Many Miles

That's an odd thing to think. Does a library force people out because it contains books addressing many subjects from many perspective in many disciplines. Doesn't each person decide which book he pulls from the shelf, what subject he wants to learn more about, etc.?
The only negative thing I see here (and I've not been here for long) is an apprehension to offer straightforward answers to straightforward questions. But it's not really negative in the sense that it bothers me. It's only negative in that it impedes engaging beneficial discussion.
 
I've not observed a single participant here who thinks themselves flawless. Who are these people you speak of?
Even the organization recognizes it is made up of people, each of which has their own personal conscience which varies from person to person. So we all have differences. Having differences is no reason to leave. Why run from what God has given us as a gift. Choice. So long as we act genuinely to do His will we have no reason to think His eyes will look upon us in a bad way. Our worship must be our own. If we just blindly follow what someone in authority tells us to do all we're doing is worshiping God for someone else.
 
We should live each day in expectation. But we also do well to make today's decisions based on God's testimony (Bible and creation) and sound reason. There's no reason not to do both, and every reason to do both.
The notion that red cells provide nutrition when transfused has been debunked since the 1940s. The notion that plasma (including cryosupernatant plasma) could provide nutrition when transfused has also been known since the 1940s. This is not new information. If you need reference material I'd happily reference my library and provide citations. You should be able to access the material either online or from you local library.
It is good to make sure of all things and hold fast to what is fine.
 

I thought long about that comment. My story is no more and no less a story about a boy who was raised to respect truth.
Many generations of my family have been associated with JWs, even before JWs were a thing. My paternal side goes back to Russell.
I was raised to trust the society. So that's what I did. And, that was my mistake. 'Do not put your trust in nobles, nor in the son of earthling man, to whom no salvation belongs.' I should have listened to that with more care than I did.
When it came to the society's blood position, when I was baptized I trusted that someone higher up and smarter than me understood the details, and I trusted them.
Way, way later down the road, I found out the society could not and would not answer for important underpinnings of its position on blood. This was the case regarding physiological aspects of blood as a substance, and medical aspects of transfusion medicine. This was also true of biblical statements regarding blood, and particularly as it relates to Noah. Ultimately, what lit me up to take a closer look at this whole thing were things I read in our own publications. I realized the scriptural truth of the whole thing was already spelled out in our literature! So I showed it to the society. Crickets.
Compare these two articles:
Here: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1983290
Here: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101983099
In the second article, pay careful attention to paragraphs 7 and 8. Very close attention, as you look back over the first article linked above. This material was all published in the same year. None of it is the result of "new light" that changed. Remember there are biblical characters who worshiped the only true God who were never under Mosaic Law. Men like Noah, Job, Elihu and Cornelius. These latter had to obey the decree issued to Noah. But not to the different standard issued to Jews under Mosaic Law.
Those internal articles are just the tip. 
People are still dying over something that should be left for each person to decide on their own, without religious coercion of being potentially shunned.
In the end, my story doesn't and shouldn't matter. What matters is truth.
 
 

Of item 1, I'd listen to the man just like I would any other, to see if what he said conformed to sound reason (another phrase to mean conforming to conventions of logical construction). If his teachings (his conclusions) were soundly reasoned than I'd accept what he said as valid. The first thing I'd look for is whether a particular teaching is falsifiable. If it's not then that teaching needs some very extraordinary evidence. If it is falsifiable then I'd look to see what evidence supports each premise of his conclusion (his teaching).
Of item 2, they're only necessary for extraordinary claims. (See Ex 4:1-9)
Of item 3, yes, fallible but with two powerful things. 1) God's testimony in writing (the Bible) and in His creation all around me, and 2) a God-given brain capable of decision based on sound reason.
You've written a lot of words and I'm not sure why.
If a teaching comes from any man or group of men and it cannot stand up to sound scrutiny then it should not be accepted as a valid teaching.

@Many Miles I second all of what Thinking said in the last post.
 

