New Light, 7-years-ago versus Today--Blood

by Marvin Shilmer 4 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  New Light, 7-years-ago versus Today--Blood

  Seven years ago (1997) the WTS taught JWs not to use from blood of afterbirth. Specifically the WTS wrote:w97 2/1 29 Questions From Readers:
  

  More recently, researchers have claimed success in using blood from the afterbirth to treat one type of leukemia, and it has been theorized that such blood might be useful in some immune-system disorders or in place of bone-marrow transplants. Hence, there has been a degree of publicity about parents having blood from the afterbirth extracted, frozen, and banked in case it might be useful in a treatment for their child in years to come. Such commercialization of placental blood is hardly tempting for true Christians, who guide their thinking by God’s perfect law. Our Creator views blood as sacred, representing God-given life. The only use of blood that he authorized was on the altar, in connection with sacrifices. (Leviticus 17:10-12; compare Romans 3:25; 5:8; Ephesians 1:7.) Otherwise, blood removed from a creature was to be poured out on the ground, disposed of.—Leviticus 17:13; Deuteronomy 12:15, 16 . (Bold added in each case)

  So as of 1997 the WTS taught that using from blood of afterbirth for the treatment above (use of stem cells from placenta blood to treat leukemia) was hardly tempting for true Christians. However, since June of 2000 the WTS has taught that when JWs use from blood of afterbirth in this way it is to be respected by other JWs.

  Since this so-called commercialization of placental blood was hardly tempting for true Christians in 1997 one can only wonder what sort of new light must have abruptly made it so tempting as to suddenly teach that using from blood of afterbirth for the stated purpose should be respected. This represents a 180-degree turn in teaching.

  In 1997 the WTS was still trying to hold on to a premise that blood removed from the body must be discarded. As of June 2000 this is no longer the case. In specific language the WTS no longer teaches that blood removed from the body must be discarded. This is another 180-degree turn in teaching.

  The 1997 material quoted above demonstrates that, as of 1997, the WTS spoke of using from blood as a contradiction to abstaining from blood. However we all know the WTS long taught JWs to respect using from blood. No new light here for the thinking person. It's just one more brick to the brain of JWs who want to make sense of what the WTS teaches. If you try long and hard enough the brick(s) eventually ruin(s) the brain, which results in many 180-degree turns in judgment and teaching. Bottom line, every time the WTS says JWs abstain from blood it is lying. No if, no ands and no buts about it.

  Marvin Shilmer
• 

  TD

  Interesting Marvin. I had never thought about that.

  "Using from" and "Abstaining from" are two slightly different uses of the word "from" but in the context of the JW blood doctrine they are mutually exclusive.

  "From" has several meanings. It can show origin: "I come from Washington D.C." and it can also show separation: "The bullet struck an inch from his heart."

  In some contexts, the ideas are incompatible:

  "He came from the house" "He kept away from the house."

  Obviously if he came from the house, then he didn't keep away from the house.

  Similarly, "Using from" is origin while "Abstaining from" is separation. They're not direct opposites, but they are by no means compatible with each other when we're talking about the disposition of blood, "removed from the body." No wonder they've dropped the "abstain" argument.

  It almost makes me feel sorry for Watchtower writers. (Not quite though) They probably more than anybody else are aware of the ad hoc nature of the argument. The conclusion is obviously predetermined and they're simply handed the task of writing an argument to support it.
• 

  M.J.

  In specific language the WTS no longer teaches that blood removed from the body must be discarded.

  I'm holding out hope that in the near future this new line of thinking will translate into new light on "autotransfusion of predeposited blood". When you think about it, they DO already allow blood to be reinfused which is "briefly" stored in a non-circulating state (WT 3-1-89 p.30), so what's this splitting hairs about whether or not the patient percieves it to be part of his circulatory system? Is someone's "perception" the determining factor of whether or not one of God's "most important" laws is being violated? Or is it the amount of time that the blood is stored? What amount of time is acceptable? Or does the time limit fall back on the patient's perception? They've really tangled themselves into quite a mess on this issue. Fact is, it leaves the body, is STORED, and is routed back into the body, not poured out on the ground.
• 

  wannaexit

  Marvin,

  nice post. A keeper. I always enjoy your posts. I wish you could post more.

  Wannaexit
• 

  hawkaw

  BTTT for personal reasons