Posted by AF [AF] on November 23, 1999 at 21:17:00 {KNpNN6QGfw1EwaxRomAMdaOt1gg/Zk}:
In Reply to: **Blood Transfusion posted by Friend on November 23, 1999 at 16:16:43:
:: I also agree that the sort of tortuous argumentation you've presented would be necessary to unwind the Society from its long standing position.
: I would appreciate more about what you perceive as torturous argumentation.
Alright, I didn't really intend to get into this, but I'll make some comments. As a side note, the word "tortuous" is often misunderstood. It is not particularly related to "torture" (there's fodder for jokesters here), but means "marked by repeated twists, bends or turns; marked by devious or indirect tactics; circuitous; involved".
A direct argument is necessarily simple and easy to understand. An example of such might be my statement:
How much simpler, though, it would be for the Society to state and act according to the obvious: "The Bible says nothing about blood transfusions and so henceforth, neither will we. Transfusions are a matter for each individual's conscience."
Other simple arguments are found in the August 1st, 1958 Watchtower (p. 478) you referred to:
We believe that she did the wrong thing contrary to the will of God. . . We let the judgment of such violators of God's law concerning the sacredness of blood remain with Jehovah. . . It is not for you or anyone serving the Memorial emblems to act as the judge, but to allow the emblems to go to anyone in the audience as these are passed along . . .
Examples of tortuous arguments can be found in just about any WTS treatment of blood transfusions. The equating of eating and transfusing blood is a good example, as this is not obvious to 99.9% of human beings, but various circuitous, involved and indirect tactics must be used to support the Society's claim. The same goes for the equating of cannibalism and organ transplants. I'm sure you know full well the tortuous reasoning necessary to support these notions.
Now for some specific comments:
: . . . not all hold the view that blood transfusions are categorically wrong. . . Just because our publications later labeled such acceptance a biblically shunable offense did not make it so. All that did was express the genuine scriptural sentiments of perhaps most of our brothers at the time, if that.
I would classify this statement as "devious tactics" because it is extremely important for readers to understand that the reason, and the only reason, that most JWs at that time held that transfusions are categorically wrong is that the Society had repeatedly told them so for years. Since they viewed virtually everything printed by the WTS as "food in due season from Jehovah", they naturally viewed the Society's reasonings as divinely given. Your statement gives the impression that JWs figured this out all by themselves. Likewise, once the Society changes its policy on blood, JWs will abandon en masse the claim that a blood ban is scripturally required.
: . . . Those sincere convictions were born from what was then known scientifically about blood together with our then present understanding of scripture.
Then known scientifically by who? By the medical community? Of course not, as they already knew that the Society's claim about blood nourishing the body just as food does was idiotic. By the Society? Using the word "scientific" to describe anything written by the Society is usually a contradiction in terms. Either way you look at it, your statement is wrong and is tortuous in the sense of "devious tactics". I don't think you meant to be devious here, but that's the way it comes off.
: Up to now those holding counter views have remained faithful to their dedication to God by loving their fellow worshippers to the point of willingness to sacrifice their lives to avoid hurting the faith of others. (1 Cor. 10:28,29)
I can hardly believe what I'm reading here. It may be true that some JWs act this way, but certainly not all -- which is what your statement categorically says. No one has conducted a scientific poll on this, but it seems to me, based on what those who have quit the JWs partly because of disagreements about blood have stated, that once a person rejects the Society's policy on blood he also rejects the Society as a spiritual authority. Therefore those who strongly hold counter views are not going to worry about any side effects of disobeying a manmade rule that kills people unnecessarily. I seriously doubt that you can come up with a single example of a JW who died because of not taking blood but who disagreed with the blood policy and refused blood only because of the "negative" effect this would have on other JWs. Perhaps you meant something different, but as it stands this is an example of "devious tactics".
In contrast with the above examples of "tortuous reasoning" your next statement is direct, clear and factual:
: On the other hand, please do not think that thousands of Jehovah’s Witnesses will not read what is presented here, because they will. One way or another thousands will read this and want answers. Not only that, they will also seek answers to the enormous amount of existing information that counters most of what we have taught regarding the science of blood transfusions. The window of time to make change in our teachings is closing fast. Right now those who are most knowledgeable about counter views regarding blood are those in developed lands having access to the most modern means of communication. We must not fool ourselves into thinking that without change this spread of legitimate ideas will not cause severe discouragement amongst our entire association of brothers. Like any other subject, if our views are wrong and we do nothing about it then infectious discouragement will follow, in spades. If our views are correct then we have nothing to fear because we can answer that challenge of counter information. But we know that is not the case. We know that for years countless persons in our midst have sought answers to hard questions on this subject and we have supplied no such answers. Failure to answer those counter views has already caused enormous discouragement. We have just said, "Wait." But wait for what? Improved scientific information is here now. The Bible is here now. Jehovah is here now. Legitimate, conscientious and scriptural views are here now. The only one wanting to wait is the Society. Please, let us not allow our historical convictions to hinder needed changes. Doing so would amount to no less than an unseemly show of pride, which will cause stumbling. (Proverbs 16:18)
One thing is clear to me: when you're advancing criticisms of past WTS policies and making suggestions for improvement, you're clear and direct. When you're engaging in apologetics for their past mistakes, you wax indirect and unclear, and your arguments often become tortuous. This is nothing different from what I've been telling you for as long as we've been communicating. The exposition you've presented below similarly shows a mixture of direct statements and tortuous arguments, the former when changes are being contemplated and the latter usually when past practices are being apologized for.