Many Miles I am genuinely with hand on my heart so sorry for your pain. no words will extinguish the guilt you feel….personally I do not see that you should think you have any..
I dont know how many babies you lost in this way..or why this happened.
in my books the blood issue needs to be respected…and you helped some parents when they needed that.You were a pillar of strength. It’s a massive emotional and spiritual burden to take on and you did it in good faith at the time.
I dont know your story thus why you no longer have the same belief as us anymore concerning it.
I sighed loudly when I read your post and thought…what has he been thru.
I have been on line for..oh well…ever so long …and heard many sad stories and I can honestly say…my story has been the saddest of all I have read…..I too wish I could turn back the clock and avoid what lay ahead…but alas..it has only been the internet that uncovered many things for me……………..and Franz’s book made me stronger….NOT weaker in our faith.
Dont let the King Sauls and Korah’s or the JUDAS LIKE brothers force you out.
I hope you find a little scrap of peace brother. I’m barely hanging on but soon this will all be over with and I don’t want to be known by Jehovah for hurting my brothers and sisters……….I write this with much grief xx
 

I hear you. Now if only a lot of folks could regain the best years of their lives by not taking the society as seriously as they told them to but weren't doing themselves.
For your information, cryosupernatant is not a small part of blood. Cryosupernatant is more than 50 percent of the blood circulating in your veins this very moment. It's no wonder the society does not list it on its charts and graphs of what we can accept as a personal conscience matter. I mean, what message would that send in terms of a "minor fraction"?
For me, this is not medical word play. As an elder I helped parents make decisions about their babies, and some of them died when they could have been saved. it makes me cry to this day just to think about it. Keyboarding this makes me grieve for those babies, and their families.
I do respect you too, either way. Real unity is folks holding common cause despite differences. Unity is not to be confused with uniformity.
The dead babies won't let my eyes glaze over. They keep me up at night.

And I have just placed you on ignore. Have a good life George. You can waste someone else's time now.

I hear you. Now if only a lot of folks could regain the best years of their lives by not taking the society as seriously as they told them to but weren't doing themselves.
For your information, cryosupernatant is not a small part of blood. Cryosupernatant is more than 50 percent of the blood circulating in your veins this very moment. It's no wonder the society does not list it on its charts and graphs of what we can accept as a personal conscience matter. I mean, what message would that send in terms of a "minor fraction"?
For me, this is not medical word play. As an elder I helped parents make decisions about their babies, and some of them died when they could have been saved. it makes me cry to this day just to think about it. Keyboarding this makes me grieve for those babies, and their families.
I do respect you too, either way. Real unity is folks holding common cause despite differences. Unity is not to be confused with uniformity.
The dead babies won't let my eyes glaze over. They keep me up at night.

Anna,
I'll say the same thing to you that district and circuit overseers have said to me, and at least one who used to be at Bethel, lyman Swingle. It's brave of you to openly state what needs stating. Of course we all know our Master, the Christ, did  this. He was disfellowshipped the old fashion way for doing it. But he spoke what needed to be said nevertheless. None of use are greater than our Master.
Given the above, I'm not expecting more in the way of response. I will say that I agree with you that the whole thing should be left to each person's conscience. If folks want to believe something is of the Bible that they can't prove true from the Bible, well that's their business. But these should never take it upon themselves to force that view onto others without being able to prove the position true to he extent they want to enforce it.
As for dangers of blood transfusion, yes there are dangers. But there is such a thing as bleeding to death. That's real! Very real! In medical cases of severe anemia often the only thing that will prevent death is transfusion of packed red cells. In my case, I'd only accept transfusion of a product rendered from blood if that was the best available option.

And I have just placed you on ignore. Have a good life George. You can waste someone else's time now.

