This is an excerpt from the article " Abstaining from Blood" from the following cite, provided for your comments/amusement. He tries to answer the question why, even though JWs were wrong on the organ transplant issue is not a reason to throw out the baby with the bath water.
http://www.geocities.com/rogueactivex/blood-kidd.htm
Question.
Remember the sound reasoning used to argue against accepting an organ donation? Didn't that sound very reasonable at the time? Didn't that follow 'logic'?
We are an organization--actually, the earth's only international brotherhood--that is improving, with blessing of God's holy spirit, this because we conscientiously strive even in the face of death to be loyal to what we believe the Scriptures to teach. If we believe the Scriptures teach something, we will obey out of desire to hold a good conscience towards God. It is neither crippling, morbid fear of men nor a swelling admiration of personalities that drives us, but "love out of a clean heart and out of a good conscience and out of faith without hypocrisy" (1 Timothy 1:5) moves us.
We should expect change for the better among those who truly are God's people. If the Devil were behind such changes, then we should conclude that he is divided against himself. But if God's holy spirit is behind the doctrinal improvements among Jehovah's Witnesses, then for one to invoke the changes as signal of poor authority structure in our organization means that he is fighting against God.
The organization identified as The Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses is uniquely in possession of a body of teachings. This body of teaching must identify the only organization that God uses in getting a worldwide witness to the Kingdom preached before the end comes. So, in other doctrine(s) that I may or may not presently understand, I ask myself Where does error here land us, if error there be? If there is error here, does it land us in blindly following men into a violation of moral law? into spiritual error against what the Kingdom of God should mean in our life? into harm that cannot be reversed by God? If there is error that does not involve us in violation of God's fundamental ethical norms, then God may tolerate the error for a while without His saying, 'Well, that's it! I am through with the organization built up with my name on it, for it blasphemes me, and I will look for an invisible (known only to me) "congregation."' Never!
Consider the fact that there was significant spiritual error among some Judean Christians for a while. And think of how Peter's bad example, in which he stood condemned until his repentance, affected others. Consider first this as respects those Jewish Christians who might have been with the apostle Peter in Antioch, and might have been emboldened by Peter's spiritually and morally bad example to draw away from socializing with uncircumcised Gentile Christians. But in timely fashion, the error was corrected. But who else might have been poorly affected? Well, consider now how foolish any offended Gentile Christian might have been who might have said, 'I must quit listening to the teachings of Jesus' apostles, for they can be in serious error--and some have been--, and have let a caste develop in Judea between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians. It has gone on too long, and now I see that Peter must even yet harbor bad sentiment against us Gentiles.' If the complainer were to leave and begin work as an apostate vilifying the apostles, whom does he have to blame but primarily himself for his missing out on salvation? He threw out the baby with the bath water! And how should any Jewish Christians who let themselves be corrected as respects their prejudice answer the taunts of that apostate who might deride them with the words: 'Well, you finally see the error of your ways because you came to a better understanding of the Scriptures on your own, did you? Or isn't your change of conduct effected in the same manner as it was effected before you got new light . . . for aren't you now as then just blindly following the examples of prominent men among you? I suspect you couldn't have rubbed two scriptures together on the issue when you first began saying what you say now, namely, 'I have changed because of what I see in God's Word.' Nah! Your conduct now is as it was then, for you were blindly following men, and you are now, too. So how can you say that you won't again be led into error because of your blindly following men? You people can't have the truth, because God wouldn't tolerate the errors I have seen and experienced among you people.' And so on. But can we not grasp that speciously reasoned apostate's concept of things? We might understand how he went wrong, but we must not appreciate that he went wrong!