New "United in Worship" book leaves out chapter on blood! Why?

by Witness 007 19 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Witness 007

  Before Baptism this was the second more doctrinal book that had to be studied.

  1980 United in Worship Chapter 19 "What does the Mosaic law mean to you?

  Chapter 20 "Life and Blood do you treat them as sacred?

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

  2002 Worship the true God. {Exactly the same except now}

  Chapter 19 Continue speaking of God's works!

  Chapter 20 Keep close in mind Jehovah's day!

  These two chapters if you read them were very "right-wing." The blood chapter says you should die rather then take any blood...point blank! The Mosaic law chapter is of no use to christians today at all.....I think they are trying to soft peddle these issues now.
• 

  WTWizard

  This has to be an attempt to delete the past when all blood fractions were banned.

  I don't understand why they continue to have any ban on blood if they are going to allow just about any fractions, and most blood transfusions these days are fractions. I guess it's an attempt to create a problem out of nothing.
• 

  Scully

  Isn't the United In Worship book one of the pre-baptism recommended study books?

  If it is, then I imagine that it's a bait-and-switch tactic. Don't put a lot of emphasis on the blood doctrine until after they're dunked.
• 

  sir82

  Actually the 2002 "Worship the Only True God" book is already obsolete.

  The "2nd study book" is now the "Keep Yourself in God's Love" book, released at the 2008 District Conventions. It has a full chapter on blood, and an appendix subject on blood fractions.

  Note that 2001/2002, when the "Worship the Only True God" book was being written, was when the Society was apparently going to even further soften their blood policy - then did a complete 180 and re-inforced their position (there are a few posts on this forum from about that time, showing a scanned image of a revised "no blood" card whose language implied that storage of one's own blood for later transfusion during a surgical proedure would be acceptable. Those cards were actually sent out to congregations, then recalled, and replaced with "old style" cards).

  Anyway, in the latest "2nd study book", the blood policy is mentioned quite explicitly and prominently.
• 

  truthsetsonefree

  As a teen starting to question things I always wondered why books kept getting replaced. Now its so obvious, this BS doesn't come from any Almighty God. They make it up as they go.

  Isaac
• 

  blondie

  The scans I found on JWD don't seem to work but here is a comparison of the 2 cards. I remember this because the elder who received them showed them to me to ask about the difference. He also told me the PO had him destroy them and jws had to use the old ones for another year. If these don't show up go to the website below here.

  http://www.watchtowerinformationservice.org/bloodcard.htm

  
• 

  truthsetsonefree

  They made a fuss over one friggin word???? Allogeneic seems to be the only difference. Unless I missed something. Of course that would have cleared the bovine blood products. Maybe it was big after all.

  Isaac
• 

  watson

  Blondie, does this mean that we can start storing our own blood for emergencies?
• 

  truthsetsonefree

  I guess it would also have allowed autologous, where you store your own blood for future use.

  Isaac

  P.S. Sorry for multiple posts. Here's to the 'edit' function coming soon!
• 

  sir82

  They made a fuss over one friggin word???? Allogeneic seems to be the only difference.

  It's a huge difference.

  "Allogeneic" means "from a non-matching genetic source", i.e., from another person. I.e., if on the updated card they specified that allogeneic blood transfusions were prohibited, as opposed to the past when all blood transfusions were prohibited, the clear implication was that autologous transfusions (using stored whole blood from the patient himself) would be allowed - a huge, enormous, stunning reversal of a decades-old policy.

  Blondie, does this mean that we can start storing our own blood for emergencies?

  I'm not Blondie, but...

  That's exactly what it would have meant - IF the card had actually been released to JWs. As it turns out, apparently someone on the GB had a last-minute change of heart, and the card with the word "allogeneic" was never released (or at least, it was released but then almost immediately recalled).

  My best guess is that the change to allow autologous blood transfusions squeaked thru by a bare 2/3 majority, but that just one person shortly thereafter rescinded his vote and the blood policy remained unchanged.

  It is interesting to note that if that is really the case, then that means that as recently as 7 years ago, the majority (though not the required 2/3 majority) were in favor of significantly softening the blood policy. I have no idea how the "new blood" (no pun intended) elected to the GB since then feels aboiut it - although the prominence given to blood in the new "Keep Yourselves in God's Love" book seems to indicate that the newer guys support the policy as is.

  Since the time of the above scans (2001), the AMD has been replaced by the Durable Power of Attorney card, and there is no provision on the card for allogeneic (or any other kind) of transfusion.