by anon 8 Replies latest jw friends
These are sincere questions directed to any who have first-hand knowledge.
I am new here, so I apologize if #2 is inappropriate for this board.
1. How was it decided to ban 4 major blood components, rather than all or none?
2. How is counsel on oral sex applied? (judicial cases, behind-the-scenes, experiences?)
3. What reasoning for FDS not apologizing for errors?
LOL!
Anon,
I would not worry about sucking on blood; do you have a relationship with Jehovah?
Welcome anon.
Good questions. I don't have the answers.
I am curious though.......
Hey, folks, I can tell you this is a serious inquiry.
Anon, I got your second e-mail just now and was just about to answer the first. I've been flooded with other inquiries.
No, I was not on line but checked in. I'll send you a private note, but answer some of the questions here. Others will doubtlessly respond, but understand that posters here are used to jokers coming on who are just pulling their chain or "trolling." (Fred Hall seems to have some mental aberrations; pay no attention.) Other posters are exhilarated in their freedom and will say anything and everything. No need to apologize for #2. You'll get straight answers, hopefully; you can separate any kibitzers.
I respect your many decades of service and your viewpoint expressed to me privately. I am not blind either. You will find MANY here who understand.
Later,
Maximus
Sorry Anon
I was not being sarcastic.
I go with Maximus's judgment or sorry non judgemental attitude.
Good questions, just made me laugh, seen these same Q's before from Jokers!
qwerty
In a word: lawyers.
If the Society flat out said they were wrong about something they'd slammed in court by all the people (like me)who passed up some sort of opportunity because of advice (or false prophecy) based on WT teachings. I got absorbed the year I graduated from college (1973)and passed up a chance to go to grad school because we all knew the big show was comming in 1975.
Remember that blood was banned in the old law because the life, the soul was in the blood. Well, the WTBTS has apparently figured out exactly which components of blood the soul is in and you can't have those components transfused. All the rest is up for grabs.
What other explanation can there be?
Don't know about the oral sex stuff. My wife and I did whatever the hell we wanted to do and just ignored the bastards.
Mistakes? Like, you mean, errors, as in faults? They don't make any. If they apologized, that would mean that they are responsible adults, and we all know better than that. They be jus' using old light, slightly stale. Sort of like a hurricane lantern. It might be dim, but it's still light. An' nend, an' nend, seee, when the good stuff come along, well, it jus' replace the ole stuff. Mistakes? Are you crazy?
They DID say that, regarding 1975, it was a "natural enough mistake to make." And that was it. Fini. End. Over. Zip.
Francois
My $0.02
Sorry it took so long. Swamped just now.
1) The blood policy is just that; policy rather than a core tenet now. The definition of four "major components" is an artificial one not made up by physiologists or physicians, so they are generally puzzled when a JW discusses it in this way.
I'll give you the short answer here: the GB and decision-makers have been divided on the policy and that's the reason for the inconsistency. Once the door opened to fractions like Factor VIII, it became easier to take a good look at what the policy really meant and make incremental adjustments.
They cannot ban all blood fractions. If they put the matter strictly in the "field of conscience," persons would still ask, "Yes, but what does the Society say we should do?" Or feel weak in faith if their conscience "permitted." "Conscience" would be tantamount to "no blood," is how some have reasoned. What's maddening is that there are those at the top who clearly understand that we have misapplied these texts. To acknowledge this would add to the disillusionment now becoming more widespread over the generation "adjustment." There are legal considerations as well.
So now you can eat ham, Mayo, Swiss, and bread--separately--but you cannot eat the sandwich. And you can take hemoglobin prepared from cow's blood!
I am aware of a web site that is a simplified presentation of the very reasoning that has gone on internally for a very long time; most persons don't know that there has even been debate, but there has, from Day One of the blood ban. I suspect it would be dulling reading for many, who just want to have the Society tell them what to do--easier that way. If you haven't seen it, I'd recommend you take a look. And I would very much appreciate and respect your comments on it.
2) I'm hoping others will supply their "judicial" experience in the oral sex issue. In short, the Society states its policy is not to police the bedroom, yet it constantly refers to "degrading practices" from the platform particularly. Not to get judicially technical, let me just say that, depending on their training or level of humanity, elders either look the other way (on the one hand) or get somebody in a back room and mercilessly grill them on the most intimate details, attaching all sorts of pseudoscriptural names. Varies from congregation to congregation.
3) If the "faithful slave" were to issue apologies on those policies and dogma on which it was wrong over the years, many would lose their viewpoint of it as Ultimate Authority, much like the Pope when he speaks ex cathedra--a de facto infallibility. It's easy to say "we all know the GB is composed of imperfect humans," but when one is before a committee questioning loyalty, one will be forced to accept that there is a channel, an FDS, and that the GB speaks for them and enforces its authority.
There have been adjustments organizationally in an effort to be less hierarchical, and many of these are legal protections. These are becoming more public knowledge, as you will see in a post today from Comment.
A personal experience. You will recall the district convention when the senior man attending read the statement from the governing body ("Society," whatever) that commented on the 1975 fiasco. I was present when Bert Schroeder read it--I admired him tremendously, have great affection for him. He literally stammered when reading it. Upset myself, I asked him about it. The "apology" had turned out not to be that at all. He told me it had been cobbled, edited, lines added, internal discussion about the precise wording, "balancing things." What most publishers heard was, "It's not our fault, it's yours for running ahead."
Today I read younger posters who think the whole 1975 thing was a fabrication. They are not interested in the "generation" change. You will understand.
In haste,
Maximus
Hope this helps; will post you privately. And no, it is certainly not an intrusion. I deeply respect and appreciate your e-mail to me.