It is my firm belief that JWs in general enjoy having their tummies tickled with spiritual pablum (for those not acquainted with Americana, "Pablum" is a rice based cereal intended for infants, made by a large American food company). They like having things presented to them in indirect ways because this is how the Society has trained them, and is how the Society presents much material in The Watchtower and other publications. The Society itself is perfectly well aware of this desire for things to be packaged in thick cotton, and that is why it makes straightforward presentations of material available only to a select few, such as to pioneers and elders. Compare the woolly words and reasonings presented in the Knowledge book with the direct words presented in the "Pioneer Service School Textbook" Shining As Illuminators in the World, and in the "Kingdom Ministry School Textbook" for elders, "Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock".
My comments in the following section assume, rightly or wrongly, that you're the writer.
: Begin suggestion:
: 1. Blood is a dynamic substance . . . we have acted as devoted servants to our Creator and Life Giver by putting sacred things ahead of our own present life. Out of love of God we have been willing to surrender our souls based upon our genuine understanding of the Bible with hopes placed firmly on future life, the real life. (Gen. 9:4; Matt. 16:24,25; 1 Tim. 6:19)
This is a feelgood introductory paragraph perfectly adapted to the JW psyche: "we've always had good intentions in serving our God". It's a typical WTS way of setting the stage for a big change.
: 2. Naturally, respecting the sanctity of blood, we seek better understanding of that sacred symbol of life. Jehovah is our source of life with His word being the source for understanding how to gain future life. (Ps. 36:9) As Christians we do not neglect continuing to study and increase our understanding from God’s word the Bible and what it says about blood. By relentlessly studying and applying God’s word we should expect to continue improving our understanding of holiness and things sacred, including blood. In that respect we now have reason to reexamine together how we view use of blood as Jehovah’s Witnesses, as Christians. (Eccl. 12:9,10; Col. 1:10)
Again very well adapted to the intended audience, but only up to the last sentence. That last sentence is far too direct for a JW audience and will be shocking to most. It's clear that whoever wrote this is not a regular writer for WTS publications, at least, not without a lot of polishing by more experienced hands.
: 3. Because of our understanding based upon the Bible historically we, as Jehovah’s Witnesses, have taken a strong stand against medical transfusion of blood. (1 Thess. 1:5) Nevertheless, we have never taken the position that our present understanding on any Bible subject is absolute as if there was nothing left to learn, improve upon or change according to an improved understanding. (Prov. 2:1-9)
Another shocker here. The immediate JW reaction will be, "What? You mean that our understanding on blood is not as absolute as you've been saying?"
: 4. Based upon continuous consideration of scriptures as they relate to blood and giving attention toward medical discoveries our understanding today of blood is far greater than what it was just a few years ago.
This is tortuous in the sense of "circuitous" because it gives the impression that this "far greater" knowledge of "medical discoveries" is a big deal. In truth it isn't, because the basics have not changed at all since the blood ban was introduced in the early 1960s. The Society may well have more knowledge, but this is only because WTS leaders once actively rejected knowledge that their successors now accept. Furthermore, the Society's understanding of the scriptures they use to support the blood policy has not changed a bit. The actual situation is as you state next:
: As our knowledge increased of different techniques for handling blood or using blood we have made adjustments to our understanding and subsequent actions regarding use or handling of blood. Quite often the pages of The Watchtower have commented even on what different consciences of Jehovah’s Witnesses would allow in this respect. Those admissions reflected growth in our understanding of blood as a substance, how it works within our own bodies and more importantly how we reasonably apply God’s word concerning it. (For examples see "Questions From Readers" of The Watchtower of October 1, 1994; and "Questions From Readers" of The Watchtower of March 1, 1989)
"Those admissions" will raise a big red flag for the typical JW reader.
: 5. Today because of increasing knowledge and understanding of blood it is the course of wisdom to also continue considering how we apply what we have learned. (Prov. 22:17)
This is a bit tortuous in the sense of "indirect" because the reader cannot tell from context whether you're talking about "increasing knowledge" on the part of the medical community or the JW community. It's another feelgood sentence.
: For various reasons many among Jehovah’s Witnesses have come to see a difference between God’s command to Noah not to eat blood for a meal versus other dynamic benefits of blood. With the growing and deepening understanding of blood, some Christians, earnestly and in good conscience, have concluded that accepting donated blood products for saving life in medical emergencies does not manifest disregard for God’s word, including the symbol of life. (Luke 10:16)
Another shocker.
