Revised "United in Worship" book leaves out chapter on blood???

Witness 007

This blue book United in Worship, was studied before baptism. In 2002 we got the updated version...was it any different? No. Only two small changes.

1980 - United in Worship-

Chapter 19- What does the Mosaic Law mean to you?

Chapter 20- Life and Blood do we treat them as sacred?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2002- Worship the true God

Chapter 19- Continue to speak of God's Works

Chapter 20- Keep close in mind Jehovah's Day.

Why the change? If you read these two chapters they are very right-wing. The one on the Mosaic Law tells us none of the laws are binding on christians...but you should follow them anyway on principle. E.g Tattoo's, are not banned for christians but were for Jews, so you as a christian can't get one.

The chapter on blood basically says you should die rather then take blood...then you will have everlasting life. This embarrassing doctrine will not be covered in detail with baptizm candidates from now on.

Gill

Could they be shying away from the 'No Blood Doctrine'.

I thought that it could go either way. They will no longer ban blood or even mention blood transfusions being wrong. The HLC's will be dismantled and they will conveniently forget to print anymore 'NO BLOOD' cards. Blood transfusion bans could well be the undoing ot the WTBTS if they stick with it.

Another way it could go is that they clamp down on the 'Blood Doctrine' and allow no blood or blood products at all.

I expect the first scenario will be the 'cheapest' legally and probably the one they will choose to follow.

Interesting news Witness 007!

Witness 007

In 2007 thier trying to make the blood law as flexable as possible... without breaking iit. If they got rid of the blood law all hell would break loose.

aSphereisnotaCircle

I think they are just going to stop talking about the blood issue.

The people who were taught to abstain from blood will eventually die off.

The next generation won't know anything about it and even deny it ever happened.

Just like 1975.

If they actually print something about the blood ban no longer being in effect, they will open themselves up to countless lawsuits.

If they just shut up about it, time will take care of it for them.

sir82

2001 / 2002 was when they appeared to be significantly softening their stance on blood. Recall that was the year of the recall of the revised "no blood card" -- recalled apparently because it seemed to imply that non-alleogenic transfusions would be allowed. The standard "no transfusions at all" card was sent out in its place at the last minute.

In the "What Does the Bible Really Teach" book (released in 2005), the blood doctrine is back with a vengeance. Complete with the oh-so-inspiring picture of a stalwart grim-faced JW in a hospital bed staunchly refusing the already-hung bag o'blood by his head.

So that is a doctrine that is very much covered for new recruits.

However, there still seems to be some sort of behind-the-scenes power struggle over the blood doctrine going on.

aSphereisnotaCircle

Just imagine, 20 or 30 years form now were all going to be here on JWD providing proof to the young and middle aged JW's that don't have a clue that the Society once banned blood.

how many currently in the org know that they once banned innoculations?

I didn't know it, never heard anyone mention it.

choosing life

Interesting change. Do they still use the United In Worship book as the 2nd book for study with a new recruit?

eclipse

I think they are just going to stop talking about the blood issue.
The people who were taught to abstain from blood will eventually die off.
The next generation won't know anything about it and even deny it ever happened.
Just like 1975.
If they actually print something about the blood ban no longer being in effect, they will open themselves up to countless lawsuits.
If they just shut up about it, time will take care of it for them.

I agree with you, ASINAC.

I think that they will just stop talking about it, like they did with the anti-vaccine doctrine and anti-organ transplants stand..

Enough time goes by, and the JW remembers nothing from the past. That was old light anyway!

yknot

I believe once we reach the "magic" number in the WTBS baptism database ( ie baptism 1985 and beyond) the blood issue will be dust! The legal department hates it! By changing the Baptism question to acknowledge membership it virtually eliminates all possible lawsuits( via the YOU joined us of your own free will and could leave anytime you wanted...We didnt make you do it, You made a conscious CHOICE) The main Blood supporters are Gene Smalley (his baby), Dear Bro Ted and all lackey GBs he has recruited recently who while in his presence will jump when told.

Y

Gill

Jehovah's Witnesses in the future will say:

'Yes ! Blood was banned. But that was during the days when screening for AIDS, hepatitis etc didn't take place. When Blood became 'safe' Jehovah no longer needed to protect his faithful servants from those diseases and so he allowed New Light to shine through to the Governing Body, and now we can safely accept blood transfusions!'

Holy Crap! And that's all I've got to say on that subject!

Revised "United in Worship" book leaves out chapter on blood???

Share this