What do you think?
Here鈥檚 a little background on my reasoning:
First, the group is accustomed to big changes. For example, prior to the 1960s, the Watchtower had a really strong rule against accepting vaccinations. If you asked a Jehovah鈥檚 Witness about this policy, he would have supported it. And if you asked whether he would accept vaccinations if the WTS changed its鈥?stance, he would say something like 鈥渢hey would never do that.鈥? Yet when the organization changed its policies, there was no major schism or church split. The members pretty much went along with the change 鈥?as they understood that the Faithful and Discreet Servants in Brooklyn had 鈥渇ound new light.鈥?br>
Given the well-documented (and well-known) history of doctrinal changes in the WTS, it is certainly likely that there will be many more doctrinal changes. After all, past performance is an excellent predictor of the future. Sometimes these changes have been abrupt and dramatic, but they usually have been incremental, or piece-meal. That has been the case with the doctrine of blood transfusions. Well before the WTS permitted the procedure (in some countries) it gradually weakened the rule by allowing more and more blood components.
My prediction is that the next step the guys in Brooklyn will take is to classify transfusions as a matter of conscience 鈥?similar to the rule change they made on wedding rings and vaccinations. In other words, they will say that it鈥檚 OK for individual members to make up their own mind about it. Then, perhaps in 20 years or so, they will completely abandon the prohibition against blood transfusions.
If you honestly consider the history of doctrinal changes, this is not a ridiculous hypothetical question. In fact, this pattern holds true in most religions. As time passes, and the group becomes more mainstream, it tends to abandon or downplay controversial doctrines such as polygamy (Mormons), Catholic-bashing (Seventh Day Adventists), requirements that Maas be in Latin (Catholics), and exclusion of blacks (some Protestant sects).
Of course, the fascinating thing to me is the degree of unity that that Jehovah鈥檚 Witnesses have. In other religions, major doctrinal changes always cause a church-split 鈥?sometimes small, but other times huge. For example, if my church were to announce that (after careful study) they had determined that sex outside of marriage is acceptable, I would certainly find another church to attend. And I suspect that many others would react in the same way.
So why don鈥檛 Jehovah鈥檚 Witnesses respond similarly? When the Watchtower Society completely rejects its policy against blood transfusions, will there be any members who break away and start their own group (to retain what they believe is the truth)?
If you were a Jehovah鈥檚 Witness living in Bulgaria (where they鈥檝e changed policy on blood transfusions), would you simply accept it as 鈥渘ew truth鈥?or would you disassociate yourself from the heretics? For those of you who claim that there is no change in doctrines in the Jehovah鈥檚 Witnesses, have you looked at Wikipedia? Also, if you think that I am making up the claims about vaccinations once being banned and blood 鈥渃omponents鈥?now allowed, please do a little research. I honestly do not believe I am wrong about that. The whole Bulgaria Story is bogus. This is one thing that you can google to pull up every apostate web site and nut on the internet. Do you know what an Apostate is? You should, since that is where you are getting your Information from. I have researched this story before and it is one of those slanderous lies made up and traded between apostates.I have looked at the surface story here and then looked through a filter that eliminated every apostate source, and then there was nothing. Has it ever occurred to you that if you want to know what someone believes you should just ask them, rather than search out whoever has a grudge and is disposed to lie? My Mother was raised as a Catholic , and most of the people I know came from some other religion. The majority were not raised as Jehovah's Witnesses. So I ask my mother, and each person I meet "What interested you in the truth?"
If I am talking to a Catholic I don't have to go to some anti-Catholic hate group on the internet to find out what Catholics believe. I just ask each one who is willing to talk" What do you believe?" Then I might say I heard this or that, but otherwise I just try and stay positive, and present a positive message and I assume that they want to learn about the Bible and understand it, just as my Mother did. If they are not interested then I go in peace. I don't spread slander and other mean lies about people who believe differently than I do. So who is a better person, you or me? I have wondered about you. Are you writing a book where at least some part of it espouses hatred and prejudice against Jehovah's Witnesses? Or is it that you are affiliated with some church and you can't defend what you teach from the Bible and so are looking for anything you can find to prejudice people not to listen? So far everything I have seen from you is just negative, so I have to wonder, and especially when some of your questions don't make any sense, or other times when you claim to have some "inside" information.
