Eduardo: Is 1990 Blood pamphlet "old light"?

by sf 20 Replies latest watchtower medical

  • sf


    Are you going to attempt to answer ANY of my questions? Or are you going with "no comment"?

    Thank you, sKally


    SK...I was busy reading another post...not avoiding your questions. I have no problem explaining it to you, but I would think it would be very obvious. It would probably be impossible to get converts if you opened up discussions using the "no blood transfusions allowed" or "1914." No one would understand and they would tell you to get to h#$$ out of their house, off their porch, even off their property. You start off dangling the carrot "the paradise earth!" and proceed from there. THat sounds good to people and by the time you have them hooked you throw out the blood issue and 1914 and tell them they will understand it all in time. As a witness you hold your breath and see how that soaks in!!! If they proceed to go "whew" when they get dunked!!!

    Then you continue helping them to become robots just like you are...(until one day you realize the TRUTH about the truth!) Then you start posting on this board and began actively trying to help those people get back out. You try to do it in a better, sophisticated, knowledgeable way than you got them in. I was born in---4th's hard to break out of that!!!

    What puzzles me is that we had a guy who was on the board of directors of a MAJOR US CORP decide this was the truth and was baptized as I was leaving. Guess there is no explaining some things...

    Hope that answered your questions...if not fire away!!!

    Swalker (of the faded class)

  • sf

    to get converts

    This is all you had to say, really. This is what I was 'fishing' for.

    So converting others is why they lied then and continue to lie now.

    It's ALL about [con]version.




    Is that a surprise??? IMO that's why we went door to get people into the "Truth" or else it was a message of impending doom for those that didn't listen.


  • Narkissos

    As skally pointed out, the fact that it is available on the WT official website shows it is not "old light". Yet.

    There may be a part of wishful thinking involved: xJWs, non-JWs and many current JWs for that matter would like to see the WT reform this doctrine, for the lives involved.

    All the changes the WT has made on medical issues since the 40's are in the direction of liberalisation (allowing vaccinations, organ transplants, blood fractions etc.). It seems that the JWs by and large are relieved when a court orders a transfusion on a minor. Does the WT encourage JWs to sue doctors/hospitals who would transfuse an inconscious JW or a JW child? I don't know for sure but I doubt it.

    It seems to me that the next logical step would be to drop the blood policy altogether. I'm pretty sure this is on the mind of the most responsible WT leaders but they don't know how to do it without losing the face and admitting guilt, which would trigger a host of court suits. Of course maintaining and rationalising the policy in the meantime, when they don't really believe it anymore, is morally terrible. But I think this is actually where they are.

  • skeeter1

    The 1990 Blood pamphlet is NOT old light. It is still used to indoctrinate. This month’s Kingdom Ministry article "Could Your Child Make a Mature Decision?" encourages JW parents that if their minors can articulate the JW's no-blood dogma, the mature minor's wishes will be honored by a court. It encourages parents to study with their children. It mentions the Reasoning book, pages 70-74, first. Then, it states,

    December 2005 Kingdom Ministry: "Other provisions for educating us about the blood issue include the brochure How Can Blood Save Your Life? and The Watchtower of June 15, 2004, pages 14-24. In addition, the video programs: Transfusion Alternatives: Health Care - Meeting Patients Needs and Rights and No Blood Medicine Meets the Challenges which is currently available on the DVD entitled Transfusion Alternatives - Documentary Series gives convincing information about the reasonableness and effectiveness of bloodless medicine and surgery. Has your family watched and discussed these presentations recently?"

    Hmmmmm.....these documents ALL contain a SIGNIFICANT amount of medical information. The biblical dogma is ALWAYS attached with a "HEALTHY" DOSE of medical information. (pardon the pun).

    The DVD contains significant potential for the Society’s bias. First, the Society produced them, and potential exists for the Society to manipulate the doctor's words though the editing process. Did the Society pay the doctors for their appearances? Why don't you hear the reporter's questions?. Did the Society edit the doctor's words? If the Society misquotes doctors' writings from medical journals, imagine what it could do with a video camera.

    I think this lack of knowledge leads JWs to be arrogant that they are correct, and that everyone agrees with them. But, like Auldsoul, I’m a nobody too.

  • Oroborus21

    Howdy SF:

    In my list of WT Publications ( I have changed my designation from "Current Light" to "Fading Light" after considering the problems that were pointed out in the JCS article** and because in re-reading it for my analysis of that essay, I revisited the material for the first-time again in probably 6 or 7 years.

    It wasn't a publication that I ever emphasized or even used while I was an active publisher.

    I think the posting on the website is really for lack of a better published article. It is probably a place holder for the topic until the next version comes out. I can't imagine that the Society doesn't already have plans to publish a new replacement since this one was published so long ago and itself contains a lot of outdated content when in the last 10 years there have been positive developments in non-blood management and oher developments which it will see as beneficial to supporting its RELIGIOUS belief that blood is unscriptural and not the best course of medicine.

    -Eduardo Leaton Jr., Esq.

    **Note: although, the author correctly identified several misquotations or misapplications of quotations, etc. she also incorrectly understood at least one point which she asserted as "major" (re Priestley) and included at least 2 sloppy misrepresentations of the brochure itself in her essay.

  • sf

    I appreciate your comments. Thank you.

    So, does this mean you are going to help 'activate' the big news to all the inhabited earth?


  • skeeter1

    The Journal article compares the cited material to the original quotes.

    It does not matter that medical science has advanced. The Society's original quotes are examined against the original doctors. The blood brochure was a lie in 1990, and is a lie today.

    Yes, they need to do a new brochure. This time, it needs to be honest, accurate, and most of all, "the Truth."

  • rebel8

    Interesting thing........

    Misrepresented medical facts exaggerating the infection potential were used as a main reason for the no blood rule.

    Now blood fractions are allowed; if taken together it would add up to whole blood, but whole blood alone is not allowed.

    Blood fractions carry with them a higher infection potential by virtue of the fact that each unit comes from multiple donors. Why is infection so unimportant now?

Share this