Posted by Cygnus [Cygnus] on November 22, 1999 at 15:14:39 {k/.KBikg62xIIZ2NrMC6L4bdfUTIaI}:
In Reply to: Blood Transfusion posted by Friend on November 22, 1999 at 12:33:38:
Sorry Friend. How could I miss these statements of yours:
: Way back when blood transfusions were becoming popular our publications spoke even of anointed ones approving of them. (See The Watchtower of August 1st, 1958, page 478)
Perhaps, but if anyone even casually reads the QFR, it is quite apparent that the Society disapproved of that person's actions, even determing that such a course of conduct should result in a person's being considered spiritually "immature" and not being assigned privileges of service. Indeed, the article begins its discussion of the topic in question by saying:
We, of course, regret with you that this sister who professes to be one of the anointed remnant took a blood transfusion voluntarily during her stay in the hospital. We believe that she did the wrong thing contrary to the will of God.
Friend, when the Society says somebody did "the wrong thing" and that it was 'contrary to God's will,' how is Joe Publisher's thinking going to be affected? Undoubtedly it was only a matter of time before the 1961 article on disfellowshiping such people would appear.
: Just because our publications later labeled such acceptance a biblically shunable offense did not make it so.
Right. Which goes to show that the Society doesn't speak for God. That's your basic admission here, right?
: Those sincere convictions were born from what was then known scientifically about blood together with our then present understanding of scripture.
Throughout the 1960s, the Watchtower held the position that transfusing blood was biologically equivalent to eating and digesting it, is that not true? Isn't that why the WT of 9/15/61 558 quotes a source who quotes a 17th century physician in order to substantiate that nonsense? Just what exactly was "scientifically known about blood" in the 1960s that the Society had access to which even slightly supported their theories?