JW's blood as to Mormon's polygamy

by Moxy 11 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Moxy

  I think in time, the blood transfusion doctrine will fade away very similarly to Mormon's polygamy doctrine. the doctrine met with increasing legal pressure from the state and internal dissent from more liberal members. the tide seems to have turned after the doctrine was about 50 or 60 years old (i am using 1830s as origin date) and from about 1900 on, the LDS church no longer offically sanctioned the belief. of course the practice continued unoffically, and today there are evidently some 30,000 fundamentist mormons who still practice the doctrine, embarassingly for the church.

  following that timeline, we are near the cusp of the blood doctrine passing into its decline. in the coming decades, JWs as individuals will probably continue to refuse blood despite lack of support from the organization. new JWs will no longer be indoctrinated in the belief and the practice of refusing blood will pass into the domain of a few 'fundamentalist JWs' who will be an embarrasment to what will be a more mainstream and friendly religion. their past doctrine on blood will be pulled out repeatedly by JW opponents and the WT will insist that it is all a thing of the past.

  mox
• 

  gilwarrior

  Moxy, I think that you are right! The org is slowly backing away from the blood doctrine. This must be because it is causing embarrassment for them.

  What makes me sick is what about all people who lost relatives and friends because of the blood doctrine. Did they lose their lives in vain? I guess so!

  "I have so much love to give, but no one to give it to."

  William H. Macy - "Magnolia"
• 

  Lee Elder

  The comparison is a pretty good one. Our strategy has basically been to make the WTS appear foolish and unethical before the medical community with the hope that at some point they will get tired of the embarrassment and finally shed this irrational policy for good. A few law suits or aggressive governments would speed things up as would an escalation in the "drying up" of support for the doctrine among the membership but the direction is already clear. I think its just a matter of time before the WTS jetisons the entire millstone. I think that most of us who have prematurely lost loved ones will be glad to see it finally over.

  Lee
• 

  NameWithheld

  Yea, well at least polygamy, while not really acceptable in today's world, isn't killing people. I'm sure it's sometimes an abusive and weird arrangement - but again, it doesn't kill people. A bit of a difference there. But otherwise, I think you've hit upon a pretty good comparison. The blood thing is definitly something that's haunting Crooklyn right now. I wish I could tell my mother 'new light' is coming on it - I'd love to 'predict' something about the JWs and be right - proving myself to be 100% more reliable than the JW predictions
• 

  RunningMan

  I think you are completely correct. The blood doctrine will be abandoned eventually, but individual Witnesses will continue to practice it for many years.

  I know several old JW's who are still anti-vaccination, even though that one was abandoned in 1952.
• 

  alliwannadoislive

  mox, i think the analogy is a good one, but once the borganisation declares against the blood doctrine then i can't see anyone holding on to it

  unless, of course, they are loonies and go off declaring their own splinter-group religion - for such a group to be successful, they would have to do a rutherford and wrench away the legal borganisation and the watchtower mag ...
• 

  Moxy

  but once the borganisation declares against the blood doctrine then i can't see anyone holding on to it

  why not? how many r&f witnesses do you think you could ask about homologous transfusion or any of the 'conscience-matter' blood fractions that would say, 'oh yes. i used to think those were bad, but now they are conscience matters and im ok with it.' laugh. very few can even keep track of whats been opened up to conscience and fewer still have adjusted their view away from a dogged 'abstain from blood means do not have anything to do with blood in any way.' when the whole thing finally goes away and becomes a conscience matter, the average jw will still stick to his guns for years to come. fortunately for the WT, no one will be able to sue them though.

  mox
• 

  alliwannadoislive

  ok mox, but you're not talking about another minor (sic) adjustment - if they say 'blood is okay', then to even think otherwise would be a 'disfellowshipping offence' in the eyes of the faithful r&f - they would blindly follow and, lets face it, they'll be releived that this issue is dead and buried
• 

  Moxy

  hmm, well i suppose im imagining that when this does happen, it wont be a big article with the words 'Blood is OK' in big red letters at the top. it will be a continuation of the gradual steps we're already seeing. change from DFing offence to DAing, changes in the provisions of Medical Directives, subtle changes in wording, different instructions to HLC members, etc. eventually there will be no definite direction from the society on blood, just words to this effect:

  Some Christians have understood the biblical direction to apply to blood transfusions or other medical uses of blood.* [footnote: The Watchtower does not endorse medical, exercise, or dietary treatments but presents well-researched information. Each person must decide what he himself will do.]

  but continuing to talk about 'jehovah's righteaus laws on life and blood' or somesuch without clearly delineating what these are. i dont think the average r&f would even be sure exactly what had changed. sure, some people will be happy to shed this doctrine (altho those people will just as likely leave in disillusionment) but for a lot of people the horrors of blood will be so deeply ingrained that they will hold the course. dont you see this as a very plausible scenario?

  mox
• 

  bluesapphire

  mox, i think the analogy is a good one, but once the borganisation declares against the blood doctrine then i can't see anyone holding on to it

  I agree with Moxy here. We already have an example of this in the older dubs who tell young mommy dubs not to vaccinate their children. And mommy dub just looks in bewilderment at these well-meaning but crazy older "sisters", not having a clue that vaccinations were once banned and now these sisters have a phobia about them.

  Or how about the old pioneer lady who said in a car group when I was a newby, (setting: a new Awake! magazine about organ transplants) "Oh, I just hate when the Society publishes articles about this. It makes it seem like it's okay...."

  So I asked her (I was naive), "What do you mean? It is okay." And another sister interjects, "It's a conscience matter now."

  I, of course, had no clue that they were once banned. I was the classic example of what Mox is referring to here.

  A "Brother Some" type article will come out and in a decade the dubs will think blood was always a conscience matter.