Journal of Church and State: WT NO-BLOOD EXPOSE'

by AndersonsInfo 328 Replies latest watchtower scandals

  • glitter

    But the people who cut out the unfavourable info from the brochure *must've known* what they were doing, and this isn't the only lie through deliberate misquoting... so they *must* have a contingency plan for this sort of thing.

  • Pistoff

    How did they not see this coming?

    Here is how: They believe their own press, that they are God's spokesman. Apparently they did not listen to their own lawyers when deciding to misrepresent the blood issue. I became ENRAGED about this policy, not just the children at risk but all of the witnesses who believed it to be based on scripture AND medicine. When I researched it, I realized that it was a sham both in it's origins and especially in how it is presented: that we don't take blood.

    This is a ridiculous idea. We take vaccinations, albumin, hemoglobin, EPO, hemophiliac preparations. ALL are made from blood.



  • mkr32208
    Oh, and Glitter, I thank God for cell-savers. If not for those I would be dead or horribly deformed.

    If your avatar is a picture of you then it's too late your horribly deformed already!

  • Jourles

    (that sums up my feelings quite well....can't wait to read the entire booklet)

  • West70

    Against my better judgment, I am going to futilely advise that this "essay" be heavily critiqued here and elsewere for a good while before everyone runs out and <b>blows their credibility</b> on what may turn out to be a nice anti-WBTS PR article, but nothing more.

    For one thing, has anyone bothered to check to see how long the author of this "essay" has been practicing law?

    And, as has already been pointed out, and ignored, JWs DO NOT REFUSE BLOOD BASED ON SECULAR FACTS - misrepresented or otherwise.

    JW doctrine is based on interpretation of scripture.

    Waiting a few days to nail down the right "angles" will not hurt anything.

  • daniel-p

    There are 2 issues here:

    1. Legal culpability: misrepresentation of medical facts has to account for something. I'm not sure it could wind up as a class-action lawsuit, but if a big enough issue was made out of it it could set a precedent.

    2. Illegitimacy of Scriptual Authority: this, for me, is the big thing. The society's misrepesentation and ommitance of facts could have a domino effect on how they write articles in the future. Perhaps they will be forced to include references in their publications! Let me tell you, if they do that, they will have to re-write a hell of a lot of "spiritual food." And in order to make up for the subsequent lack of supporting information from credible sources such as doctors, scientists, historians, etc, they will be forced to gloss over much of their assumptions and flawed logic. Changes in policy will be soon to follow.

    It is going to to be MOST interesting to see how the Society responds and reacts to this. Their reaction could break them in two as far as their scriptual legitamcy of authority over the R&F is concerned.

  • Axelspeed
    How did they not see this coming?

    They have used the all powerful freedom of religion stance.

    Yes, you can push religious quackery and people are free to believe religious quackery in all its many forms....just make sure you don't lie about or misrepresent your findings. This may take a while to play out, but once the plantiff lawyers start picking up the scent....well...

    Once the WT got bold enough and felt invincible enough to start playing doctor, they put themselves on slippery ground.


  • Mulan
    Because the Society has been extremely successful at brainwashing him into believe that blood transfusions are dangerous. My sister, who has a PhD in biology, and I, argued unsuccessfully that the slight chance of getting AIDS or some other "loathsome disease" (my dad's words) were much less than the significant danger of not accepting blood should he need it during surgery.

    Jukie: When we studied the blood brochure at the book study, years ago, we had an RN in our group. He told all of us that the chance of contracting AIDS was nothing compared to the possiblity of getting Hepatitis and other diseases. Hepatitis was the most likely. The WTS use AIDS for the fear effect.

  • AuldSoul
    Apparently they did not listen to their own lawyers when deciding to misrepresent the blood issue.


    I understand why you think so, but I disagree that this was the basic reason. The publication How Can Blood Save Your Life? like Life—How did it get here? was published before the Internet gained momentum in 1991. I was one of the weirdos with a BBS (bulletin board system) running FIDONet (similar to email) through my 386SX with a 1200 baud modem back before 1991.

    They never envisioned digital explosion and information sharing reaching the point it has. They cannot keep secrets in such an environment. For instance, today I met someone from Vermont online today, and we started exchanging PMs. I spoke with him on the phone this evening. Do you realize how odd that statement would seem in 1991?

    They never thought we `am-ha·´a´rets would ever figure out we'd been duped. Think about what has happened the last few days. The WT has yet to wrap their heads around the kind of agility this virtual environment affords us. We have response time that they can't hold a candle to. Many of their sheep are afraid to get online, so they still communicate by snail mail. In the same number of days it took to notify, stir up, organize (to some degree), translate, and start responding to this issue, (1) a letter from Brooklyn would arrive in tomorrow's post, (2) a meeting would be had to determine what should be done locally, (3) any questions would be referred to either the CO directly or to Brooklyn by phone, fax, or snail mail, (4) discussion would proceed at a snail's pace, (5) damage control would start three weeks from now.

    In 1990, they just never expected us to find out. In 1990, they were right.


  • AuldSoul


    I have checked on the procedure required for publication in the Journal of Church and State. All inclusions are heavily reviewed by committee of legal heavies. The stuff that makes it in is airtight, just untested in court. Not that everything tested in court succeeds, but if the opinion is favored by the right people it goes a long way.

    From what I understand, this one got the green light, with no yellows showing.


Share this