Would there be a backlash?
I suspect it’s because the GB don’t know the answer to that question that they’re so utterly paralysed with indecision about it.
The argument could easily be made that, from the faithful rank-and-file they’d have nothing to fear. The Watchtower has had enough of a history of failed prophecies, doctrinal flip-flops and plain nonsensical teachings that it’s had to live down, and none of this has ever seemed to cause them any problem whatever. At any point in time, whatever the latest fiasco has been, they publish new light and the current generation of sheep just eats it up, and thrills to the latest “wonderful articles”. And, of course, anybody who does make a fuss, or draws attention to the foolishness/contradiction/mendacity of it all are managed out of the organisation by one means or another. The remaining faithful simply regard those as “harvest siftings” as Garybuss said. It seems to be a perfect, stable and self-correcting system.
And yet.
There would certainly be a backlash in the wider world. The press, some agressive churches, critical observers, all of us old apostates, indeed anyone the society lumps in together as “opposers” - surely would have a field day. How could there not be a firestorm of publicity over such an emotive matter? All those children dead through the years? For what? You’ve CHANGED YOUR MIND? The furore would spill over from internet discussion boards into the regular press and TV schedules. This would be a matter of public interest (for five minutes or so, at least). Jay Leno would even do a routine about it.
This is probably what the society fears: whether its damage-control systems, which have worked so well in the past, could cope with anything on quite this scale.
Consider this: Most people who know anything about Jehovah’s Witnesses know maybe 3 things. And probably in this order:
(1) They wake you up on Sunday trying to sell their magazines. This affects everyone.
(2) They don’t have Christmas or birthdays. You’ll know this if there’s a JW at your child’s school, or there’s someone who works at your office – it’s a personal acquaintance issue, so there’s a lesser number of people than (1).
(3) They don’t have blood transfusions. You’ll only be aware of this in a second-hand sense - only from newspapers or TV stories you’ve come across in the past.
A turn-about on the blood issue ( and no matter how the Society tried to dress it up as a “clarification” or making it a “conscience matter” “no real change” etc. etc it would be seen and reported as an about-face) would automatically catapult number 3 there straight up to the number 1 spot. No question, it would be a smash hit in publicity terms. It would be the one thing people would ask at the doors: “aren’t you the people who used to think….”
And, in the curious way that the human mind works, I suspect there would be tons more hatred, disgust and loathing directed at a sect that USED TO let its kids die, BUT NOW HAS CHANGED ITS MIND, than if they just left things as they are. Mad as it may be, people do give some grudging respect for consistency.
So that’s the dilemma, the GB would see their authority come under attack, not from within, but from without. They have always been able to cope with that kind of opposition before – they’re past masters at defying the “world” after all, but the scale of this might be enough to overwhelm their defences.
Like I said, they’re currently paralysed with indecision.
But what would break the spell, what would make them move in double quick time as Choosing Life said, is some serious loss of revenue via lawsuits or some such.
They always react quickly to that.