What Happened at Watchtower in 2001?

by Marvin Shilmer 29 Replies latest jw friends

  • Marvin Shilmer
    Marvin Shilmer

    What Happened at Watchtower in 2001? … The 2001 blood card that was—then wasn’t.

    I have added a new article addressing a unique event that occurred in year 2001 involving a change Watchtower made on its No-Blood cards, and then changed back. This event included instruction from Watchtower to destroy documents.

    The article is What Happened at Watchtower in 2001? … The 2001 blood card that was—then wasn’t, and is available at: http://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com/2011/02/what-happened-at-watchtower-in-2001.html

    Marvin Shilmer

    marvinshilmer.blogspot.com

  • minimus
    minimus

    What difference has it made? I was the Secretary then. JWs are stil dying over their not taking blood.

    (Maybe Rick Fearon can have Johnny The Bethelite find out what happened).

  • sir82
    sir82

    This topic has always fascinated me.

    My pet belief (as unprovable as any other speculation):

    The 9/11/2001 World Trade Center attacks put "the fear of God" into one or more previously wavering GB members, who perhaps reluctantly agreed to the new wording.

    I suspect these GB members either viewed it as a "shot across the bow" from Jehovah himself, warning them of "his mighty power" and expressing his disapproval of the change....or at the very least, made them think "Armageddon is very close now, let's be as conservative as possible."

    And so a GB meeting was quickly convened and all the reluctant voters switched back to their previous hardline position.

    Come to think of it, most of the reinforcement of the extreme hardline positions, which had softened over the previous few decades, seemed to start around 2001/2002.

    Stuff like

    -- Absolute condemnation of university education

    -- Absolute enforced extreme shunning of even the closest DF'ed relatives

    -- Absolute unwavering loyalty, obedience, and submission to every honey-dripped expression emanating from the GB's collective mouths

    -- Absolute condemnation of modern technology (cell phones, internet "chat rooms", etc.) which are held to inevitably and irreversibly lead to apostasy or a life utter degradation as a porn addict.

    As I said, I base this on nothing more than my fevered imagaination.

    But it certainly fits like a custom made shoe.

  • minimus
    minimus

    of course

  • belbab
    belbab

    Marvin,

    It has been said quite a few times on this board, that if the WT totally reversed their stance on blood transfusions they would leave themselves open to many law suits from people or their relatives that sufferedd loss over their ban on blood.

    Would it not be the same if they made a change that autologous blood was acceptable?

    If some JW could have been saved if he had stored his own blood before surgury, and he died under an operation when autologous blood was banned, then relatives could come back on the WT for damages and sue the ass off them.

    Once again, their motives are money, not lives!

    belbab

    PS Marvin, check or mail icon later, I need some info. thanks

  • Marvin Shilmer
    Marvin Shilmer

    Minimus writes:

    “What difference has it made?”

    What difference has what made?

    My work is to share knowledge, which means sharing information. Knowledge empowers individuals. If you want to know what difference a piece of information has had on some individual you’d have to ask that individual.

    It also turns out that helping folks by sharing knowledge is satisfying. Hence the difference for me is the satisfaction of providing help for individuals in the way of information. I don’t force-feed it; but I do find pleasure in sharing for sake those who want or need it.

    Marvin Shilmer

  • blondie
    blondie

    I believe it was an in-house struggle in the GB................

  • Marvin Shilmer
    Marvin Shilmer

    Belbab writes:

    “It has been said quite a few times on this board, that if the WT totally reversed their stance on blood transfusions they would leave themselves open to many law suits from people or their relatives that suffered loss over their ban on blood.”

    I have heard that speculation too, and it has never made sense to me from a strictly legal perspective.

    On the other hand, the fallout from such a change would be very bad for the religion business, and that is the business Watchtower is in.

    My opinion is that current Watchtower’s top leadership knows its whole blood doctrine is a loser, and always has been. Problem is, Watchtower has a tremendous investment in the doctrine. Were this investment to suddenly collapse it could lead to an irreversible deconstruction, which is not good for any business. The result is that Watchtower’s top leadership is stuck with a lemon of a teaching it no longer believes in but can’t just get rid of with “new light” like it has so many other teachings that turned out to be just as sour.

    The Witness community has never completely owned the teaching and Watchtower’s leadership knows this perfectly well. When pressed for answers to details, Watchtower never fails to disappoint by avoiding to answer.

    Marvin Shilmer

    marvinshilmer.blogspot.com

  • undercover
    undercover

    I remember when the cards had to be recalled. I've always wondered about the real reasons behind it. It's nice to see this compiled in a way to compare it, even if we never have anything more than speculation on why it happened.

    as for the question, what difference has it made... well, I guess that to still indoctrinated dubs it doesn't make a difference. They do as told and believe as told.

    But - to those that do start to question or come out of the zombie state, this bit of blood doctrine history could be a catalyst for them to examine even more the basis of the doctrine and how, or if, it stands up to criticism. There may never be a clear answer as to why this incident happened, but coupled with the other changes over the years to the doctrine, to anyone paying attention it shows that there is not a concensus on how to view the use of blood. If there's not a consensus between the men who make up the spokesmen for the slave, then why should I, or anyone else take their word as gospel putting my life on the line? I think that's the conclusion that many people would come to if they took the time to learn about this.

  • Marvin Shilmer
    Marvin Shilmer

    Blondie writes:

    “I believe it was an in-house struggle in the GB................”

    That is what I was told by a then member of the larger Bethel family who would have had access to that sort of knowledge. To hear him tell it you’d think a couple of those guys nearly traded blows.

    Marvin Shilmer

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit