If the Watchtower believed the Trinity...

[ApologiaPhoenix]

I have often wondered what would happen if this hypothetical situation took place and I'd like to know how some JWs would respond.

Let's suppose that the Watchtower came out with a publication next month that said, "Hey everyone. It turns out we were wrong about the Trinity. It really is a true doctrine."

What would the reaction be?

[Sparko]

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

Nick,

given that the WT focusses on minor doctrine too often, methinks that a bigger change to the WT could be brought about by changing e.g. the blood transfusion issue.

[Sparko]

Nick,

given that the WT focusses on minor doctrine too often, methinks that a bigger change to the WT could be brought about by changing e.g. the blood transfusion issue.

I foresee this as a likely change soon. Their stance against blood transfusions is really hurting their membership as people see lives lost due to this rule. At one time the Watchtower refused to allow vaccinations (1921) but then in 1952 they reversed their decision and allowed them. Currently they have relaxed the blood rules and now say that JW's can receive transfusions of plasma and hemogloben from blood as long as they don't transfuse the platelets. Platelets are only a small percentage of blood so this rule makes no sense.

Amazing how their "New Light" totally contradicts the "old light" and they don't miss a beat.

[Meh_Gerbil]

I'm under the impression that WatchTower theology is based largely on 'annoyance' factor - that is, they'll grasp anything that allows them to distinguish themselves from other groups, especially if it is annoying and capable of catching people off guard.

Thankfully, the long history of their publications provides enough ammunition to prove to all but the most bullheaded that the organization has about the same capability of speaking authoritatively on matters of doctrine as the Catholic Church.

Sorry if that offends, I've no patience for people who sell out to an organization.

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

I find newer JWs are less interested in the history of the movement. (on the whole)

[NonTrinitarian]

I have often wondered what would happen if this hypothetical situation took place and I'd like to know how some JWs would respond.

Let's suppose that the Watchtower came out with a publication next month that said, "Hey everyone. It turns out we were wrong about the Trinity. It really is a true doctrine."

What would the reaction be?

I can only speak for myself. I'd leave. I wasn't raised a JW. I became one only after I saw that what they taught was from the Bible. Well, most of it. Some of it I am not too sure of. I am a JW because what they teach agrees with what I see from the Bible. If they change that, I'll go somewhere else.

[NonTrinitarian]

I foresee this as a likely change soon. Their stance against blood transfusions is really hurting their membership as people see lives lost due to this rule. At one time the Watchtower refused to allow vaccinations (1921) but then in 1952 they reversed their decision and allowed them. Currently they have relaxed the blood rules and now say that JW's can receive transfusions of plasma and hemogloben from blood as long as they don't transfuse the platelets. Platelets are only a small percentage of blood so this rule makes no sense.

Amazing how their "New Light" totally contradicts the "old light" and they don't miss a beat.

Wrong. The medical community is swinging our way, not vice versa. 10-15 years from now you'll only be able to get a blood transfussion in life threatening events, even if you're not a JW. People who do bloodless surgery get out of the hospital more quickly and for a lot less than people who get transfussions for surgeries.

And JW's can't take plasma. Where are you getting your crazy ideas from?

[NonTrinitarian]

I find newer JWs are less interested in the history of the movement. (on the whole)

I would say you are correct. I'm a JW, not because they thought maybe the end would come in 1975, 1914, etc. I'm a JW because of their solid biblical teachings on God, death, ransom, war, etc. So if people who are now dead thought Abraham was going to return in 1925, what is that to me? Doesn't change the fact that Jesus is God's Son or that the soul is not immortal.

Being wrong in one area doesn't mean you're wrong in all others.

[Sparko]

Wrong. The medical community is swinging our way, not vice versa. 10-15 years from now you'll only be able to get a blood transfussion in life threatening events, even if you're not a JW. People who do bloodless surgery get out of the hospital more quickly and for a lot less than people who get transfussions for surgeries.

And JW's can't take plasma. Where are you getting your crazy ideas from?

oops you are right. Whole Plasma is out. But they can accept 'fractional' components from blood and plasma like clotting factor, hemoglobin, etc.

"However, Witnesses' religious understanding does not absolutely prohibit the use of components such as albumin, immune globulins, and hemophiliac preparations; each Witness must decide individually if he can accept these. 2" (How Can Blood Save Your Life? p. 27)

And see the watchtower article in June 2000

[NonTrinitarian]

oops you are right. Whole Plasma is out. But they can accept 'fractional' components from blood and plasma like clotting factor, hemoglobin, etc.

"However, Witnesses' religious understanding does not absolutely prohibit the use of components such as albumin, immune globulins, and hemophiliac preparations; each Witness must decide individually if he can accept these. 2" (How Can Blood Save Your Life? p. 27)

And see the watchtower article in June 2000

You're telling me or someone else to see it? I know what it says.

If a doctor says abstain from beer, can you drink the evaporated water from it?

[Anarthrous]

Well there would have to be a new book of the Bible to change their belief.
Jehovah's Wittnesses find it satisfactory that the Bible says:


Acts 15:20,29 (New International Version)

20Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.

29You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.

[Anarthrous]

I have often wondered what would happen if this hypothetical situation took place and I'd like to know how some JWs would respond.

Let's suppose that the Watchtower came out with a publication next month that said, "Hey everyone. It turns out we were wrong about the Trinity. It really is a true doctrine."

What would the reaction be?

It wouldn't happen. Again, there would have to be actual verses in the Bible to support and explain the Trinity.
Faith is explained in Hebrews 11.
The Resurection is explained in 1 Corinthians 15.
And the Trinity is actually explained ...nowhere.

Shouldn't the Apostles have spent more time explaining the Trinity if it is true.

John said in the 20th chapter of his Gospel(NIV):

31But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

Notice John did not say that you may believe that he is the God.

But I know that all those who are hypocrites and who do not know the scriptures will ofcourse not listen to this, that is why this has most likely been an absolute waste, because mankind is not humble, like Jesus was.

In discussing the Trinity with its proponents, their argument will always be forced down to where they have to say: "You have to have faith" or they just get angry again showing who their father really is(John 8:44).

[Sparko]

You're telling me or someone else to see it? I know what it says.

If a doctor says abstain from beer, can you drink the evaporated water from it?

No its more like saying you can't drink beer, so someone finds a way to separate the beer into component parts: water, alcohol, flavoids, etc and says OK you can use the fractional components. Go ahead and drink the alcohol, we'll fractionalize more.


Basically, and you can bookmark this post if you want, the Watchtower will gradually relax their rules until they get 'new light' that tells them that getting a blood transfusion is not actually eating blood since it doesn't pass through the digestive system, or something like that.

IF they do that.... IF... What will you do? will you go along with them, or will your eyes open to the fact that they are not Jehovah's faithful and discreet slave and his mouthpiece but a bunch of legalistic cult leaders?

[Sparko]

Well there would have to be a new book of the Bible to change their belief.
Jehovah's Wittnesses find it satisfactory that the Bible says:


Acts 15:20,29 (New International Version)

20Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.

29You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.

It is talking about EATING blood. You know, as a meal? A transfusion is not eating blood. If you EAT blood it just gets digested. A transfusion means the blood is used directly AS blood and it is used to save lives, not as a meal.