: 6. Considering God’s view of blood a person would be showing extreme disregard for the symbol of life if they chose to casually make a meal of blood. On the other hand, to use blood medically, to save life itself, is not a casual matter at all. In fact it’s a grave matter. During such times Christians are more prone to become even closer to their Lawmaker and Lifegiver, certainly not wanting to push Him aside by casually breaking His laws. (Mark 5:22-24; John 11:17-35) Such serious circumstances over the years have caused a correspondingly serious consideration of God’s law about blood together with learning about blood itself. Because we are a brotherhood of Christians, whether directly involved in a medical emergency where blood treatment is offered or not, these situations have caused all of us to carefully consider God’s law as to application and future hopes. (Eccl. 7:4) Considering our historically strong stand against using blood, what scriptural considerations have led some today to feel they can conscientiously accept such medical uses of blood?
This paragraph feels tortuous to me in the sense of being terribly indirect. I had to read it several times to get a sense of what you were trying to say. The middle sentence starting with "Such serious . . ." makes heavy use of the passive voice and is correspondingly hard to decode into concrete concepts.
: 8. After the flood Noah was told that mankind could, beginning then, eat the flesh of animals for food. . .
This is pretty good. However, to be fair to readers at least mention should be made of alternative interpretations of Gen. 9:4 as has been pointed out by many commentators. Not mentioning these is assuming that they are wrong, which is exactly the mistake that the Society has been making for decades with other arguments against their position on the blood issue.
: 10. In context Noah was not told to avoid using blood entirely. Easily Noah could have abided by that told him and still have used blood for purposes other than eating it for a meal. Also, and importantly, in context Noah was told not to eat blood from life he had unilaterally taken, though with permission from God. That is, the blood Noah was told he must not eat was blood from animals he had killed for food. That begs the question, Strictly speaking was Noah told he should not use blood donated from a living person for purposes of saving life? As much as that question might make some cringe, the answer is, No. A reconsideration of the context of that said to Noah then reveals that Noah was told of only one instance where he should not use blood, that of eating blood from life taken, taken by virtue of killing or seizing life as opposed to being donated by its holder. . .
This and the next several blocks of argumentation are fine examples of tortuous arguments trying to deal with older tortuous arguments. It's pitting one unprovable argument against another. The bottom line is that it's the word of the Society's leaders against others.
: 16. Considering these reevaluations there is perhaps new meaning to gain from Jesus’ directive that his followers be willing to donate their lives that others may live. Jesus said, "No one has love greater than this, that someone should surrender his soul in behalf of his friends." (John 15:13; Compare Matt. 5:44-48) Those words of Jesus essentially encourage that we donate our life so that another may live. Jesus understood that without redemption man’s life was practically meaningless, nevertheless his expression encouraged that we should be willing to donate our life so that another can have the temporary benefit of life. Considering reevaluations of other Bible texts some have come to conscientiously believe that those words of Jesus support the notion that donating blood to save life is the same as donating life to save life, which he approved of. In either case the benefits are toward someone else gaining life. . .
Yet another tortuous argument advanced to cancel an older tortuous argument. No proof can be given; only an appeal to what sounds more reasonable to a reasonable reader untainted by Watchtower training. I happen to agree with your train of thought here, but that does not lessen the circuitousness of the arguments.
: 19. In addition to scriptural considerations advances in medical knowledge also deserve our attention. Ongoing developments and discoveries by medical science have more clearly differentiated between eating blood for a meal versus taking blood as a transfusion. . .
Once again the "devious" side of a tortuous argument. Medical science has not changed its views on this since the early 1960s.
: According to the Apostolic Decree, doing such a thing is a serious violation of God’s law for Christians. (Act 15:28,29) . . .
Again you need to deal with counter-arguments to this claim, which you're quite familiar with.
: 21. Notwithstanding past views, and in light of increased understanding of certain Bible texts and the dynamic nature of blood, it seems appropriate at this time to recognize that each Christian should individually and conscientiously before God decide if and how they may chose to accept some form of medical therapy involving blood. Fellow Christians should respect the consciences of their brothers. In this we continue putting God and His will first in our lives by loving Him, our brothers and neighbors. (Matt. 22:36-40; Romans 14:12; Gal. 6:10)
A good conclusion.
: End of suggested/modified position on blood.
: My prayer is that something presented above makes a difference for those who are still examining this issue. For those who have decided, your views are certainly respected. However, even in your case I hope that you contemplate that presented above and either debate what you think is wrong or else respect those of us who agree with it.
In sum, I think that your presentation contains the seeds of a good method to change the blood issue for JWs and make it what it should be: a matter of conscience and none of the Society's business. Your presentation is indirect and tortuous in ways that I've pointed out. It needs to be much more indirect in certain ways so as not to overly shock most JWs. It needs to be more honest about the things I've pointed out. Unfortunately the need to be honest and upfront is diametrically opposed to the artificially created JW desire for the opposite, so I don't know how to write an article that could simultaneously placate the JW community and be fully honest about the mistakes of the past and present. Perhaps a series of articles introduced over a year or so would do the trick.
My personal preference would be to do as I stated at the outset -- simply reverse the policy and let the chips fall where they may. It might be that JWs are tougher than we think.
I wish you all the luck in the world with this project -- you're going to need it.
AF