I don't think you were reading too much into the Awake article. This is the first time they have referred to blood as an organ. And they were definately stressing that fact. This immediately got my attention. They never say they change things, rather they ease into it, as if they aren't really changing a doctrine at all.I think they are in danger of losing lawsuits in the future over the blood issue and are looking for a way out. And they are losing members by the droves.If they were to change this doctrine, the religion would be more attractive to the public.What do most people know about the dubs? That they are that crazy religious group who won't take blood. They need more money right now (or want more money) so why not do away with this stumbling block?
Got my copies of August and September Awakes today! Funny and sad story.
***g73 6/8 p.15 Blood Transfusions - a Biological "Sin"***
Since the blood cells are normally destroyed in sixty days and the liquid content turnover is even more rapid, a blood transfusion is a temporary or a transient transplant of a liquid organ. Indeed, this is undoubtedly the reason for its general acceptance at a time when organ transplantation is considered experimental.
***g74 3/22 p.21 My Life as a Surgeon***
Blood transfusion is now recognized as a dangerous procedure-as hazardous as any other organ transplant.
***bq p.41 Jehovah's Witnesses and the Question of Blood***
Consequently, whether having religious objections to blood transfusions or not, many a person might decline blood simply because it is essentially an organ transplant that at best is only partially compatible with his own blood.
***hb p.8 Blood Transfusions - How Safe?***
a transfusion is a tissue transplant.
***g90 10/22 p.9 Gift of Life or Kiss of Death?***
As cardiovascular surgeon Denton Cooley notes: "A blood transfusion is an organ transplant. . . . I think that there are certain incompatibilities in almost all blood transfusions."
***g99 8/22 p.31 Are Blood Transfusions Really Necessary?***
Blood is an organ of the body, and blood transfusion is nothing less than an organ transplant.
Perhaps this was intended to introduce a change in the Blood policy?
***g00 1/8 Pioneers in Medicine***
Jehovah's Witnesses view organ transplant operations as a matter of individual conscience.
What's your take on this?
There's always been a liberal wing inside the WTS and their writings often slip into print, only to be smacked down later by the Nazis in the Service Department. What you may be seeing here is a little passive civil disobedience.
I don't see the WTS changing their position on blood transfusions just because they recognize that blood is an organ and a blood transfusion is essentially an organ transplant. The following quote from the Watchtower shows their thinking on this matter:
"While the Bible specifically forbids consuming blood, there is no Biblical command pointedly forbidding the taking in of other human tissue."
The WTS will simply argue that the Biblical command to "abstain from...blood" rules out taking in blood. Whether or not it's an organ doesn't make any difference.
That a blood transfusion is an organ transplant does refute the old WTS argument that taking a blood transfusion is the same as eating blood. The Society evidently recognized this some time ago as they haven't made that argument for a least 15 years. That is no doubt why they have replaced the Biblical terminology of "not eating blood" with "not taking in blood". Their current argument against blood transfusions can be found in the book What Does t he Bible Really Teach. On page 130 it says: "abstaining from blood means not taking it into our bodies at all."
That the WTS no longer claims that taking a blood transfusion is the same as eating blood and has totally replaced the term "eating blood" with "taking in blood" is significant. It indicates to me that they have for many years been aware that blood transfusions are organ transplants and that that demolishes their claim that taking a blood transfusion is the same as eating blood. So they have quietly dropped the argument that taking a blood transfusion is the same as eating blood. I therefore doubt that the WTS is planning to rescind their ban on blood transfusions. Instead they have anticipated what the impact of blood transfusions being organ transplants will have on their blood ban and have made adjustments to keep it in place.
Hubert: have you seen the latest info about the blood issue? Maybe you were right and your article was the beginning of a reversal of the policy?
I definitely think he's right. For the longest time, this is one of the things I would never have believed that they would turn around due to all the people who are going to wake from their brooklyn-induced sleep, but it all makes sense. I think the "governing body" really believe that they are above EVERYTHING. I think they really feel that they can do or say anything and it will be taken as gospel.
Look at their record. With zero wins and too many to count losses (prophecy-wise) they still have people defending them as if they were god himself. Yep, I sincerely think we're going to see some new light in the next six months to a year. I think it's going to effectively, though probably not in these words, do a 180 on the blood policy. I think they are probably right now debating and hammering out how they are going to word everything and which scriptures they are going to use to justify it to minimize the number of apostates this decision will no doubt create.