There really isn't anything that secretive about Jehovah's Witnesses. You can attend any meeting because there are no secret ceremonies, and when you are at the hall you can go to the literature counter and ask for anything you see. Or when one of us as a volunteer give our time freely to talk to people about the Bible you can ask any question you like, and if the person you ask doesn't know they will research any valid question.
There are some blood components allowed 'but the basic principle there is to look at what Jehovah himself allows to pass between a mother and her baby in the womb. In the past vaccinations were obtained and cultivated in a different manner than today, so there have been some major improvements. This hasn't been an issue in my lifetime and I have been around for over 50 years. as far back as 1978 vaccines that contained a trace amount of blood product was considered a conscience matter.
As far as your statement about "changes in doctrine" I really don't understand your point of view.what would be the alternative? Do you think that somebody just woke up one morning and Suddenly a whole religion appears to them in a divine vision with all the details laid out for them? Have you looked at the history of any religion at all? Which one has never changed at all in any way? Have you read the Bible? Just start at Genesis and go forward from there and you should be able to see that God has only gradually revealed more of himself and his purposes a little bit at a time throughout human history. The true religion is like true science: it is a search for the truth, and the understanding of truth discovered has taken all of human history so far. Of course there have been changes. All Able knew was to make a sacrifice of blood upon an alter. Each witness that followed him may or may not have learned a little more in their lifetime. Jehovah himself has made the changes, for the most part, in the religion of his witnesses. For instance in the time of Moses he organized them into a nation and gave them a law code to follow until the messiah appeared to fulfill it. How can anyone read the Bible and not think that there have been changes?
So far everyone of your question that I have seen are really just accusations, and make little sense if looked at objectively.
To get back to your question about blood the scriptures are in three places, th instructions given to Noah, those given to the nation of Israel, and those given to the Christian congregation in the first century. It isn't because this is written in some kind of "church primer" or something like that which can be changed. It is simply a question of what does the Bible say about blood? Have you taken out a concordance and researched the entire topic? Nothing unusual with them. Everybody know how many times they change their doctrines. It is the members who were cheated with Truth and how long these people will go thru with the deception. Since Bulgaria JW are allowed blood transfusion, lucky are they indeed.
Edit: Court Transcript Of JW Elders Admitting To False Doctrine: Covington's testimony before the attorney for the Ministry of Labour and National Service included the following
[The JW simultaneously declared their battle cry: 'unity at all cost, right or wrong'.]
Q. Back to the point now. A false prophesy was promulgated?
A. I agree that.
Q. It had to be accepted by Jehovah's Witnesses?
A. That is correct.
Q. If a member of Jehovah's Witnesses took the view himself that that prophesy was wrong and said so he would be disfellowshipped?
A. Yes, if he said so and kept persisting in creating trouble, because if the whole organisation believes one thing, even though it be erronious and somebody else starts on his own trying to put his ideas across then there is disunity and trouble, there cannot be harmony, there cannot be marching. When a change comes it should come from the proper source, the head of the organisation, the governing body, not from the bottom upwards, because everybody would have ideas, and the organisation would disintegrate and go in a thousand different directions. Our purpose is to have unity.
Q. Unity at all costs?
A. Unity at all costs, because we believe and are sure that Jehovah God is using our organisation, the governing body of our organisation to direct it, even though mistakes are made from time to time.
Q. And unity based upon an enforced acceptance of false prophecy?
A. That is conceded to be true.
Q. And the person who expressed his view, as you say, that it was wrong, and was disfellowshipped, would be in breach of the Covenant, if he was baptized?
