasoning equally toward the symbol of soul, blood, is beyond me to understand or explain.
I have run on quite a bit. Please forgive my intrusion on your time. Again, it is nice to see topics addressed in a respectful atmosphere. From time to time I will surely drop in to read discussions on your forum. Thanks!
Later I sent another email to the same webmaster inquiring if it was worthwhile for me register on his or her forum. Here is that email:
Dear ----------.org WebmasterAfter this inquiry I received an email from the Webmaster that he or she had sent my email on to other moderators of the forum and that I could expect a reply. I received only one reply that spoke to my original email, which is what exemplifies the subject of this post. Here is the reply:Today I was considering a registration on your forum in order to pursue discussions of biblical subjects that require varying degrees of interpretation. But upon viewing your recent clarification of forum guidelines, and seeing that the one called [Jon] had published my email regarding biblical quandaries on “blood” and the UN/NGO affair, I was left wondering if my contributions to your forum would be in welcome stead with your intentions.
As one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, I have no qualms about discussion, whatever the subject, as long as it is done respectfully and with a sincere and honest spirit. Naturally, as a Witness I expect to face questions and even studied opposition to some of our doctrinal views, particularly those unique to us. Therefore, though I am happy and willing to help in discussions of important subjects like Jesus’ subjection to his father, Jehovah God, versus orthodox trinity, I am more interested in subjects where defense of our doctrinal views is harder. This may be somewhat selfish of me, but I cannot avoid seeking to improve my own ability to soundly reason from the scriptures by sounding concerns of my own to fellow believers, or anyone else willing to hold an objective biblical discussion. This is what my email from yesterday was about, the one to you that I copied to [Jon]. [Jon] asked if I wanted my concerns related on your forum for others to help with. Since [Jon] is a registered member I lef t it up to him to decide, and he put the email up verbatim. He could have posted the material as his own and probably not caused as much stir. But he politely chose to let everyone else know the concerns were voiced to him rather than being his own words. Now it appears this email might somehow have led to problems, but this was not the intent.
The reason for this brief communiqué is to determine if my registration is worthwhile. If registered I do not intend to sit back and avoid sharing legitimate concerns. I would expect to be in the fray, so to speak, by voicing objective and thought out concerns in order to gain other perspectives, because this is how we learn and teach. In time I would probably address many subjects with everyone else, but, as mentioned, there are subjects of particular interest that would be unavoidable, like aspects of our doctrinal views on blood abstention.
For the record, I am not of a mind that our entire range of doctrine on the subject of blood is problematic. But there are aspects, important ones, which need and deserve intense discussion. Frankly, considering the consequential gravity of aspects of our doctrinal views on this subject, if we cannot even openly discuss topics of this nature in a forthright way then it would be impossible to hold a clean conscience. When life sacrifice is involved, Jehovah has made it clear that he expects his people to make sure they are promoting and relying on his thinking rather than their own. (Prov. 3:1-6; Jer. 7:31b; 19:5b)
I am not interested mental or spiritual masturbation. That is, I am not interested in seeking fellowship or discussion purely for sake of hearing agreement with my views just to make myself feel good. True, we all need support, but that is different from avoiding aspects of a discussion because of how much we cherish a doctrinal view. As a recent Watchtower article pointed out, our hearts must be prepared to set aside preconceived ideas, and we should not hold to cherished doctrinal views at the expense of failing to let God’s word do the talking. (w01 10/15 20)
So, having expressed myself, is it worth my while to register for participation on your forum? Please do not be concerned about hurting my feelings. If your forum is not ready for my participation, or other members would be made uncomfortable, then just say so. I would not have or hold any sort of grief over it.
Your brother,
mailto:mshilmerMany are probably not surprised by this sort of response. But the information is not shared for any shock value or as if it should surprise anyone. In fact just the opposite is the contention here. The contention here is that this attitude is but an example of what one will most often find among JWs who pride themselves on an ability to answer for all doctrines as published in The Watchtower. Why this reaction of what is no less than ad hominem in the face of total silence toward the actual questions and concerns raised? I can only conclude it stems from utter frustration. Why?Dear [----------.org Webmaster],
I personally find this Marvin Shilmer to be either a figment of [Jon’s] imagination or a false "brother." To the word, he echos [Jon’s] arguments. His arguments contain the same contradictions, distortions and false reasonings that [Jon] and other opposers insist on spreading.
