Home | About | Bible | Experiences | History | Letters | Links | Misc |Members News | Physicians | Reform | Science | Watchtower | WT Victims Memorial

5/7/00

As probably everyone knows by now, the June 15, 2000 issue of The Watchtower on pages 29-31 contains the Society’s most recent answer to the question “Do Jehovah’s Witnesses accept any medical products derived from blood?”

The article starts off on a positive note, saying that the concern of a Christian “...should be what the Bible says,” but unfortunately from that point digresses into the usual smoke and mirrors, blind assertions, subtle language manipulations, disregard for the context and grammar of the Bible, and technical inaccuracies ranging from the mildly to the blatantly incorrect.

The hijinks start with the Apostolic Decree where the usual “quick-change” technique is employed to divorce the reference to blood from its context and substitute a new one. Here is how it works. The word “Keep” in the phrase, “Keep abstaining” with its clear connotation of the continuation of existing abstentions is discarded and the relevant part of the Decree is then reworded into the simple and direct, stand-alone command, “Abstain from blood.”

“Later, at a meeting in Jerusalem, the apostles and older men decreed that we must ‘abstain from blood.’ (page 29)

One of the problems with this statement is that while we may casually think in terms of abstaining for various reasons from “things” such as alcohol, or certain medications, or even “blood,” in actual practice we can’t really abstain from “things” themselves, we abstain from specific acts done in connection with these things. When the context is clearly understood, we usually don’t have to think twice about this. Using words like “abstain,” “refrain” etc. without the qualifying verb or verb phrase necessary to complete the thought is a common, conversational way to get the point across. For example, all of the following are accepted English uses of the word:

“At our last Memorial, my Bible study was told to abstain from the emblems.”
“She was told that pregnant women should abstain from alcohol.”

“Although the debate became heated, both parties decided to abstain from harsh words.”

In all three examples, the predicate is incomplete. The word “abstain” negates some action, but that action is not stated. Despite this, the average reader would easily deduce the intent of the writer based on the context. The reader would understand that the “newly interested one” did not eat the bread or drink the wine. (Or at least was told not to.) The reader would understand that pregnant women should not drink alcoholic beverages and that the two parties did speak harsh words to each other. The negated actions, though unspoken is understood from the context and supplied by the reader and we thus have workable sentences. However the situation changes when the “Abstain” phrase is separated from its context. What for example would it mean to “Abstain from harsh words?” Would it mean....

a. Don’t speak them
b. Don’t write them
c. Don’t read them
d. Don’t compose them
e. Don’t think them
f. Some of the above
g. All of the above
 

Without a context, there is no way to know. Similarly the phrase “Abstain from alcohol” is meaningless by itself. Without contextual qualification, this phrase could mean anything from “Abstain from drinking beverages containing it” to “Abstain from using it as a topical antiseptic” to “Abstain from using it around an open flame.”

There’s actually a grammatical reason for this. The word “Abstain” in the phrase “Abstain from alcohol” is intransitive and can neither take a direct object of transfer action from subject to object. It makes an assertion regarding the subject, but this is only indefinitely tied to the object. Additional verbs or verb phrases are required to make the transition and complete the thought. We have an identical situation with the phrase “Abstain from blood.” Although we can certainly “abstain” from specific acts done in connection with blood, the idea that we could abstain from an integral part of our body is nonsensical. In Greek the problem is essentially the same. Verb infinitives like apechesthai in the phrase apechesthai.....kai hematos are hybrids having attributes of both noun and verb and can’t usually take objects or express complete thoughts.

Misplacing the words “eating” and “drinking” which are implicit in the context and required to make the transition and complete the thought is only the first part of the “quick-change act;” a temporary excursion outside of the boundaries of context and grammar. The second part, the actual “change” involves the insertion into the Decree of words and phrases sufficiently generic to include transfusion as well. Common examples of these include “Taking,” “Taking in,” “Taking blood into one’s system,” and “Sustaining life by taking in blood.” This is done in the very next paragraph:

“Christians did not consume blood, whether fresh or coagulated; nor did they eat meat from an unbled animal. Also ruled out would be foods to which blood was added, such as blood sausage. Taking in blood in any of those ways would violate God’s law.” (page 29 emphasis mine)

The only thing really out of place here is that the generic term “Taking in” is used where the more specific term “Eating” is far more appropriate to the context. The term "Taking in" is so generic that it could be used to describe acts as dissimilar as drinking a glass of water and drowning in the ocean, which is of course the whole reason why the Society uses it when it comes to the reference to blood in the Decree. Its inevitable that in any treatment of the blood issue, somewhere along the way, one or more of these generic terms must be inserted. Otherwise the “Abstain” argument does not work.

