New Information On Blood? (page 3)

Gayle

I am in such a stew about this,,so upset,,because I think the WTS will have a way of skirting out of this and and just state that it was these individuals own consciences to reject a necessary blood transfusion. The WTS would still praise those that died and lived by their own conscience and that we should all respect them anyway. There will be no apology about it. They did it about vaccinations, they did it about organ transplants and they can do it again about the blood. Their legal dept will be able to protect and manipulate their way out of it.

The majority of JWs will accept the change.

Violia

Yes it will be your choice and you will then have to deal with the civil authorites when they come after you and not the wts.

EmptyInside

It may be just additional information on procedures regarding bloodless surgery. For example,the cell saver,it doesn't always keep the blood continuously circulating and some may have a problem with this.

Remember,how the org is,they get everyone excited about new information,and sometimes it's just to clarify old information.

EmptyInside

It may be just additional information on procedures regarding bloodless surgery. For example,the cell saver,it doesn't always keep the blood continuously circulating and some may have a problem with this.

Remember,how the org is,they get everyone excited about new information,and sometimes it's just to clarify old information.

happyexjw

If it does turn out to be a conscience matter (publicly) it will still have implication on the R&F consciences privately (formally D'Aing yourself) brining it into the same lines as Bulgaria.

Maybe word has spread about Bulgaria and people are questioning this, with the leagal department bigger than the GB's egos they are realising R & F are maybe awakeing, especially those that have lost ones who have not accepted no blood and passed away becuase of it and then the change to blood fractions, but if they were allowed blood fraction as a conscsience matter they may now still be around.

We are now living in an age where anyone can access information instantly, the society are aware of this, and this scares them especially their legal department. They have to make some changes otherwise if they carry on with the no blood stance publically then they could well be sued and tried for a big religous genocide, now that would cost the WTS financially and the towers come crumbling down.

Damage limitation, lets face it most R & F never batted an eyelid to the new generations teaching - mostly cos they were either asleep, planning where to go for their evening meal or compling their shopping lists or dont really care as long as they appear to be nodding clapping in the right places they will get the chance to pet lions in the a perfect new world. They are very cleaver when they make changes they do it in a way that no one really notice. They have got away with many doctrinal changes and though a few have left it is not compared to witnesses watching them being sued for genocide and it being played out in court on all the news channels for everyone to see, how will the the GB cope rotting in prision and losing all their power and glory and money.

Ok maybe im being too optimistic on this and maybe i just saw a pig fly past my window, but it would be great if that is the case, many lives will not be lost to man made lies. If this change just makes one person think about what they are being taught and leaves then thats another person who has finally found innner peace, and thats a good thing.

Now off the the drunken gibberish thread lol

Happyexjw

stuckinamovement

Btt

brotherdan

My mom is one of those whose conscience does not allow for blood fractions. Even if she was bitten by a snake, she would not allow them to give her an anti-venom shot because of blood compounds found within.

Just for everyone's info: Getting a blood transfusion isn't a df'ing offense. With all the legal troubles the society had in this case, they already downgraded it to virtually DA'ing yourself. That way they can say things like, "There are no religious sanctions for taking a blood transfusion." It's a legal loophole that they found and have exploited.

So that wouldn't be anything new.

thetrueone

Losing to these situations where the government takes over the legal decision to issue BTs to under aged children isn't doing allot for their

public image. What most likely will happen as I mentioned before is the WTS will completely stay clear supportively and legally in these and other

blood situations, leaving the debate and problem complacently on to each individual.

They will still probably have BT support committees up and running to help people out on folks trying not to have one.

I'm in doubt that the WTS will make it totally a conscience matter without any ramifications on to their members.

That seems too unrealistical in spite of all that this organization has stood and fought for over the years.

brotherdan

I forget who said it, but I agree that if they reversed the blood stand, there would be a lot of people that would leave. SO many people have died because of this issue. And they were not acting on behalf of their own conscience (for the most part). They were following the GB policy. I have no problem with a person that chose not to accept blood because THEY felt it was wrong. (Children, of course, are a different matter).

skeeter1

As I posted many times, the most "sense" is to make blood a personal decision.

There are big problems for Watchtower's legal department defending a blood case. By making blood a "personal decision", it allows the WT attorney to have a much stronger arugment that his representation is without coercion.

Then, look at Russia. Russia banned the JWs, and a large part was due to the blood issue and disfellowshipping. That 141 million potential converts. Make blood an individual choice - then countries like Russia may open up. In addition, Bulgaria.

Then, look at the countries that tax the JWs; in part because of the blood ban.

New Information On Blood?

Share this