Watchtower’s Dr. Dixon on Individual Consciences of Jehovah’s Witnesses

by Marvin Shilmer 22 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Very likely, as she was at Bethel during the time he would have been there. (Barbara and I are not exactly getting along just now as I challenged her on continuing to associate with the Six Screens mess.)

  james_woods,

  I think Barb left Bethel around 1992. By 1992 Dr. Dixon was probably at or near 70-years-old. He could have still been there.

  About your gripe with Barb choosing to use Six Screens, though I would have chosen another tool (kool-aid man is, after all, a “tool”) and have told Barb so, it is completely understandable that she road the pony she did.

  In effect, Barb placed an ad in a source that got tons and tons of traffic. Her intention was not to impress the likes of you or me. It was to make contact with folks no matter why they choose the entertainment venues they do. She was reaching people that otherwise would never have known what she was able to give them by way of information. She made this outreach knowing perfectly well some people would be offended. She sacrificed for sake of helping people. That places her high in my book!

  It is short sighted for folks like you and I to grumble about what media sources folks choose to make information more widely available. Barb used a source based on its traffic. That’s it. It’s not rocket science. Had she had other outlets to reach the same people she would have used those instead. But she did not have these. She used what was available to her.

  My recommendation is that you make up and make up soon with Barb. She has information the likes of which hardly anyone else has ever had access too. I have seen her personal library of records and documents, a lot of which are one-of-a-kind. She has shared some of her documents to my possession under an agreement of strict confidentiality so she can do the information justice. You would not believe some of this stuff! Some of it comes from Federal acquisition of documents for criminal investigation of Watchtower’s top leadership!

  It does not matter on iota to me how she chooses to get her library of information out. It only matters that she gets it out. The last thing she needs for either of us is grief. What she could use is practical help. If you are able to help Barb, then do it. Don't forget that none of us is getting any younger, and that includes Barb.

  Get to it! Sooner is much better than later.

  Marvin Shilmer

  http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com
• 

  sizemik

  Excellent post ^^^^^^

  The WTS blood doctine was a dumb idea from the start and was never going to survive future scrutiny when it was formulated. This Dr Dixons' dissonance is entirely understandable given his profession.

  I've always maintained those at the top realised this about 20 years ago and the doctrinal changes since are all part of a long-term tactical withdrawal from the doctrine . . . that's why it makes even less sense now. It has to be gradual for two very obvious reasons . . . membership attrition and legal liability.
• 

  stillin

  To give evidence to the WTS. own acknowledgment of this blunder, they've now stated that its OK to take all fractions of blood separately

  The true one. Isn't that an overstatement of the actual policy now held by WTS? My understanding id that red blood cells, white blood cells and platelets are taboo. All else is "conscience permit"

  I may have it somewhat skewed, but I don't think ALL fractions are currently permissible.
• 

  thetrueone

  To be totally honest stillin, being that the BT policy with the WTS. has changed so many times it does get somewhat confusing,

  my quote was from here on this forum, so the accuracy may be skewered a little.

  Just for the record could someone clarify to the most recent policy by the WTS regarding BTs and its fraction of ?
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  -

  I may have it somewhat skewed, but I don't think ALL fractions are currently permissible.

  stillin,

  Watchtower’s blood doctrine prohibits Witnesses from accepting transfusion of blood product in the form of red cells, white cells, platelets or plasma (or whole blood). But if blood products are fractionated beyond those forms Witnesses are free to accept “accept all fractions derived from any primary component of blood”. Put another way, so long as a blood product is sufficiently fractionated Jehovah’s Witnesses can accept transfusion of any and everything that is found in a unit of donor blood.

  There is more information in the article Watchtower Leadership – Believe Its Own Blood Doctrine? available at: http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com/2012/02/watchtower-leadership-believe-its-own.html

  Marvin Shilmer

  http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com
• 

  thetrueone

  I've always maintained those at the top realized this about 20 years ago and the doctrinal changes since are all part of a long-term tactical withdrawal from the doctrine . . . that's why it makes even less sense now. It has to be gradual for two very obvious reasons . . . membership attrition and legal liability.

  Hopefully it will, for the sake of people who are still associated with this religion.

  Will it ever come to a complete withdraw though ?

  It has been documented even by the WTS. themselves that people including children died as a result of being faithfully obedient to this doctrine.

  That sure doesn't look good on a resume for a religion to be a cause of people being persuaded to self committed toward their own death.
• 

  sizemik

  It has been documented even by the WTS. themselves that people including children died as a result of being faithfully obedient to this doctrine.

  Recent public comments made on the issue seem to be taking a common stance . . . that decisions made are the responsibility of the individual and a matter of conscience, not an enforced doctrine. Eventually the penalties will be further watered down and any stand on blood will become purely a conscience matter . . . and of course, the WTS will maintain it always was.

  Once it becomes a conscience matter where penalties are few or eventually absent . . . then it will be allowed to recede into history along with all their other failures. They'll just stop drawing attention to it. That's just my opinion.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  -

  Recent public comments made on the issue seem to be taking a common stance . . . that decisions made are the responsibility of the individual and a matter of conscience, not an enforced doctrine. Eventually the penalties will be further watered down and any stand on blood will become purely a conscience matter . . . and of course, the WTS will maintain it always was.

  Once it becomes a conscience matter where penalties are few or eventually absent . . . then it will be allowed to recede into history along with all their other failures. They'll just stop drawing attention to it. That's just my opinion.

  sizemik,

  What Watchtower finds itself unable to dismantle it leaves the winds of time to erode into oblivion.

  Were the organization to overtly dismantle its blood doctrine would be to gut its membership, and membership in its religion business is what Watchtower is all about.

  You are not alone in your opinion. It’s just a matter of time.

  Marvin Shilmer

  http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com
• 

  thetrueone

  Eventually the penalties will be further watered down and any stand on blood will become purely a conscience matter . . . and of course, the WTS will maintain it always was.

  But isn't that kind of saying that we (WTS.), who have been selectively chosen and are being guided by god as his earthly organization made

  a doctrinal mistake enforcing this doctrine onto people and those who may have unfortunately died, martyred themselves wrongly ?

  Wouldn't that make the WTS. and its supposedly spiritually guided leaders guilty of blood guilt ?

  If this eventually happens you can expect most of these people will choose to take a BT, based upon the WTS. stance well we just aren't sure

  anymore. Are people really that stupid in realizing how many people have died because of this policy/doctrine ?

  Then again this is religion what we are talking about anything is possible.
• 

  just n from bethel

  In the most recent pioneer school textbook, I'm pretty sure there is a question that has wording something like 'Why is it not a conscience matter to accept blood transfusions?' It might be interesting if you could obtain a copy of that to contrast the two statements. Sorry I don't have one on hand but I'm sure you can find someone with access to it.

  It is really interesting how disjointed certain published materials are ... On the one hand you have statements written to the public with a primary audience of medical professionals that state how these decsions are in fact conscience matters ... then internally to a small select group of highly active Witnesses, you have statements that blood transfusions are indeed not a conscience matter.