However after separating the phrase “Abstain from blood” from its context by invoking it as a simple and direct stand-alone command, no one can then turn around and insert words and phrases composed to suit their own agenda can they? Conversely, if it is known from the beginning that the phrase cannot stand on its own because at some point the act of “abstaining” must be defined, what business would anybody have in first pretending that it can? Both would be inconsistent, contradictory, and depending on a person’s skill with language perhaps even hypocritical as well. However considerations like these matter little in the Watchtower world where it is perfectly OK to alter the context of the statement to fit the situation at hand rather than prove that the situation at hand fits the context of the statement. Apparently, if this involves grammatical antics, than so be it.

What puzzles me most about this is that Greg Stafford handed the WTB&TS on a silver platter, a much more honest approach to applying the Decree in a medical setting that does not involve temporarily stepping outside of the rules of context and grammar and they didn’t use it. Apparently the WTB&TS prefers the time tested obfuscatory approach.

Having established in just a handful of paragraphs that:

a. The Decree was not simply specific counsel given to a specific audience in regard to a specific problem at a specific time in the early history of Christianity that must today be evaluated and applied in the context in which it was given.

b. That the reference to “abstaining…..from blood” in the Decree is really a command for Christians today to avoid taking in blood.

.....The article next proceeds to define “Blood.”

Because blood is a liquid tissue, it can easily be separated into individual components. Blood banks for example, market separated blood components in four primary categories, Red cells, White cells, Plasma, and Platelets, which are sold principally to hospitals and pharmaceutical companies. This is a system based on the methods and procedures of blood banks as well as the needs of the health care industry, both of which have evolved together. It is certainly not the only way that blood components could be categorized. It would be easier for example, to separate blood into only two components, solid and liquid, but this is not a viable way to market blood.

For that matter, blood components could just as easily be categorized as “immunological” and “non-immunological” or as “nucleated” and “non-nucleated” or as “living” and “non-living,” the last of which would make infinitely more sense from a Witness viewpoint. The point is that categories exist for the convenience of the person or group making them and as long as a workable, unambiguous set of rules is drawn up and adhered to, there is not necessarily any “right” or “wrong” way to categorize the individual components of blood.

The problem for the Witnesses is that if they are going to accept some blood components and not others, they need a consistent rule or set of rules for categorizing blood into “acceptable” and “unacceptable” components. For example, they could allow only the liquid part of blood and prohibit the formed elements, or they could allow only the non-living parts of blood, and prohibit the living cells themselves, which amounts to the same thing. These while not necessarily having any theological basis, at least make sense inasmuch blood components are being categorized by a single, easily stated rule.

What the Witnesses have done instead is name as “unacceptable” the primary categories used by blood banks to package and market blood, which make perfect sense as far as the business of buying and selling blood products for the healthcare industry is concerned, but have little rhyme or reason outside of that context.

“Jehovah’s Witnesses hold that accepting whole blood or any of those four primary components violates God’s law.” (page 29)

The result is that the Witnesses have a system of categorization, but no rule, theological, scientific or otherwise to define it. The makes for a number of embarrassing anomalies. Plasma, which is a very slightly gelatinous suspension of proteins and chemicals, is classed as an unacceptable component right alongside with red blood cells, but what, besides the fact that they both are found in blood do these two components have in common? What is the rule that places both of them in the unacceptable category? Why should plasma be forbidden at all if all its constituents are allowed individually? Why should albumin, a plasma protein which comprises ten times more of the blood by volume than platelets be allowed if platelets are forbidden? What is the rule that makes albumin acceptable and platelets unacceptable?

