JWoods - You have a PM
New light on blood?
by Mickey mouse 57 Replies latest watchtower medical
-
-
thetrueone
It wont change give it a rest.
For the newly indoctrinated JWS it wouldn't necessarily make a difference but to the long time JWS.
the people that have been in it for 20, 30, 40, 50, years or more it would have a big impact on them.
-
JWoods
Thanks, Dissed - I will have a look.
-
leavingwt
No change in their blood policy will restore life to the thousands of dead.
-
freddo
Some good stuff in your posts guys and gals. Some of which mirrors my views below. Me? After the great Pio Hours reducing to 55 "certainty" I am a little more wary. But ...
What motivates the GB? - consciously or otherwise - as a collective whole. Imagine your body of elders as a board of directors with more talent for climbing the greasy pole and the ability to realise they will die as humans. They probably, as a group believe they are directed by Jehovah. Remember the GB do not believe they will live forever on paradise earth. Unlike we did.
In no particular order the first three are IMO:- 1. Retaining authority, power and position over a steadily increasing "organization"
2. Reflecting Jehovah's will (with a huge investment in old testament values) 3. $$$$$$! (Their control over it as a group)
Then certain individuals will wish to:- Care for the flock/Air their own pet peeves/have their own agenda
So where does keeping the blood ban fit in:
Plusses -
1. Doing Jah's will (according to their mad interpretation)/ keeping them in power and not having people leave
2. They have persuaded themselves that blood is medically bad for people (and this may be true in some elective non emergency situations)
Minuses -
1. Places like Russia and France use it to restrict jw expansion
2. It slows outside growth to a standstill in the West
3. It costs money/time in HLC's; lawsuits etc etc.
So what to do:-
Keep on as they are and slowly release the reins. The obvious one to me is to make the "four major components" acceptable as they have done with haemogoblin. In the West that opens up all the life saving measures of blood and they don't care as much about Africa (Malawi anyone?) do they?
Then later they can withdraw the HLC involvement to advice to tell the brothers they would be wise to follow their physicians' guidance as long as they do not have "whole blood". They can tell elders to back off.
They won't - because they are takers - but they could use old testament passages such as selling blood filled carcasses to the nations to justify giving blood or Saul's men eating along with the blood with little sanction in a non emergency situation to justify having large fractions too.
I would feel my family were much safer if they dropped the 4 main components ban and I hope they do - it's the most I can expect within the next, say five years and it will come with a "dealing with modern medical complexities" is not our focus justification.
-
TD
If I were them, I wouldn't be terribly impressed with anybody's powers of observation.
They began allowing fractions 52 years ago. By the late 60's these fractions (i.e. various plasma proteins) were often administered as transfusions themselves. (i.e. In 500ml units suspended and connected to the patient by IV)
Judging by the number of times the idea that fractions have only just recently been allowed is repeated here, that seems to have escaped the notice of many.
If they wanted to continue down the path of incrementalism, I think there are ways they could do it where few would notice.
-
sir82
They began allowing fractions 52 years ago.
True, but only very specific ones. For decades, JWs would comb through old bound volumes to see if the particular fraction they needed was listed by name in a QFR. If not, perhaps the boldest of them would call the Society to ask about the fraction by name.
The change in 2000 was significant - they allowed any and all fractions, so long as it was not one of the "big 4" fractions they specifically named.
-
JWoods
There was also the question (in my mind, never really resolved) if certain vaccines involved the use of blood. I think they pretty much just dropped any of the logical objections on this.
Note also, (curiously), that there has never been much attention paid to a Kosher-like system in which meat products had to be carefully drained of blood like in a strict Jewish sense. The case could easily be made that this was what the NT references more closely resembled, if you reject the temple blood sacrifice ideas. Most (I could say ALL) JWs I knew back in the 60s and 70s thought nothing of eating a steak or hamburger or fried chicken at a restaraunt where they had no idea how it was processed. About the only thing forbidden was "blood sausage" and this I believe was mostly because of the name.
Remember the "Lecithin scare" over a candy bar additive? Many wrote the society and it was put down as nonsense by the service department.
And yet, the blood transfusion ban was kept as one of their high religious fetishes...like "soul", "no hellfire", "literal 144,000", "end dates", and so on. Which again makes it look like a cold-hearted control doctrine to keep the masses in line.
-
Gregor
Associated Press
BROOKLYN, NY - In a brief written statement handed out to reporters this afternoon, Mr. Ted Jaracz, current president of the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, better known to most as the Jehovah's Witnesses, made the following announcement concerning one of the organizations most high profile doctrines.
"Recent developments have been widely reported in the press concerning the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society's position on the issue of blood transfusions. These reports have caused me to take a hard look at our firmly held belief that such use of blood is expressly condemned by the Holy Scriptures. Over the last 60 years this belief as led to the loss of life for many faithful Witnesses and their loved ones. After prayerful considering the legal liabilities the Society is now exposed to, the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses has unanimously decided to repeal this doctrinal edict and hereafter leave the decision of wether or not to use blood in medical procedures to the conscience of the individual member. This in no way should be viewed as a fuck up by the Society. We sincerely apologize to those who might have been inconvienienced by this misunderstanding. We exhort all Jehovah's Witnesses to please, just "never mind" what we said in the past. We never said we were perfect."
Mr. Jaracz office has not returned our calls.
-
MidwichCuckoo
They were edging towards a change when they allowed the option of blood fractions. Practically, this could be whole blood (i.e. all the fractions), but JWs can't see it. As one told me (about this change), 'The Bible hasn't changed, but Science has'... I don't understand that, but to be honest, I don't believe they knew what they were talking about either, which is the norm for the majority of JWs (they just seem to repeat any garbled 'excuse' for changes in doctrine). If whole blood is separated and then administered, a JW will see it as allowable blood fractions (even if it's all the fractions) and not whole blood. I mentioned on a (old) thread, that perhaps the WT will 'get around' the blood issue by allowing a transfusion of whole blood IF something is added (eg. saline) which JWs would easily accept as not being whole blood (as it has an addition)