The Blood Isseu: Bethel's Vietnam?

by Room 215 7 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Room 215

  Hi all,
  Hi everyone,
  This is prompted by Bethel's rather cryptic decision not to issue 2002 Blood cards and Dogpatch's release of an exchange of an eye-opening exchange of correspondence, as have been reported here on earlier threads. As is usually the case, there is more to this Blood Card thing than what's being said by Bethel's spinmeisters for public consumption.

  A hidden agenda, I'm not sure what it is, lurks. The Society's dilemma over this issue reminds me of the proverb about the guy who has hold of a rabid dog by the ears... unwilling to continue restraining the canine but fearful that it will bite badly if he's released. In short, a ``hot potato'' no-win conundrum.

  My gut feeling is that the Society would like to distance its self from its all-but indefensible Blood policies, but have concluded that they need to do so almost imperceptibly in small geisha-sized steps lest an avalanche of law suits buries them. it ain't gonna be easy.

  It would seem that one straightforward, pragmatic way out would be to retrench to the pre-1960 policy, one which deplored blood transfusions but treated offenders as spirutally weak rather than wicked, and left it largely a matter of conscience -- no difellowshipping or automatic diassociating.

  In short, let Brooklyn deplore it all they want, but not treat it as an act of wickedness or rebellion, which it clearly is not.

  Even as a loyal JW it bewildered me that a terrified parent or breadwinner could be dealt the same punishment as an immoral or wicked person if and when he or she would succumb to the paralyzing fear of death and all of its terrible effects on a family's stability. After all, how many affected JWs who actually succumb to such pressure and agree to a blood transfusion do so defiantly, to make and ``in-your-face'' statement to the elders?
• 

  gumby

  Thanks for the info. I have been away a few days. What is up with the No BLOOD cards for 2002? Which thread was this discussed in?
• 

  David Gladden

  You don't want to forget about the psychological effect the Org's stance has had on it members. When I was in the Org I was completely repulsed by the idea of putting blood in my body. Even now I am still slightly repulsed - even though I know I would accept a blood transfusion should I need one.

  Even though I never really believed that "the soul is in the blood", there was the persistent drum beat against the use of blood. Sort of a pavlovian conditioning. ( http://www.employees.csbsju.edu/tcreed/pb/pavcon.html).

  It will take time for the members to get over this conditioning.
• 

  Adonai438

  They are fighting a loosing battle-- they are going to look like (even) big(ger) hypocrites to their people if the renig on the blood issue. It wll be the 1975 fiasco all over again only worse because they printed blood ban tremendously. They will most likely fade away on the issue as they do with other old light.

  Just remember to anyone still conteplating the issue:
  

  Here is the Old Law penalty contained in Leviticus 17:14,15:
  “For the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood by the soul in it. Consequently I said to the sons of Israel: ‘You must not eat the blood of any sort of flesh, because the soul of every sort of flesh is its blood. Anyone eating it will be cut off.’ As for any
  soul that eats a body (already) dead or something torn by a wild beast, whether a native or an alien resident, he must in that case wash his garments and bathe in water and be unclean until the evening; and he must be clean.” (New World Translation)
  Yes, the penalty for eating (or in Jehovah’s Witness reasoning, taking a blood transfusion)was being “cut off,” until you had washed your clothes and taken a bath, and then you
  could return!
  Why then believe an organization that would take your eternal life as a penalty for a blood transfusion? God never would.
• 

  Room 215

  David Gladden,
  
  Quite right, david, about conditioning. However, I say rant and rail all you want about blood, deplore its use, whatever; just don't kick out or shun people who take transfusions, either out of dread over losing their lives or who can't consientously buy into te ban, OR TREAT THEM AS THE MORAL EQUIVALENT OF A MURDERER OR THIEF.
• 

  proplog2

  There would be a lot more JW's if it weren't for the Blood thing. It's a big obstacle to sane people becoming members. I would predict that if they did away with the blood ban they would eventually attract more people than they would lose. They would probably lose families of those who died over this issue. But they are a small minority of JW's.
• 

  ozziepost

  An interesting proposition has been put by Room215 which makes me wonder where this would leave tobacco use? Remember how this was dealt with in a similar way to what you are describing as the pre-1960 position on blood.

  Cheers,
  Ozzie

  "It's better to light a candle than to curse the darkness."
  Anonymous
• 

  Room 215

  Oz,

  The point you raise about the Society's anti-smoking policy is an apt one, as it shares many of the elements of their no-blood posture. The one crucial difference is the image-conscious Society's obsession with appearance, as can be seen in their Talmudic rules on dress, hair, etc.

  So while it's silly to argue that the tobacco habit is wicked, Brooklyn is far less likely to relent or moderate its anti-smoking policy, for two reasons: the fact that tobacco harms the body cannot really be contested, and its a highly visible vice and an affectation of ``worldly sophistication'' -- anathama to them.