Here's an update to what has happened since I used the words, "Big News," five years ago

by AndersonsInfo 53 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  willyloman

  I thought it was big news, too, but am not surprised at those who don't. There is no conventional mindset among ex-dubs; they are all over the map intellectually and emotionally, just as when we were in. Many former dubs didn't recognize what their membership in JWs was all about, and still don't.

  My secular work and previous connection to an HLC elder meant I knew more about this issue than most and I believe what Kerry did (and you promoted) was an enormous step on an important journey. Keep up the good work, Barbara!
• 

  minimus

  I agree with Broken Promises.

  Sadly, I believe most JWs feel that taking "blood" is wrong and they do not know much more than what they memorized in 1961 about Witnesses being able to take plenty of other non blood products. I think the AVERAGE JW has no understanding of any real major changes regarding blood.
• 

  rebel8

  Watch Tower has made a few steps in the right direction in light of the fact that blood transfusions are now said publicly to be a conscience matter

  That would much bigger news than Kerry's article!

  Can you elaborate on this, Barbara? This is the first I've heard of it, so it shocked me.

  I went to search their website and they still have lots of anti-blood stuff on it.

  Blood Transfusions--How Safe? - Jehovah's Witnesses Official Web Site

  Blood--Vital For Life - Jehovah's Witnesses Official Web Site etc.

  The jws in my life are not saying it's a conscience matter. I am still a demonized vampire in their eyes. (Not that I want them to think otherwise. I greatly enjoy their absence.)
• 

  slimboyfat

  I know a haemophiliac JW who has been taking blood components for the condition for decades. Maybe he contacted the Society directly and they told him it was okay.

  The article in the Journal of Church and State made some interesting points. Where it fell down was in trying to undermine the historical basis for the JW blood doctrine. Surely religious groups are allowed to supply whatever reasons they wish for their doctrines that are not liable to scientific much less legal refutation.

  As for the source, even Jerry Bergman managed to get published in the Journal of Church and State.
• 

  wannaexit

  Thanks Barb. Your work is much appreciated
• 

  belbab

  Barbara,

  "BIG NEWS" is in the eyes of the beholder.

  Do not despise the day of small things says Zechariah.

  Could you check your PM messages.

  belbab
• 

  Band on the Run

  Ive read the journal. In fact, I came across an article, written by a female Bethel lawyer (!) about Jehovah's Witnesses and Japan before and during WWII. She wrote this very impersonal article without one reference to an actual witness person. Such a cult.

  The blood doctrine is so attenuated I thought they would ditch it by now. Maybe it is too big in the public's mind. People outside the fold believe it is crazy and malicious. I fear they will hide children needing transfusions from the authorities.

  It is one classy journal. I was researching Establishment Clause law when I stumbled upon it. It is nice to have a scholary presence.
• 

  AdaMakawee

  Thanks for what you do, and thanks for the update.
• 

  Quentin

  1Cor.3:6..............
• 

  MrFreeze

  Has it really gotten anywhere? I've not once heard an elder say something along the lines of "dont' ask don't tell". They are very adamant about having your blood card filled out!