Anna,
First of all, you are a welcome breath of fresh air in this discussion. I want to thank you for that.
Now to your comment,
Yes, of course. But recall that when the early apostles issued their decision that mentioned blood it was in response to an influx of Gentile worshipers of God becoming followers of Christ. The Gentile Christians, like Cornelius, were being taught they needed to abide by Mosaic Law. The apostles said, no. But there were certain things that all Christians, including the Gentile Christians, needed to abide by, all of which predated Mosaic Law.
Regarding blood, our publication United In Worship of the Only True God says it best,
"The decision of that governing body did list as “necessary things” certain prohibitions that were in harmony with that Law, but these were based on the Bible record concerning events that predated the Law. So there was not an imposing on Gentile Christians of a responsibility to conform to the Mosaic Law or some portion of it but, rather, there was a confirming of standards recognized prior to Moses." (Ref https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101983099 )
Back then, there were Jews familiar with Mosaic Law who converted to Christianity, and there was Gentiles who became Christians. Those Jewish converts knew that, under their former religion, Gentiles were free to eat the meat of animals found dead of natural cause, which flesh was unbled. In fact, those Jewish converts knew that, under Mosaic Law, they were free to sell Gentiles that sort of unbled flesh specifically for purposes of eating that unbled flesh. (Ref Deut 14:21)
Gentile descendants of Noah who were worshipers of God, like Job, Elihu and Cornelius, were never under Mosaic Law, but they were bound to keep the law issued to Noah. But they knew keeping the law to Noah required that they abstain from eating the blood of animals still alive or of the blood of animals they killed to use as food. (Gen 9) They knew that blood obtained from killing an animal represented that animal's life. In recognition of that they were to abstain from eating that blood, the blood from killing. However, other than abstaining from eating that blood they were free to use it otherwise however they wanted. Also, they knew that taking a man's blood in murder meant they would forfeit their own right to life. This is what Gentile Christians and Jewish converts to Christianity knew about blood that applied to everyone.
These Jewish and Gentile Christians lived mostly an agrarian life. They knew about killing and slaughtering animals, and they knew about eating animals found dead of natural cause.
When it came to the substance of blood, as I said before, they would never have seen four components. They would have observed whole blood and two components of serum and clot. This is all they could have seen because this is how blood separates in nature.

That's false. In the natural world blood does separate into two components (not four). The ancients could observe blood in its whole and separated forms. While an animal was bleeding out they'd see blood in its whole form. If they drained that blood into a receptacle they would see it separate. They could also make this latter observation in the veins of animals they found dead of natural cause.
In the natural world when blood is not circulating it clots. When this happens the two things a person would see is a kind-of clear watery substance and a dark colored mass. In modern terms we'd call the clearer fluid "serum" and we call the dark colored mass "clot". This is how blood naturally settles out in the natural world.
 
The modern separation of blood into four components is the result of a wholly unnatural intervention that is found nowhere in nature.
We could employ all sorts of processes to divide blood up all sort so ways. All that means is that we've found different ways to divvy up blood. This tells us nothing scriptural about blood.
I'm looking for:
...a scriptural premise for us TO disassociate (effectively: disfellowship) fellow JWs for accepting transfusion of whole blood, or any of the products known as red cells, white cells, platelets or plasma, but NOT TO disassociate/disfellowship fellow JWs for accepting any other products rendered from blood, such as hemoglobin, albumin, cryoprecipitate or cryosupernatant plasma.
That's an astute observation. But, that too would lead to further questions.
Right now I'm looking for a premise (or premises) supporting the policy as it exists.

George,
Christ is the end of the Law.
 

