Gradualism for the blood doctrine?

by no-zombie 16 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  no-zombie

  Here in Australia, during the Service Meeting this week, the local needs part was taken up to quickly discuss a letter from the Organization stating that there will no longer be a annual meeting part to discuss or remind the congregations about their blood cards.

  I found this quite odd.

  Its not like that there is a shortage of meeting time to discuss this issue, as the Society has recently been hijacking more and more Local Needs parts for its own messages. And for a supposedly important doctrine, you would think that it should be mentioned more often rather than less, to keep everyone in line.

  Could this be a beginning of the movement away from the blood doctrine, through the process of gradualism?

  no-zombie
  
• 

  freddo

  Very interesting indeed.

  My guess it is more about distancing themselves from being seen to tell the congregations what to do by the secular authorities in court so that if their sorry asses are sued they will lie in court and say "its not us telling them, they do it of their own free will."

  Follow the money ...
• 

  nicolaou

  Very interesting indeed. We had a discussion about this a couple of years ago, some very prescient comments. .

  Is the end of Watchtowers hated No Blood doctrine in sight?
• 

  sparrowdown

  What freddo said - cleaning house, ass covering.
• 

  Finkelstein

  Could this be a beginning of the movement away from the blood doctrine, through the process of gradualism?

  I doubt it, it sounds like lets play this situation down and make it less of an open issue.

  There are many JWS including elders who aren't particularly self confident or arrogant about the no blood policy/doctrine.
  

  Quietening down doesn't mean it wont exist.

  The WTS pretty much cant reverse this doctrine, too many people have died and it would cause a huge amount of instability in the Organization if it were to..

  Therefore the GB will retain this doctrine and play the odds that they themselves wont need a BTs, the cost of maintaining the organization is much more important than dismantling a single doctrine away, even though it has caused irrefutable damage among many (into the 1000's now) of JWS for more than 7 decades.
  
• 

  Finkelstein

  Today's GB are just as deeply indoctrinated into the doctrines which have been previously established as other rank and file JWS.
  

  The way cults orchestrate and maintain structure of their organization is watching out for others who openly question or oppose set doctrines, this also includes the GB, they as a group watch over individual members who make up the group, similar in the way elders in a congregation look out or watch what other elders are saying or doing.

  Being that GB members have such high level of privilege within the organization, the likelihood of one causing dissension and getting booted out is unlikely compared to individual elders within a hall, taking into account the GB members live off the WTS. elders dont.
  
• 

  sparrowdown

  Hmm just thinking outloud here but could it be the ridiculous "bunker" scenario presented a couple years back was a metaphorical "bunker." Information lockdown? The borg is removing coercive language, pruning controversial subjects from KH discussion that could be recorded and used in evidence while the policy itself still exists in by implication?

  Essentially the borg going "underground." After all we all know how good WT is at saying something without saying something, getting the intended message across without using hard directives.
• 

  Londo111

  Has this letter been posted online?
• 

  Finkelstein

  The no blood doctrine is just but sad unfortunate truth about this organization and the thousands who have unfortunately died because of it.
  

  It becomes more of dismaying occurrence when its realized this doctrine was created by a couple of men who weren't very good bible scholars in the beginning, they were essentially scholared from the WTS's previous leader the lawyer J Rutherford.
  
• 

  MrRoboto

  Yes but if there is no specific rule against it, it essentially becomes a conscience matter.. Or does it? There are things that could get you DF or DA that you don't find out about until either it happens to you or you read the elder book so..

  My question is this: if it wasn't officially denounced but it is no longer an active teaching, is it still considered a teaching/belief of JWs? There are quite a few ridiculous teachings that just faded away without being changed/renounced.