These problems have been pointed out to the WTB&TS time and time again, but like your poor old senile Uncle, who after driving the wrong way up a one way street and parking on the median, swears up and down that, “I wasn’t confused, I meant to do that,” the current leadership have created an “acceptable” and “unacceptable” list that defies explanation, but by golly, they meant to do that.

The treatment of the blood issue deteriorates even further beyond this point. The protective power of the organization’s blood policy in preventing the transmission of the HIV virus is once again extolled, while the fact that the majority of blood related AIDS cases were caused by a component allowed at least since 1978 (factor VIII) is ignored.

On page 30, the WTB&TS once again promotes the fallacy that “Some [Jehovah’s Witnesses] would refuse anything derived from blood” when this is virtually impossible to do in modern society, especially since the average Witness has no idea which preparations contain blood fractions and which do not. Albumin for example is present in many pharmaceuticals either as part of an adjuvant solution or as an excipient. It is found in both the Measles Mumps Rubella and the new enhanced potency Poliomyelitis vaccines which children must have if they are going to attend public school. Perhaps if the WTB&TS could produce a Witness who would actually prefer a horrible slow death of pain and dementia over the post-exposure Rabies vaccine, this line would be slightly more believable, but as it is, it is simply an attempt to claim that Witnesses have autonomy on an issue which they neither understand or can explain.

Also on page 30, the Society once again tries to claim that the instructions given to Israelite hunters (Deuteronomy 12:22-24) (also 12:15,16 and Leviticus 17:13,14) regarding the butchering of a wild animal for food somehow relate to the proper “use” and “handling” of blood. This is done by claiming that the requirement was that “blood removed from a creature be poured out on the ground” which implies an extra step involving the handling of the blood. The actual requirement was that blood must be removed from the creature by being poured out upon the ground. As an occasional hunter, I know that this doesn’t involve the “use” or “handling” of blood at all and from the illustration on page 326 of the Life Everlasting book it is apparent that the Society understands this as well. You don’t solemnly drain the blood into an urn and then spread it on the ground like the ashes of a dead relative, you get the heck out of the way and stand back from the carcass as the blood drains.

On page 31 the Society once again refers to the June 1, 1990 issue of The Watchtower which presented the maternal/fetal relationship as a rationale for why “Some Jehovah’s Witnesses” would accept blood “fractions.” This rationale has been discredited since the advent of polymerase chain reaction testing methods (Which meant it was incorrect even at the time it was presented) that have shown that all blood components will cross the placental barrier and that a woman can in fact still have fetal cells circulating in her body more than thirty years after her last pregnancy.

What is even more amazing is that they would refer to the maternal/fetal relationship on the very next page after introducing a slightly modified policy on fractions. As explained on page thirty, any "fraction" derived from the “primary components” is now a conscience matter. Some of these, such as hemoglobin which is used in a few of the blood substitutes currently in clinical development, are not a normal part of circulating blood and therefore would not cross the placental barrier anymore than the respective “primary component” does, which according to the WTB&TS is not at all. The article does point out that bilirubin, a waste product produced by the breakdown and salvaging of the hemoglobin in worn out or damaged red cells does pass through the syncytial membrane to the maternal side, where it winds up in the digestive system as the chief component of bile and is excreted. What this has to do with the issue, I’m not sure, as bilirubin is not considered to be a blood component.

The article concludes by claiming the blood issue is really quite simple, and (predictably) attributing the whole mess to Jehovah God. All in all, it was an interesting article, but nothing that could be described as a fundamentally new, or more honest approach to the issue.
 

Tom

Once upon a time many years ago, I signed a release form in the emergency room of a hospital authorizing them to "abstain from blood" (as is written in the book of Acts, New Testament of the Holy Bible), should I require surgery or medical treatment. As I laid in the operating room staring at the form above my head, hearing the nurse explain the form, ask me why I was refusing blood, listen to my quote from Acts word for word, and finally hear her say "sign here," as she handed me a pen, I signed without hesitation because I believed in my heart this was a worthy sacrifice to Jehovah. I passed into a coma the moment after signing the form.