Anna,
First of all, you are a welcome breath of fresh air in this discussion. I want to thank you for that.
Now to your comment,
Yes, of course. But recall that when the early apostles issued their decision that mentioned blood it was in response to an influx of Gentile worshipers of God becoming followers of Christ. The Gentile Christians, like Cornelius, were being taught they needed to abide by Mosaic Law. The apostles said, no. But there were certain things that all Christians, including the Gentile Christians, needed to abide by, all of which predated Mosaic Law.
Regarding blood, our publication United In Worship of the Only True God says it best,
"The decision of that governing body did list as “necessary things” certain prohibitions that were in harmony with that Law, but these were based on the Bible record concerning events that predated the Law. So there was not an imposing on Gentile Christians of a responsibility to conform to the Mosaic Law or some portion of it but, rather, there was a confirming of standards recognized prior to Moses." (Ref https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101983099 )
Back then, there were Jews familiar with Mosaic Law who converted to Christianity, and there was Gentiles who became Christians. Those Jewish converts knew that, under their former religion, Gentiles were free to eat the meat of animals found dead of natural cause, which flesh was unbled. In fact, those Jewish converts knew that, under Mosaic Law, they were free to sell Gentiles that sort of unbled flesh specifically for purposes of eating that unbled flesh. (Ref Deut 14:21)
Gentile descendants of Noah who were worshipers of God, like Job, Elihu and Cornelius, were never under Mosaic Law, but they were bound to keep the law issued to Noah. But they knew keeping the law to Noah required that they abstain from eating the blood of animals still alive or of the blood of animals they killed to use as food. (Gen 9) They knew that blood obtained from killing an animal represented that animal's life. In recognition of that they were to abstain from eating that blood, the blood from killing. However, other than abstaining from eating that blood they were free to use it otherwise however they wanted. Also, they knew that taking a man's blood in murder meant they would forfeit their own right to life. This is what Gentile Christians and Jewish converts to Christianity knew about blood that applied to everyone.
These Jewish and Gentile Christians lived mostly an agrarian life. They knew about killing and slaughtering animals, and they knew about eating animals found dead of natural cause.
When it came to the substance of blood, as I said before, they would never have seen four components. They would have observed whole blood and two components of serum and clot. This is all they could have seen because this is how blood separates in nature.

Anna,
I'll say the same thing to you that district and circuit overseers have said to me, and at least one who used to be at Bethel, lyman Swingle. It's brave of you to openly state what needs stating. Of course we all know our Master, the Christ, did  this. He was disfellowshipped the old fashion way for doing it. But he spoke what needed to be said nevertheless. None of use are greater than our Master.
Given the above, I'm not expecting more in the way of response. I will say that I agree with you that the whole thing should be left to each person's conscience. If folks want to believe something is of the Bible that they can't prove true from the Bible, well that's their business. But these should never take it upon themselves to force that view onto others without being able to prove the position true to he extent they want to enforce it.
As for dangers of blood transfusion, yes there are dangers. But there is such a thing as bleeding to death. That's real! Very real! In medical cases of severe anemia often the only thing that will prevent death is transfusion of packed red cells. In my case, I'd only accept transfusion of a product rendered from blood if that was the best available option.

That's not a premise. That's a doctrinal position. Why should products such as isolated white cells, or isolated red cells, or isolated platelets or isolated plasma "be regarded as being blood", yet other products rendered from blood not "be regarded as being blood"? Answer that question and you'll have a premise.
 

Short answer: they can't.
Their position on transfusion of donor blood is demonstrably wrong. It is not scriptural. It is also internally inconsistent and self-contradictory.

Yes. Transfusion of blood is an organ transplant.
Because JWs accept transfusion of product rendered from blood than JWs are exposed to all the dangers of transplantation.
Scripturally the notion of "eating" is something done for nutrition. We can render several products from the donor blood supply.
Let's talk about a product from blood we are supposed to reject, the one called red cells. If you solely transfuse red cells in an attempt at parenteral nutrition the patient will get no nutritional benefit and the patient will die from starvation.
Now let's talk about a product from blood we can accept, the one called cryosupernatant plasma. If you solely transfuse cryosupernatant plasma in an attempt at parenteral nutrition the patient will get nutritional benefit and you have an opportunity to prevent a patient from starving to death.
Hence, in relation to "eating" we have the contradictory position where a product we are told to reject provides no nutritional benefit when administered intravenously where of a product we are told we can accept it does provide nutritional benefit.
 