This status as a "witness in good standing" is the standard claim of apostates and reformers. It is simply *designed* to discourage faithful Witnesses and as a deceptive reason to listen to this individual. Anyone
who would remain part of an organization while privately making common cause with disgusting opposers is quite simply a hypocrite and liar, diseased in their thinking. Someone who disagrees and honestly removes himself from the organization can at least be accorded some respect for being honest. But, cowardly liars, deceptive snakes like this "Marvin Shilmer" are not even to be accorded the slightest consideration. Is there any reason anyone would even take such a self-avowed hypocrite seriously?Almost every Witness has been part of a religious organization and removed themselves from that organization when they realized they could not agree with it's major teachings. They took a stand for what they believe and many times left family, jobs and social acceptance in order to be honest to their belief. Yet, this type of individual expects us to give him the time of day when he has no such sense of right? What a backboneless slimy son of Satan!
In my 35 years of experience, anyone who holds to such thinking in Jehovah's organization cannot maintain a "good standing." They first lose all holy spirit and then for the most part they stop their public ministry, commenting at meetings and then meeting attendance. This is the ultimate confirmation of the HS letting us know that these individuals actions and thinking is not in accord with Scripture. Thus, in making this claim such individuals are lying against the holy spirit. Yet, because of the merciful policy of the congregation in still considering them "part of the congregation" they dishonestly make the claim that they are in "good standing." I challenge this claim by "Marvin Shilmer." Would he care to prove that claim?
My recommendation is to let this individual know what his true standing is before Jehovah and then ignore his false, diseased, Satanic and apostate vomit. When he decides to come out from under his slimy rock and either makes a stand for what he believes or seeks help from those who have Jehovah's spirit then we can accord what he says with some plausibility.
(Romans 9:22; Jude 9-10, 12-13; 2 Peter 2:12-22)
"But these [men], like unreasoning animals born naturally to be caught and destroyed, will, in the things of which they are ignorant and speak abusively, even suffer destruction in their own [course of] destruction.
They are spots and blemishes, indulging with unrestrained delight in their deceptive teachings while feasting together with YOU. They are accursed children. Abandoning the straight path, they have been misled...and for them the blackness of darkness has been reserved. While they are promising them freedom, they themselves are existing as slaves of corruption. The saying of the true proverb has happened to them: ‘The dog has returned to its own vomit.'"Yours,
Ron Rhoades
Ron Rhoades is fairly studious from what I can tell. The last couple of days I have asked brothers in his area about his character and habits. His reputation is good among JWs, at least the ones I spoke with. From what I can tell, generally he is highly regarded by local JWs who claim to know him. Also, since there is not shortage of his online discussions, and a quick look at some of his comments reflects someone with an awareness of sound argumentation. But one thing stands out like a sore thumb. When specific aspects of troublesome Watchtower doctrinal positions are brought up his reasoning becomes unsound. When someone with decent reasoning skills resorts to unsound argumentation this is usually not done out of ignorance. Most often this is done as a last result and out of frustration. I believe this is why he responded to my emails as he did.
Given the response to my email, I took a quick look at how Rhoades responds and argues on the subject of blood and blood transfusion in relation to the WTS’ doctrinal policies. On this subject, my opinion is that one of the more difficult aspects is how to use scriptures to objectively and soundly prove that JWs should shun over using one portion of blood (e.g., platelets) yet respect publishers who use other portions of blood (e.g., hemoglobin). How does Ron answer this problem? Here is the most direct answer I could find. He wrote:
No one has (officially) asserted that certain blood components “are no longer blood.” What has been determined is that it is the decision of each individual to determine for themselves if blood fractions may be used. The Scriptures simply state that “blood” belongs to Jehovah and must be considered sacred as representing life. When the Scriptures were written this would be understood to include any part of the blood recognizable at that time. They did not have the scientific means to recognize fractions and microscopic particles known today. They also were not able to identify major components that might have been present in other substances. To Israelites and Christians, if it visibly came from blood it was to be held sacred and avoided.The parts that they were able to separate by cooking, drying, filtering and etc. would still be recognized as blood by first century Christians, IMHO. [3]
How many see all the problems with Ron’s statement? He asserts that “blood” belonging to Jehovah “would be understood to include any part of the blood recognizable at that time.” Well, just what parts of blood were recognizable at the time? The devil is in the details, and Ron avoids the fact that portions of blood like white cells, platelets, albumin et al were not recognizable at the time.
Ron went on to say, “They did not have the scientific means to recognize fractions and microscopic particles known today.” Did you see his use of the term “fractions”? The intimation is that since recognition of fractions requires “scientific means” then “fractions” could not have been “recognizable at the time,” which, or course, meant each person would have to decide for themselves whether these so-called “fractions” amount to “blood” or not. This is in line with WTS doctrinal policy. But, again, the detail he completely avoids is that the same persons also lacked “scientific means” to recognize red cells, white cells or platelets. Yet all three of those are forbidden as “blood” according to WTS doctrine.