Sometimes I wonder if I'm still in that coma, and this is all a bad dream, because of the changes I have had to endure since my baptism -- going from eating, sleeping and breathing the Watchtower to slowing discovering it cannot possibly be God's only "sole channel of communication on earth today." In the middle of some dark nights I get this horrible feeling the true God has let me go on living in a dream as if to test my sincerity, in essence, for offering my life as a sacrifice. Have I regrets? If I'm in a coma, dreaming, then did I needlessly die and accomplish the exact opposite of what I intended to accomplish as a Christian, and that is to appreciate the sanctity of life and treat my own life as precious? Did I needlessly die and deprive my family of the years God intended us to spend together, because I accepted another human misunderstanding, albeit sincere, on the Bible?

The next day, the dark night is behind me and it seems so ridiculous. However, I still have struggled over the years to decide if I made the right decision on that day. I really asked Jehovah to help resolve this issue deep down in my conscience, and in 1998, I arrived at a conclusion.

First, I want to thank the Liberal Elder for stimulating my mind and heart to start searching for the answer. Although my conclusion is based on a different aspect of the blood issue than the Liberal Elder, I hope that he will consider chronicling my point of view on his blood site.

Until recently, up until sometime in 1998 (roughly two years after starting H2O on 8/11/96), I believed this that I did the right thing in signing that release form and thus giving my life as a sacrificial offering to God (should I need blood in surgery and die from refusing it). I believed that if I had it to do all over again, I would do it all over again, and sign that form.

One day, the truth became clear.

Blood is symbolic of life. Blood was used by Jehovah's people in sacrifice because it was precious to Him. It was not the literal biological fluid that flowed through the veins of life forms on earth up to humans that God made "in his image and likeness." The fluid that flows through the veins of all living things represents life that Jehovah first created when bringing his son Jesus Christ into existence.

The ancient Israelites were primitive or less mature human beings who needed specific guidance, from medical directives such as hand-washing to being taught appreciation for life itself. Offering a lamb and the splattering of blood in sacrifices to Jehovah, and the splattering of blood on doorways such as occurred in Egypt when Jehovah delivered one of his judgments and before Moses delivered the Israelites, all was meant to symbolize the sanctity of life.

Jesus came to do away with the law. It is clear that in the book of Acts, blood is mentioned in the very same breath as sacrifices to idols and fornication. Sacrificing animals and their blood to idols was like symbolically sending a message to God loud and clear that one disrespects life and the Lifegiver himself. Committing fornication as part of the idolatrous rituals spoken about in Acts was also showing disregard for life by idolizing the procreative act.

I was thinking about how things sacrificed to idols and fornication were a result of the gross misuse of God's gift of life, as represented by the sacrifices to idols, and fornication, that represented the procreative forces causes life to continue existing. Then I was thinking about how things sacrificed to idols and fornication, both negative, compared to the negative use of blood.

In other words, I realized that the negative use of blood in the same vein as things sacrificed to idols and fornication was being spoken about.

Backing up a little, I couldn't help but question the forbidding of whole blood transfusions after medical science started to consider transfusions as organ transplants. Even the Watchtower Society flip-flopped on the issue of transplants; until 1980 an organ transplant was a disfellowshiping offense. Then in 1980, a brief Questions from Readers in the Watchtower reasoned that organ transplants were "a conscience matter." (It also deeply bothered me that the issue was dismissed so easily as "a conscience matter," after many in the 1970's had died from the refusal of organ transplants, but that is another topic.)

The fact that a blood transfusion is not "eating" of blood for nourishment as mistakenly believed by the Watchtower for many years, but was considered an "organ transplant" no different than a liver or kidney transplant, was a minor but important part of my realization on the proper use of blood.

The major part of this realization on the proper use of blood, came from the simple connection of what blood represents -- life -- and what it means to "represent" or "symbolize" something.

Many things in our lives symbolize important virtues and values. A wedding ring represents our undying lifelong love for our spouse. Yet, a ring is a material possession. Used as a wedding ring, it only symbolizes something precious, the love between a husband and wife. I started to think, blood symbolizes life! Blood is a biological fluid made of chemicals. It's worthless except when in our living bodies delivering oxygen and nutrients to our tissues to maintain our precious life.

Blood is worthless except when in our living bodies delivering oxygen and nutrients to our tissues to keep us alive, so we can love, be in the presence, and have a close relationship with a God who has been alive forever without a beginning.

