by richard 15 Replies latest watchtower medical
It's interesting that 10% agreed to blood without the stress of a life and death situation. Faced with dire consequenses, I bet a lot more than 10% will accept. I wonder just how many really do.
And Moanzy, you did nothing wrong. Rhogam has been on the divinely approved list of blood products since June 1, 1974.
Richard,
I think this numbers are a result of the recent doctrinal changes the Society stated in the Watchtower. At this moment many of these dicisions are to the person him/herself. The own responsibility lead to OWN DISCISIONS, with as result the numebers I read in the article.
Many of the younger JW-christians (me included) will take a more pragmatic position. Doctrinal we get more responsibility, so we take that responsibility, however it could have some consequences.
The Society says to the outside world "own responsibility" but for internal ears it has to be "follow us, there is nothing changed". Younger JW's read this between the lines and take their stand.
Ozner
Hi Ozner,
You may be right, although the research mentioned in Marvin's contribution is from 1995 and indicates the same amount of dissent.
Hello, Richard
You write:
"You may be right, although the research mentioned in Marvin's contribution is from 1995 and indicates the same amount of dissent."
Though the 10 percent figure from Gyamfi/Berkowitz study reminded me of the 10 percent figure from the Benson study, the two conclusions point to what may be a noteworthy distinction.
In the Benson report the 10 percent is of JWs under immediate duress of poor health. In the Gyamfi/Berkowitz report the 10 percent is of JWs not under immediate duress of poor health.
There is a probability this indicates a significant move to the left from the WTS' teaching. This is because the latter 10 percent essentially voice a 180-degree disagreement with WTS teaching up front, without any imminent threat of poor health. This may signal an increase in a kind of dissent. That is to say, the dissent evidenced in the Benson study might be a dissent based on fear/emotion whereas the dissent evidenced in the Gyamfi/Berkowitz might be dissent based more on analytical/objective review.
Marvin Shilmer
That is to say, the dissent evidenced in the Benson study might be a dissent based on fear/emotion whereas the dissent evidenced in the Gyamfi/Berkowitz might be dissent based more on analytical/objective review.
Excellent point. This study, if it is representative of overall JW sentiments, represents a huge crack in the loyalty of the average JW. With blood being a life and death doctrine, it makes you wonder just where the average JW stands on 1914, the anointed, and other goofy doctrines. It also makes me wonder what these 10% think about the recent court cases in Canada, where the society has stepped in with their lawyers to try to prevent blood being given.