That's an interesting view. Let's take a closer look at it.
The society holds a religious position that we should "treat life and blood as sacred".
In logical form that looks like:
A = C
B = C
hence A = B
In mathematical form it would look like this, as an example:
2 + 3 = 5
1 + 4 = 5
Hence 2 + 3 = 1 + 4
In written form it looks like this:
Life equals sacred
Blood equals sacred
Hence life equals blood
From a theological perspective there's a huge problem with that notion in terms of our blood doctrine. Here's the problem:
Jesus said, "No one has love greater than this, that someone should surrender his soul in behalf of his friends."
So humans have explicit permission to donate their own life to help safe the life of his friends.
If we have explicit permission to donate our life to save life, and if blood equals life, then we have explicit permission to donate our blood to save life.

What is our scriptural basis for refusing transfusion of products rendered from blood?
Our organization’s policy regarding blood is to disassociate (effectively: disfellowship) fellow JWs for accepting transfusion of whole blood, or any of the products known as red cells, white cells, platelets or plasma. On the other hand, we are not to disassociate/disfellowship fellow JWs for accepting any other products rendered from blood, such as hemoglobin, albumin, cryoprecipitate or cryosupernatant plasma.
ONE ASPECT OF THE POSITION
We have these two items of response and discussion:
Item 1: When asked by an elder why we would disfellowship/disassociate a JW for conscientiously taking a transfusion of a blood product like white cells but not for taking a product like cryoprecipitate, the society’s response was to say ‘while both may affect the life of the individual, both whole blood and major components (meaning red cells, white cells, platelets and plasma) carry nutrition to the body, and it is this aspect of providing nourishment that links blood transfusion with the biblical prohibition.’
Item 2: To another elder who asked a similar question, the response was to say “In weighing matters scripturally, the “slave" has decided with good-basis that blood's four primary components-plasma,-red cells, white cells, and platelets-should not be used. That is how unfractionated blood components settle out naturally. In its still unbroken-down state, each separated primary component, regardless of its respective percentage of whole blood, can still represent basically what blood as a whole symbolizes: the life of the creature.”
The problem with these two items of response is that both are inconsistent with facts on the ground.
Regarding item one above, it leverages the biblical statement to Noah about eating blood of animals killed to use them as food. (See Gen 9) The problem is, it is well known that transfusion of red cells offers no nutritional support. None. To be clear, if a patient was transfused with red cells for nutritional support, they would die of starvation. On the other hand, and ironically, if a patient were transfused with cryosupernatant plasma it would offer a decent measure of nutritional support. This makes our position self-contradictory.
Regarding item two above, it leverages what we find in the natural world. (See Ps 19) The problem is, it is patently false to say blood settles out naturally as plasma, red cells, white cells and platelets. First of all, there is no instance in nature where this is true. None. In nature, when blood settles out, it settles out as two components, not four. Those two components are serum and a clot. Second, were it true that blood settles out naturally as plasma, red cells, white cells and platelets, we’d all be dead. This is because our blood is designed to clot if it is not circulating. If it does not clot then even small abrasions could lead to death because we’d bleed out. So this idea is just flat out false.
If there exists a scriptural premise for us TO disassociate (effectively: disfellowship) fellow JWs for accepting transfusion of whole blood, or any of the products known as red cells, white cells, platelets or plasma, but NOT TO disassociate/disfellowship fellow JWs for accepting any other products rendered from blood, such as hemoglobin, albumin, cryoprecipitate or cryosupernatant plasma, please steer me to it.

That's an interesting view. Let's take a closer look at it.
The society holds a religious position that we should "treat life and blood as sacred".
In logical form that looks like:
A = C
B = C
hence A = B
In mathematical form it would look like this, as an example:
2 + 3 = 5
1 + 4 = 5
Hence 2 + 3 = 1 + 4
In written form it looks like this:
Life equals sacred
Blood equals sacred
Hence life equals blood
From a theological perspective there's a huge problem with that notion in terms of our blood doctrine. Here's the problem:
Jesus said, "No one has love greater than this, that someone should surrender his soul in behalf of his friends."
So humans have explicit permission to donate their own life to help safe the life of his friends.
If we have explicit permission to donate our life to save life, and if blood equals life, then we have explicit permission to donate our blood to save life.