I realized that wasting blood when it is the only option for preserving a life, is showing complete lack of appreciation for the sanctity of life. Knowing that blood supplies can be tainted, and that bloodless forms of medical treatment can prevent unwanted transmission of diseases, means we should try our very best to avoid the use of whole blood transfusions. If a transfusion is the only option, I have realized that our well-intentioned refusal is really showing lack of appreciation for what blood really symbolizes.

Blood symbolizes life, just as a wedding ring symbolizes the union of a husband and wife. What is more important, the ring or what it represents? How can one claim to hold life as sacred, if what it represents can save a life but is held too sacred to use? Is it as if, we are unintentionally saying that blood itself, this biological fluid, is so sacred that transplanting it into the body of a dying person is somehow sacriligious?

Suppose that the scriptures said to abstain from things sacrificed to idols, from fornication, and from water?

Suppose that instead of blood, water was widely used because it symbolizes life (because all life on earth depends on oceans of water, and our body is mostly comprised of water)?

Is it far-fetched to believe under those circumstances, that the Watchtower Society would have prohibited "true Christians" from drinking water? Imagine that for years the Watchtower issues rationalize away objections that food contains water (because if one ate lots of fruits in their diet they would get enough water to survive, although JWs were known to suffer severe dehydration). They eventually allowed "true Christians" the latitude to drink juices, milk, any fluid except water to overcome the medical objection relating to dehydration.

As a JW, I one day realize that Jehovah used water as a major component of life, that a large percentage of our planet is comprised of water, and that refusing to drink water is showing disregard for the sanctity of life. Yet, if I substitute "water" for "blood" in the book of Acts, it's clear that the purpose of this prohibition relates to tainted water. That is why water, things sacrificed to idols and fornication were together. Never did other scriptures say "abstain from water" alone. Yet other scriptures warn to abstain from fornication alone. There are also prohibitions about abstaining from idolatry. But never a prohibition about abstaining from water alone. (Or to leave the analogy, never a prohibition to abstain from blood alone.)

Part of the scripture in Acts says to abstain from things sacrificed to idols, but other scriptures make the eating of food sacrificed to idols as a matter of personal choice, of personal conscience. Obviously it seems the scriptures in Acts warn specifically about abstaining from blood, things sacrificed to idols, and fornication in the specific context of participating in idolatrous rituals. Also, we are warned in other scriptures, separately, to not engage in fornication and idolatry. However, blood is always accompanied by other practices and not prohibited separately.

Interestingly, I've found the Watchtower Society dismisses literal interpretations of many scriptures that seem to require unreasonable or outrageous codes of conduct, based on arguments that a God of love would not expect "unreasonable" sacrifices. For many years, I felt that this balanced approach prevented the Watchtower from going the route of cults that require oppressive practices. References to grooming and clothing in the scriptures seem to be considered "symbolic" by the Watchtower Society. They might be on the right track for the wrong reasons (and rather, the personal biases of the very human but otherwise inspired apostles passed the ultra conservative church during the canonization process). I still find it interesting they have suddenly taking the command to abstain from blood (along with abstaining from fornication in idolatrous rituals) in Acts, and isolated blood itself.

The result has been making the literal fluid and human organ, blood, more sacred than the life force that God created it to sustain.

This is my stand on the issue of blood, based on many years of painful introspection and heartfelt consideration. The Watchtower Society does not have the right to consider me unfit for association because I came to this conclusion. I believe it is the right conclusion, and that the proper use of blood when there is no other alternative, glorifies Jehovah's sanctity of life.

Rick

Hi,

I've been one of JW for 8 yrs now. My husband and two children are as well. My story is about my mother who died in 1994, because she refuse to have a blood transfusion. She went into the hospital for an open heart surgery with her blood count already at 8.6. But she really needed an emergency open heart surgery in order to repair severely clogged arteries. If she had accepted the transfusion she would have made it through the surgery successfully. But instead she remain faithful to the jw and refused to have one. After viewing this site on reform on blood, I have became very distraught. I'm very sad now at the fact my mother had to die that way. I'm considering very seriously about examining my stand on blood as well as for my children, because without any consideration on this matter, any JW would refuse blood and die in a second. Thanks so much for this site, hopefully many other witnesses would view it and reconsider their stand before they lose their life or the life of their love one.

