by Mickey mouse 57 Replies latest watchtower medical
I agree, JWoods. Almost no way they can make it a conscience matter. All they can do is lessen the impact of the sin on the punishment end. They can make it a non-DF offense, perhaps, but they can't ever come out and say taking blood is not a sin.
Another possible new light is allowing Dubs to take one's own previously stored blood but even that is a pretty huge step that is unlikely.
Of course, (and against my argument), they DID make service as a CO in the military a "conscience matter" - and arrogantly said that everybody that did prison time in the past over their strict orders were really "acting on their own conscience".
Another point that probably is true is that the WTS has a history of making different rules for different countries on this kind of thing. Bulgaria may be such a case, and may have nothing to do with their rules for the U.S. - remember, Malawi and Mexico. The U.S. has long had an almost unique freedom for people with medical-religious quirky doctrine (even fatal doctrines). Maybe U.S. law is changing now in the case of minor children, and probably the GB would not disfellowship you if a child had a transfusion under court order.
However, my take is still that they hold on to this blood doctrine albatross until their dying day. As just another control issue, for the most part.
If, in the unlikely case, they do make this totally a "matter of consciense" - there might well be far more negative reaction by the witness rank & file than there was to the repeated stumbling on the "generation". This is too obvious to not make a big reaction.
I think the WTS just has too many chips into the "no blood transfusions" hand to fold it up now.
This is what I was thinking. I'm not even at the skeptical point. I don't have one bit of confidence in this rumour. Sometimes I wonder if we desire reform in this organization so much that we delude ourselves into thinking that someday things will change for the better. The WTS reversing their blood policy would be the equivalent of the Raiders going from Black and Silver, to Pink and Yellow. Can you imagine the shockwaves this would have? As you mentioned JWoods this isnt the same as a confusing "This Generation" which I don't believe the average JW gives a hoot about anyway. The Blood policy is more relavent. Them reversing this policy would be like giving those on the verge of leaving, or any having doubts, a blank check to walk away from the WTS with very little fallout. Not even one the most diehard of JW relatives could find a reason to argue against a family member being stumbled by a reversal of the blood policy. What would they say? What could they say? For the GB to admit even the slightest hint of having been wrong on blood all this time would be devestating to their control. We just had a 1/2 hour part on Blood a month ago during the Service Meeting. Brand new Blood DPAs. Only to have these DPAs become obsolete a few months to a year later? I doubt it.
I don't have one bit of confidence in this rumour.
Sometimes I wonder if we desire reform in this organization so much that we delude ourselves into thinking that someday things will change for the better.
Exactly. Let's remember that there have been big, big, rumours before on "huge news about blood transfusion that will bring down the organization in our time" - and that they turned out to be nothing.
This is all conjecture to this point. I see a blog with musings. Nothing concrete or even any sort of news of leakigs by so-called heavies that this change will happen.
Every significant doctrinal or organizational change of the past 3 decades or so has been driven by one of two factors: (1) It increases cash flow, reduces expenses, or limits liability, or (2) they were painted into a theological corner and had to adjust their teachings to fix it.
Items falling under (1) would things like removing the GB from the corporations' board of directors, cutbacks in literature, changing the wording of a disfellowship announcement, etc.
Items falling under (2) would be things like redefining "generation" 3 times (and counting), dropping the 1935 date for new anointed cutoff, etc.
I don't see how changing the stance on blood fits into either of those 2 buckets. Thus I don't see it happening.
Just as a general question of interest:
Has there ever been a big doctrinal change that was factually leaked (internally or externally) out of the JW organization months ahead of time like this?
Personally, I cannot think of one. Dirty secrets (child molesters, UN NGO, and such), yes. But real doctrinal things which they intended to release themselves have been pretty well controlled.
All this sorted hearsay on the matter is just a stretch of someone's imagination,
for anyone to imply I've got special insight that the GB is going to change the No Blood policy
is barking for intension and has no real basis to make these kinds of assumptions.
Isn't already a non-DFing offense already, as someone here stated all they received for doing so was a 30 day
private reproof. A slap on the wrist situation.
That is true JWoods. I just do not the the org sees any need to change its stance. Nor do I believe it will be done so quickly. I think they would simply not talk about it for a period of years and then sneak into an article how an individual felt their conscience would allow it.
And, its pretty much dropped anyway. You can take 100% of blood if it's broken into "fractions". I could see them moving WBC, RBC & Plasma into fractions and keeping the ban. They moved hemoglobin into the "fraction" definition a few years ago. I remember being shocked at the time because I knew how big of a component hemoglobin is.
I could see them either 1) changing the definition of fraction to include WBC, RBC & platlettes and/or 2) allowing autologous (your own blood) transfusions which they really are already doing with some of the cell saver type of procedures that recycle the patients blood and even store it for a "short" time.
The policy is so confusing to the average JW that many are not aware of what they can and can't do.
Remember, they used to ban organ transplants and 100% of blood (including vaccines). They reversed those stances. They can pretty much do what they want. They've always sort of worded it as an individual choice anyway (although we know its not). The courts here in the US I don't think would hold the WTS liable for damages at this point. But I'm sure the Legal department would love to see the ban go away because there's no guarantee that courts in the future will stay out of this issue.