Significatnly, Ron goes on to say, “They also were not able to identify major components that might have been present in other substances.” What is this supposed to mean? Were people back then without “scientific means” able to “identify major components” like white cells or platelets? Would Ron seriously argue that they could? Without a doubt Ron Rhoades knows the answer is, “No, they could not identify major components like white cells and platelets!” But admitting this would ruin his entire argument based upon “blood” being that which is “understood to include any part of the blood recognizable at that time.”
In the end the very argument Ron wants to use in defense the WTS’ doctrinal position turns out as self-defeating because if “blood” is that which “would be understood to include any part of the blood recognizable at that time,” then white cells, platelets et al would not be considered “blood” according to the WTS’ doctrinal position.
From what I can tell Ron must see this glaring problem in his argument, which is why I believe he avoided the subject in reply to me. By the way, I responded to him and gave opportunity and an invitation that he respond to my concerns, but he never did—at least not yet. Given what I see in his other well-thought-out responses on other subjects, my conclusion is that only one thing could cause this breakdown. Ron is left completely frustrated by what really is an arbitrary doctrinal position on the part of the WTS. Frankly, that a religious teaching is arbitrary is not altogether bad. But to impose an arbitrary religious position as though it is soundly reasoned as God’s will is another matter entirely. The problem is intensified tremendously when the effect is that people are sacrificing life over the doctrinal position. As far as the Bible goes, it indicates clearly that promoting life sacrifice without proof that it is God’s thinking is an abomination. (Compare Jer. 7:31b; 19:5b)
Besides all these logical problems is this additional troublesome fact. Not once did Ron have or offer scriptural evidence that somehow “major components” are definitely “blood” whereas “minor fractions” might not be “blood” and are thus left to personal conscience. There is scriptural precedent on the question of “Is a major component the same as the whole,” but he makes no reference to it whatsoever. What is that precedent? The soul.
In the Bible the soul is described as having two major components—spirit of life and body. But apart neither is equated with soul. At least that is the WTS doctrinal position, and I agree with it. But this doctrine runs in complete contrast to notions that “major” components somehow equate with the whole. Again, Ron fails to deal with this troublesome aspect of WTS doctrinal policy when given the chance.
Ron is trying his best, but facts are just not in support of his reasoning. Furthermore, Ron’s frustration is not a result of his own invention. After all, he is not left to defend something as simple as a personal opinion. He is trying to defend WTS doctrine. Of course, it may be his opinion that a doctrine is sound. But proving that logically takes more than a personal opinion. Frankly, if individual JWs were left to apply their personal conscientious opinions in this matter of blood transfusion, then good men like Ron Rhoades would not be left with the frustration of defending a religious position that lacks sound scriptural support for its details—details that lead to sacrificial deaths promoted by a religious position.
Unfortunately Ron Rhoades is not alone in his inability to make sense of important aspects of the WTS’ doctrinal position on blood. Another highly regarded JW, Rolf Furuli, has demonstrated the same frustrations evidenced by Ron. One of Furuli’s extensive discussions of the same topic began by him asserting that he felt “strongly the responsibility for building on a firm Biblical foundation” when it came to conclusion of what equated with “blood” (Greek HAIMA).[4] But, regarding HAIMA (blood), after much counter argumentation he finally admitted that “the definition must be given by us as Christians, and this is of course a human judgment.”[4] Indeed! A human judgment! Again, the Bible teaches that teachings promoting sacrificial death must be God’s judgment, not that of humans!
So, discussion with my fellow Jehovah’s Witnesses really is an uneasy affair on difficult aspects of difficult subjects. The frustration caused by people being left to defend doctrines at the expense of sticking to sound reasoning is enormous. Too often the frustration leads to avoiding a problem, which solves nothing. Certainly this frustration inhibits growth in knowledge and understanding among JWs, and that adds problems.
Marvin Shilmer
[1] Ron Rhoades’ view on various biblical topics is not hard to find. Anyone can go to google.com and perform a search as +Ron +Rhoades +Jehovah and find comments from him over the past few years. For those who know where to look and have time to burn, they can go further back and search the Web Archives at archive.org/index.html and, without a doubt, can find even more. I don’t have the time to search those archives, but I did spend five minutes there and that was enough to see plenty is there, if you know where to look.
[2] Ordinarily I would not share personal email because both parties write and send it thinking it is private. This is how I sent my email to the Webmaster. It was private to him or her as far as I was concerned. It was my email to share or not. However, the webmaster decided to share the email, and in Ron Rhoades’ reply he took the liberty of sending his quite abusive (ad hominem) email not only to me, but also to several others. So as far as I am concerned his email to me is not private for him.
[3] Rhoades, Ron; http://groups.yahoo.com/group/greektheology/message/6324
[4] Furuli, Rolf; http://bmj.com/cgi/eletters/322/7277/37
This is document is fairly large. It could take several minutes to open completely.