Diane

A few years back I had a baby. My child was born a few weeks early. As part of her treatment they wanted to give her blood. I refused, the doctor threatened a court order. I called the HLC members for my town and they came to the hospital. At that time I had never heard of "acceptable components". They told the doctor that it would be alright for the child to receive albumin. When they came up and told me that I was angry. I said that is still blood how can we say blood is forbidden and still accept some of it. They gave me the little spiel about albumin passing naturally from mother to child etc. I still didn't buy it to me it was still blood.So then the doctor calls my room and says he gave my child some albumin. I was furious that they had told the doctor behind my back that albumin would be okay. I told them I wanted them to see about transferring my child to another hospital where the doctor would be more willing to work with me on the blood issue. They refused saying that albumin is an acceptable blood component but if the doctor tried to force plasma give them a call and they'd come back and see what they could do. So right there shows that individual conscience has no bearing, it is only what the society tells us is okay or not okay. Fortunately my baby came home a few days later with no more complications. But this shows how brainwashed I was I had all these questions about the society's stand on blood but just pushed it out of my mind until just recently. Thank God I've seen the truth about the society and have opened my eyes.

 

If you dont' mind, I thought I would just set out my background

(hope it's not too boring) so that everyone knows where I am coming

from :

I live in Pretoria, South Africa. I am 36 years old. I was raised

from my teenage years as a Witness, baptized in 1975 (at the tender

age of 13 - but I wanted to!).

I enjoyed my teenage years tremendously. I played just about every

sport I could and had honest, down-to-earth parents who weren't

fireballs in the truth but were faithful and loving (my father

is now an elder as are my two brothers).

After my matric (final year) I faced the choice of going to

university or facing the military issue (South Africa was at war then

and we had conscription). So I chose to face the issue and went to

military prison for three years. It was tough but a very rewarding

experience in many ways. I would probably make the same decision

again.

During my years of detention I did a lot of research. I was

fascinated by Chronology and saw that the society's interpretation

of Jerusalem's destruction was different to everyone elses - I always

promised myself that I'd research it more so that I could explain it

clearly.

When I came home I got a job as a programmer, met a beautiful girl,

got married at the age of 24, started pioneering with my wife (for

31/2 years) and was appointed an elder at age 26. I served in many

assignments, being used widely at Circuit and District Conventions

as a speaker.

My current congregation is a warm, happy congregation of about 130

publishers. My wife's family are very entrenched in "the truth". Her

father is our PO, her brothers all elders, everyone in her family

have served in full-time service. Her eldest brother was a Bethel

elder with many responsibilities until his wife became pregnant.

I was Theocratic Ministry School overseer and enjoyed the assignment.

I love the young people and enjoyed their friendship and respect.

In all my years as an elder I did come across incidents of malice and

backbiting, but they were certainly the exception. I see Jehovah's

Witnesses as beautiful, clean people - I am also very aware of the

human failings within the organization.

I was used on most committee cases and tried to judge with mercy and

insight. In all the years, I only sat on one case where we

disfellowshipped someone.

About 4 motnhs ago I started researching the Chronology issue again.

I was quite excited at the prospect of tackling an academic exercise

like this and being able to prove the Society's views right. But the

deeper I looked, the more it became clear to me that there was not

really much support for the Society's views.

I ordered Ray Franz's books and devoured them. I was left feeling

hurt and confused. I tried to isolate the main issues that bothered

me and not react to an overall sentiment. They were mainly 2 :

(1) The chronology issue

(2) The blood issue

There are some other things, but I can live with these.

So I decided to step down. In many ways, I regret that decision, but

I feel I had gone too far down the path to do the assignment justice.

My wife and her family feel that I a bordering on becoming an

apostate. I promised in my heart before God that I would never stoop

to name-calling and reviling the Society.

Speaking to others via email has helped me slowly find myself again.

I am still attending meetings - I love the brothers and most of

what I hear there. I love my family and want them to be happy (I

have two young boys).

Anyway that's me. Hope you didn't find it too boring.