What is our scriptural basis for refusing transfusion of products rendered from blood?
Our organization’s policy regarding blood is to disassociate (effectively: disfellowship) fellow JWs for accepting transfusion of whole blood, or any of the products known as red cells, white cells, platelets or plasma. On the other hand, we are not to disassociate/disfellowship fellow JWs for accepting any other products rendered from blood, such as hemoglobin, albumin, cryoprecipitate or cryosupernatant plasma.
ONE ASPECT OF THE POSITION
We have these two items of response and discussion:
Item 1: When asked by an elder why we would disfellowship/disassociate a JW for conscientiously taking a transfusion of a blood product like white cells but not for taking a product like cryoprecipitate, the society’s response was to say ‘while both may affect the life of the individual, both whole blood and major components (meaning red cells, white cells, platelets and plasma) carry nutrition to the body, and it is this aspect of providing nourishment that links blood transfusion with the biblical prohibition.’
Item 2: To another elder who asked a similar question, the response was to say “In weighing matters scripturally, the “slave" has decided with good-basis that blood's four primary components-plasma,-red cells, white cells, and platelets-should not be used. That is how unfractionated blood components settle out naturally. In its still unbroken-down state, each separated primary component, regardless of its respective percentage of whole blood, can still represent basically what blood as a whole symbolizes: the life of the creature.”
The problem with these two items of response is that both are inconsistent with facts on the ground.
Regarding item one above, it leverages the biblical statement to Noah about eating blood of animals killed to use them as food. (See Gen 9) The problem is, it is well known that transfusion of red cells offers no nutritional support. None. To be clear, if a patient was transfused with red cells for nutritional support, they would die of starvation. On the other hand, and ironically, if a patient were transfused with cryosupernatant plasma it would offer a decent measure of nutritional support. This makes our position self-contradictory.
Regarding item two above, it leverages what we find in the natural world. (See Ps 19) The problem is, it is patently false to say blood settles out naturally as plasma, red cells, white cells and platelets. First of all, there is no instance in nature where this is true. None. In nature, when blood settles out, it settles out as two components, not four. Those two components are serum and a clot. Second, were it true that blood settles out naturally as plasma, red cells, white cells and platelets, we’d all be dead. This is because our blood is designed to clot if it is not circulating. If it does not clot then even small abrasions could lead to death because we’d bleed out. So this idea is just flat out false.
If there exists a scriptural premise for us TO disassociate (effectively: disfellowship) fellow JWs for accepting transfusion of whole blood, or any of the products known as red cells, white cells, platelets or plasma, but NOT TO disassociate/disfellowship fellow JWs for accepting any other products rendered from blood, such as hemoglobin, albumin, cryoprecipitate or cryosupernatant plasma, please steer me to it.

Asserting I've misused scripture is not evidence I've misused scripture. All you've offered here is an unevidenced assertion. That's called opinion. Opinion is not refutation.
 
This asserts that post-flood text of the Law of Moses suggests what pre-flood  humans could have eaten. If that's your position then you are forced to accept that the text of Deut 14:21 provides explicit permission for non-Jewish descendants of Noah (like Job, Elihu and Cornelius) to freely eat the flesh of animals dead of natural cause.
 
Laughably, your assertion above proves my argument is true. (i.e., Deut 14:21 et al.)
The argument I've made remains, and it's here waiting for refutation:
 

Here's a lesson in logic:
Premise 1: Adam is given vegetation to eat.
Premise 2: Adam eats vegetation.
Conclusion: Adam is prohibited from eating biological fat.
Question: Based on the premises offered, is the conclusion of this argument valid or invalid?
 

Here's a lesson in logic:
Premise 1: Adam is given vegetation to eat.
Premise 2: Adam eats vegetation.
Conclusion: Adam is prohibited from eating biological fat.
Question: Based on the premises offered, is the conclusion of this argument valid or invalid?