A. That is correct.
Q. And as you said yesterday expressly, would be worthy of death?
A. I think - - - who cares? as long as they get a job and stop ringing my doorbell... I am a JW and our unity is global. No changes have happened in only one country. The Bible is clear that we must "abstain from blood" Acts15:29 and there have been no changes to God's stand on blood since He commanded this after the great deluge of Noah's day.
BLOOD - A truly marvelous fluid that circulates in the vascular system of humans and most multicelled animals; in Hebrew, dam, and in Greek, hai鈥瞞a. Blood supplies nourishment and oxygen to all parts of the body, carries away waste products, and plays a major role in safeguarding the body against infection. The chemical makeup of blood is so exceedingly complex that there is a great deal that is still unknown to scientists.
In the Bible, the soul is said to be in the blood because blood is so intimately involved in the life processes. God鈥檚 Word says: 鈥淔or the soul of the flesh is in the blood, and I myself have put it upon the altar for you to make atonement for your souls, because it is the blood that makes atonement by the soul in it.鈥?(Le 17:11) For like reason, but making the connection even more direct, the Bible says: 鈥淭he soul of every sort of flesh is its blood.鈥?(Le 17:14) Clearly, God鈥檚 Word treats both life and blood as sacred.
Taking Life. With Jehovah is the source of life. (Ps 36:9) Man cannot give back a life that he takes. 鈥淎ll the souls鈥攖o me they belong,鈥?says Jehovah. (Eze 18:4) Therefore, to take life is to take Jehovah鈥檚 property. Every living thing has a purpose and a place in God鈥檚 creation. No man has the right to take life except when God permits and in the way that he instructs.
After the Flood, Noah and his sons, the progenitors of all persons alive today, were commanded to show respect for the life, the blood, of fellowmen. (Ge 9:1, 5,聽6) Also, God kindly allowed them to add animal flesh to their diet. However, they had to acknowledge that the life of any animal killed for food belonged to God, doing so by pouring its blood out as water on the ground. This was like giving it back to God, not using it for one鈥檚 own purposes.鈥擠e 12:15,聽16. There is no division between Jehovah's Witnesses living here or anywhere else. There is no change in the Bible's principles against blood.
Your attempt to mislead is failed.
Factoid: 50,000-60,000 people die yearly due to complications from blood transfusion. Well unless the scriptures miraculously change that is not going to happen and it wont happen. I think your diatribe is not being honest, there in no change ANYWHERE including Bulgaria. There are only one faith that carries the name Jehovah's Witnesses and we are strongly united world wide because we have love among ourselves and have put on the new personality which was created according to God鈥檚 will in true righteousness and loyalty.
Ephesians 4:24
We have COMPLETE global unity of 7.1 million Christians in 235 lands and everywhere is the same in our faith. Nothing will take us as Jehovah's Witnesses from serving the True God Jehovah. Acts 15:28,29 gives us the command and Jehovah's Witnesses any country will never disobey Jehovah's law. EVER!
Edit:
Wikipedia???? I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses, I already know. Anything that happens anywhere we know about it through our publications, public meetings, theocratic school meetings, assemblies and conventions.
We would know of it first and none of what you said there has even been a whisper of it. Anyway what you have said is completely false - Period! Your accusation is old and refuted.
We are Jehovah's Witnesses - same earth wide, there are no national differences in what we believe or do. Whether in USA, Peru, Russia, New Zealand, Congo or Bulgaria - all the same.
Some vaccinations are or used to be from blood components which is up to the individuals conscious and not taken as disciplinary action required. Blood components such as red cells, white cells, platelets and plasma are not accepted.
This is nothing new been that way for years and no belief has changed or is going to happen. Acts 15:28,29 is uncompromisable.
For true information from the source then go to the official Jehovah's Witnesses website.
http://www.watchtower.org/e/medical_care... |