I will happily discuss issues with others, but please don't expect

me to be bitter about being a Witness - I chose that path and am

happy to accept responsibility for my decisions.

Cheers

Sincere

---

Dear LE,

As you know, I lent my name and appeared on TV to make sure the Bulgarian story had credibility. It was a difficult decision, and and there were definate and final ramifications when I did the CBC Interview. In my conscience and for my personal integrity, it was the right thing for me to do, and it gave the story what it needed, someone who was inside the organization who although studied hard and was very involved in it, had come to realize that this is a very pressing and important issue, and that lives, including my own, were at stake. To that point I was so sincere about my stand regarding blood, that just a few months before, I had surgery, and I wrote on the release form, "No Blood or Blood Products" and I found in June that I wrote that in total ignorance of the facts, although I studied the blood brochure, I studied the KM insert, actually I carried it with me everywhere for years, and I studied every article on it since 1989, and a few before it, but the criteria that was necessary to make the choice truly was missing, and I put my own child at risk because of it for 10 years.

Making myself known freed me from hiding, how could I after that, and it made me bold for knowing just what is what in regards to this organization. It also helped so many others to become aware of Bulgaria, and the blood doctrine problems, and they could call someone, they could identify a face with the name, they could also see that I wasn't some fanatic or anti Watchtower person who could be easily dismissed away with the usual excuses.

It is though, quite clear that you would be penalized immediately, there would be no two ways about that, and your family would also suffer the same.

I have to tell you, the gossip, slander, and vicious attacks can be hard to take, especially from people who have claimed to love you, and said they would even die for you. Sometimes the ones that seem closest to you are the most aggressive in their attacks. It's like they want to punish you because they feel they have the right to judge and execute punishment on you. It would be very stressful, and if you undergo the judicial process, you would be railroaded so fast it would make your head spin. It would be especially hard on young children, you would have to support them and talk to them about everything before you even start the public process. I myself left the organization in October, handing in my DA letter and about 100 pages in a report done in segments to show the research I had done. The alternative would have been to be disfellowshipped for apostasy which would have been a total lie, but it would have been the party line. I chose the path that I could conscientiously live with, and the path that would show that I had problems with the organization. Apparently, a few weeks after I did, there was about a half hour part in the Ministry School meeting about "Why it would be terrible to associate with me". It apparently got pretty specific, and lots was said, but it was made clear that I left, was not disfellowshipped, which is really a mute point in the orgainzation anyways as you know. There has been alot of talk, the slander is sickening, but, some bright spots help to cheer me, such as some of the brothers and sisters keep in touch, secretly of course, but are tremendously helpful. I have met wonderful people such as you, and people here too who have opened my mind, and have taught me so much, and my son and I are that much closer than we were before, it's amazing how much can go well when you don't live a lie anymore. And many in my community have recognized me in so many ways and have undertaken the the task of becoming informed themselves. People ask me questions, call me, shake my hand, etc. That's the upside, and for me, it was and still is an important comfort. What it has done for my own personal spiritual life is amazing. I feel free, I can express myself as I feel impelled by my conscience to do so. I am learning, understanding and being involved in the process so much more. And it has made me feel like a terrible stressful burden, especially the guilt and community responsibility, has been lifted from me. Which I have to clarify as feeling great!

I will do my best to support you either way you choose. Only you know what you are able to allow yourself and your family to endure. Be as honest and clear about your feelings as possible, and make sure your family expresses themselves at everystage of this, especially the kids, before and after you actually go public.

I also informed members of the public, such as my son's school, etc, (you might want to tell the police what your doing to make sure they are aware that there could be potential problems, ex: theatening phone calls, letters, public threats, etc.)just to cover all the bases, especially since your involvement in reform has been a public one even though you've been anonymous.

Well, I've covered all the bases I can think of, except, if you do go public, just remember it would be your choice and your right thing to do. You don't need to feel nervous or set upon because you would be acting on behalf of so many people who don't know what you know yet, you can feel confident and respond absolutely reasonably without fear, guilt, or feeling a lack of credibility. I for one believe your credibility, your sincerity, and your wonderful honest and factual research, which in fact has helped to change my family's life for the better. I wholeheartedly thank you again for that.

Thinking of you and yours,

Inquiry (Clarie)