by Marvin Shilmer 5 Replies latest jw friends
Blood — What Happened at Watchtower in 1945?
Today I added a new article onto my blog addressing an aspect of Watchtower’s doctrinal presentation on blood that is more often than not overlooked for its significance, which is tremendous.
You can read the details in the article Blood — What Happened at Watchtower in 1945? available at: http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com/2011/02/blood-what-happened-at-watchtower-in.html
Marvin Shilmer
Interesting, Marvin.
I'm of the mind that the driving force behind WT's stance was fear of the possibility of Whites being administered the blood of Blacks.
That fear was very pervasive during the time that blood banks were being created.
http://www.blackinventor.com/pages/charles-drew.html
Still is in some places.
Syl
In 1961, when it became officially a disfellowshipping offense to take a blood transfusion, what happened to the membership? Did it remain stable, or increase or what? I remember as a 15 yr old I was deeply disturbed about it,,but was eventually stuck under the mind control of it, obedient to parents and all.
Gayle,
You write:
“In 1961, when it became officially a disfellowshipping offense to take a blood transfusion, what happened to the membership? Did it remain stable, or increase or what?”
There is a statistical blip that is probably a direct corollary to Watchtower’s doctrinal shift to disfellowship over blood.
-- The years leading up to this doctrinal shift show a average of 1,553 hours of “field service” expended for each new person baptized.
-- After this doctrinal shift this number increased immediately by more than 60% and remained at that level until the 1975 scare began, at which time the figure went nearly back to its pre-1961 level.
-- Just to complete the statistical summary, after the 1975 scare ended with a poof the same statistic immediately jumped back up almost 60% and has not stopped climbing since.
Marvin Shilmer
I had a relative that died in the 50s, and at least part of it, if not all of it, was due to refusal of blood based on WT doctrine.
I don't know for sure but I get the impression that there was a time when disfellowshipping wasn't the fear tactic it was today. People really believed that this was God's law. There wasn't this discussion about whether one would get disfellowshipped but whether or not one would be eternally condemned by God.
Today, medical technology could have possibly prevented the death (it was during childbirth) without blood. But back then, less was known about stopping bleeding and C-section alternatives, etc.
Now the ironic thing, is that had this death been prevented by my relative not refusing blood, I may not have even been born - because that would have set off a very different butterfly effect set of events.
I think back then, people trusted that their decisions, if in line with watchtower, were also in line with god. But also, as seen by some responses to the watchtower in 1945, others seemed to rely on their own understanding of the bible - even if it wasn't in line with the watchtower. Perhaps so many were in disagreement with this that in 1961 they had to "clamp down" as it were and enforce people's conscience with fear tactic of disfellowshipping.
After all, you had people literally dying for this, how did the surviving family members feel about someone that ignored the WT policy and lived? I wonder if that had some influence. One thing for sure, Watchtower really likes it when people die for their doctrine. It really is the ultimate endorsement to them.
Hi Marvin,
Thank you for your continously great work of research. Please go on.
Best Regards
Hoffnung
