Jehovah's Witnesses?

Question

What would you do if tomorrow, the governing body said that it would be scripturally alright to have a blood transfusion.

Direct answers appreciated. This is not a question as th whether a bood transfusion is healthy or not.

Answer 1

Here's my 2 cents.....

As I've said in a previous question.... the Bible doesn't teach about everything, and as much as it's "beneficial for teaching and setting things straight" it also teaches that at the ending of the day only you are accountable to Jehovah for what you do.

Here's my experience.....
When I was seventeen I went out with a couple of friends from the Kingdom Hall. These were friends that I grew up with. After we all hung out, played pool and had fun we went home. The next morning we work up to tragic news that one of our friend who were with us the night was in an accident. His parents who were Jehovah Witnesses denied him blood transfusion. Do you know how painful that was for all of us when he ended up dying? Someone who's smile and personality just brightens up the room, died because of some dumba** christian teaching.

I was the first one to protest. Later on in that same year I was placed on Public Reproof for donating blood to my sick mother. What was I suppose to do? Let her die, when knowing in my heart that I was the only child for her that had her blood type? I wouldn't have been able to live with it.

I eventually came to a decision that yes, I have my Christian beliefs, yes I understand Jehovah's love for us and yes only I am accountable to Jehovah for what I do. I believe he alone knows my heart so I'll let him do the judging.

That's how all Christians should think. As much as you have your beliefs you should learn to balance it with what is humanly right.

I know I'm gonna get a lot of tumbs down for this answer but I don't really care.

Answer 2

Honestly, this is an old but good question.

Well firstly I would require scriptural proof of this.

When all the dust settled it would ultimately come down to whether or not I agreed with what I was being told. I would do extensive personal study. If I eventually came to the same conclusion, I would be rather glad to have learned something new. In the more likely event that I disagreed with the new findings, I would continue my studies, both as a way of seeking to understand things and also to help clarify to others why I feel the way I do. I would also make sure I sent letters to the various branches.

Your question raises a very good point for why I am a Witness. The very fact is we are all encouraged to do our own research so we know what we believe, and why.

Answer 3

ExJW, There have always been a lot of hullabaloos on Jehovah's Witnesses and Blood. I will not go into so many details as I can normally discuss.

The Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses through the direction of the Holy Spirit receives instructions from Jesus Christ since they are part of the "faithful and discreet slave class". (Matt. 24:45-47) Jesus also takes instructions from his father, Jehovah God. (Mark 11:27-33) The directives I receive from the Governing Body are instructions from Jehovah and they can always use the scriptures to provide these directions.

Since, Jehovah has never encouraged anyone to accept a blood transfusion, the Governing Body will not attest to a Witness having a blood transfusion and if they do as you are supposing, then I will not accept blood transfusion but will take non-blood products (Hetastarch (HES), Ringer's solution) and medicine [synthetic (recombinant) erythropoietin, Folic Acid] that will promote rapid growth of blood cells and volume.—Acts 5:29.

Answer 4

I am not a JW but I don't understand some of these answer's from the J'sW's. This time I say Pedi C is correct. If the Head of the Congregation says the "no blood taking" is abolish and the member's go against the "head's" that is a separation in the church; that would lead to a fall. But I will say that exjw144 is guilty of manipulative action. I say this is the ball that dropped to hard it exploded. I just feel some sorrow in my heart now. You guys, better start thinking what you are up against and who you are playing with. It's really "not Jehovah approval".

Nads you are right and I gave you a thumbs up for your outward HONESTY.
The same way as Jehovah God will be to judge the "ASKER" on what are his motives.

GregM, I am one that choose to be on the organic food's and product's of today. I would like to ask you if you were living in the New Testament and Jesus told his apostle's to be careful because man will look for you and kill you because of me. We know that really happened. Would you have told Jesus how bad he was that he did not look out for the welfare of his apostle's? Are you saying Jesus is a bad person because the apostle's being killed? So in other words, maybe some of you here are saying the Bible and everything in it is just fairytale's and not to take it literally for what it really stands for. If you toss out one of the scripture's or one law to make it good, then you have tossed away the whole Bible. It is as one would say "A WHOLE package deal."
We do in the end make our own choices and some choices are VERY hard, like some here say, "PRAY HARD", and that is the bottom line.

Answer 5

Well, anybody who makes a decision without praying about it first is not spiritually minded at all. So firstly I would pray, and then listen to my bible trained conscience.

My direct answer aside:

The society wouldn't say for definite that something which goes against bible teaching (blood transfusion) is ok. They follow strictly by bible standards and if the bible doesn't specifically say that something is wrong, then the society puts it up to YOUR own conscience and prayer. (Apart from when outside sources show that it is wrong, for example, pagan).

After the society pray about a situation they would see what the feeling is that they get back (and listen to their conscience), and they trust that you will do the same about any important matters.

As regards the transplants issue, the society never said never. They gave scriptures to reflect on and left it up to the individual (as always is the case for matters that seem unclear):

Watchtower 1967 - 11/15

"It is not our place to decide whether such operations are advisable or warranted from a scientific or medical standpoint. It would be well, though, for Christians faced with a decision in this regard to consider the indication as to God’s viewpoint presented in the Scriptures"

Answer 6

properly the comparable way that we've a private call and could desire to be called via our call rather of guy, lady, Boy & so forth is the comparable way that God feels. Psalms 80 3:18 says "could human beings understand which you, whose call is Jehovah,You on my own are the main severe over all the earth." the indisputable fact that his call is pronounced interior the Bible exhibits God needs his call to be prevalent & considering that we are his witnesses or followers, we are called Jehovah's Witnesses.

Answer 7

This is not a hypothetical Q because it COULD happen. All that would be required would be the Governing Body publishing a 'Watchtower' article saying 'new light' had been received on interpreting Acts 15:29 (etc). A slight 'adjustment' would be suggested (as they did when admitting error in interpreting the separating of the sheep from the goats, and 'the generation' of 1914). It would sound entirely plausible and, of course, JWs would be told it always was up to their conscience - it was always their decision anyway - there never were any sanctions against those disagreeing etc. And the goal-posts would have finally been moved to outside the playing field.

As the medical reasons given are invalid (it's supposed to be entirely theological reasons for this stance) the only way out for the GB is to reinterpret the handful of Bible verses they claim as support for making the symbol of the sanctity of life more important than life itself. Just one warning; this warped doctrine is also linked to JW error about Jesus' ransom sacrifice so if one doctrine goes, the other will follow. Which is why nobody should hold their breath waiting for any changes.

Answer 8

Although it is not going to happen, IF it did that would not change what the Bible clearly states in Acts 15:28, 29, etc.

I would also consider some apostates had slipped in somehow, and gotten their views into print. This has happened before. (In the 1970's and thereabouts; also back in the 1800's with Nelson Barbour.)

Answer 9

Don't see it happening as such would be in direct conflict with Acts 15:28, 29.

The Bible would certainly indicate such 'direction' was wrong.

Is this the kind of 'question' you get when the 'questioner' is attempting to mislead readers?

Answer 10

This would be up to each person. Their choice. I personally would not have one as I've had operations without blood so I know they work and my recovery was better without blood.