Possible Blood Doctrine Change: A Hypothetical Conversation with all JWs

by daniel-p 35 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  daniel-p

  I don't know about you all, but I'm seriously thinking of making this blood doctrine change (if it happens) the catalyst for "coming out" against the Watchtower publicly.

  The following is a hypothetical conversation:

  ME>"If the organization really is under God's direction, why would he allow the propigation of a death-dealing doctrine, where his worshipers needlessly died based on misinterpretation of scripture? This has direct application to my own life, where I nearly died of complications related to hemorrhaging (see my profile) from a vascular tumor at the age of 21, only a year after I left Bethel. Why did I need to go through that? My prognosis would have been much better if they could have stabalized me with blood transfusions."

  JW>"But you lived anyway!"

  ME>"Yes, I did, but I could just as easily have died. I was there, and in those moments I accepted my impending death, fully believing I was making the right choice. Are you telling me that Jehovah made the decision to spare my life because I was faithful to him by not accepting blood?

  JW>"..."

  ME>"Because if so, why would he reward me for holding to false doctrine? And what about all those who were also faithful to this doctrine, but died?"

  JW>"Well, they'll be ressurected."

  ME>"Why? Because they were found righteous holding on to a false doctrine? No. You and I both know that Jehovah does not directly intervene to spare the lives of individuals. The Society has said so."

  JW>"In any case, the brothers are refining the organization... this is just one more refinement, and we must obey the change and be humble and accept it."

  ME>"You call this a refinement? No! Thousands of people--even children--DIED because of this doctrine! You're going to tell me that none of that matters since they'll all be resurrected? Well, then, if that is the case, if Jehovah really sees it that way, then our lives today aren't worth anything."

  JW>"I don't understand."

  ME>"If Jehovah was perfectly complicit with the needless death of his worshipers, then he must not value the life we have NOW. Our lives, NOW, are worth nothing."

  JW>"..."

  ME>"However, if he was not complicit with the needless death of his worshipers, then the Society acted against him, and they are a false prophet, misleading millions of people. Their fruit is rotten, and they are, in effect, saying "behold, he is out in the wilderness!" or "behold, he is in the inner rooms!" leading us here and there, straight into ruination (Matt 24:24). They must bear the guilt of the people who died following their false doctrines. As for "me and my household," we will serve God, not these wolves in sheep's clothing."

  So, any thoughts?
• 

  sir82

  Here's how the conversation would more likely go:

  ME>"If the organization really is under God's direction, why would he allow the propigation of a death-dealing doctrine, where his worshipers needlessly died based on misinterpretation of scripture? This has direct application to my own life, where I nearly died of complications related to hemorrhaging (see my profile) from a vascular tumor at the age of 21, only a year after I left Bethel. Why did I need to go through that? My prognosis would have been much better if they could have stabalized me with blood transfusions."

  THEM> "What are you, an apostate? I'm leaving!"

  Your premise seems to be based on calling the blood ban a "misinterpretation of scripture" and a "false doctrine", and having your hypothetical JW just blithely accepting those statements at face value.

  Ain't gonna happen.
• 

  daniel-p

  If they do, indeed, change it to being a conscience matter, than their previous interpretation of scripture was wrong. If it is just a "refinement", well, I touch on that above.
• 

  miseryloveselders

  If they do, indeed, change it to being a conscience matter, than their previous interpretation of scripture was wrong. If it is just a "refinement", well, I touch on that above.

  This was discussed in the other thread.....I tend to think this would send shockwaves throughout the JW world. This is a lot bigger than a refinement. This isnt the same as 1874, 1875, 1913, 1914, 1975, etc.. I understand you're hypothetical conversation, and how many JWs would downplay a change as major as this. However I believe firmly that there is a significant portion of unbelieving JWs looking for the smoking gun to walk away from this organization with dignity. My personal family situation would benefit if this rumour were to come to a realization. The powers that be in NY realize this, which is why i don't see this rumour as being true. Personally, I feel anyone believing this rumour is deluding themselves.
• 

  JWoods

  Well, I guess we will know for sure by the end of August, right?

  I am highly skeptical of this as well.
• 

  sir82

  Ah, so your opening post was based on the assumption that the Society will have already adjusted their blood ban into a mere conscience matter?

  Sorry, I must have missed that.

  But I really can't see that happening.
• 

  leavingwt

  Because of the Thought Reform, 99% of the publishers will accept whatever changes come their way and never give it a second thought.

  There are even groups out there that find the blood issue to be their only hangup. So, for these folks, they would run back to WT, more encouraged than ever.

  Seven million strong and growing.
• 

  sir82

  There are even groups out there that find the blood issue to be their only hangup. So, for these folks, they would run back to WT, more encouraged than ever.

  Unfortunately, probably true.

  Perhaps somewhere, deep in the bowels of some Bethel building, the most cynical number-crunchers are hashing out which effect would net them the best net gain in numbers and/or money.

  "If we drop the blood ban, we'll lose X thousand members who contribute an average of $Z per year, but we'll regain T thousand members whose only hangup was blood, and they'll bring in $Y per year."

  Solve for X, Y, Z, and T, and you'll know what the doctrine will be.
• 

  JWinprotest

  Good point leavingwt, "There are even groups out there that find the blood issue to be their only hangup. So, for these folks, they would run back to WT, more encouraged than ever."

  Never thought of it that way. The blood issue may have also prevented people from getting baptized in the first place.

  I am among those that will use this to get out cold turkey, but I'm not holding my breath. Maybe the WTS is the one starting the rumour just to get a feel of what the reaction would be?
• 

  leavingwt

  It's almost impossible to overstate the effects of the Thought Reform. Their minds have been trained to accept whatever comes their way, even things that don't make any sense.

  In all seriousness, this is how it plays out, for most.

  • WT makes a change.
  • Publisher thinks, "Wow! Truly they are the Faithful Slave! They have corrected their mistake, no matter how embarrassing it may have been!"

  I can't even make this stuff up.