by Intuit39 29 Replies latest jw experiences
They've already started to back off on the blood issue by stating that people do not get disfellowshipped for having a blood transfusion, but instead disassociate themselves for doing it.
I think it will be a fairly easy slide into a conscience matter from there....and it certainly appears as if they're getting ready for it.
I found that the change from transplants being okay in 1961 to not okay in 1967 to okay in 1980 seemed to go through without much notice from the R&F. I thought that was a serious change from a life-thretening choice to a non-threatening one in 1980. Some people don't even remember that it was forbidden.
Edited by - Blondie on 9 July 2002 16:58:28
We have already been to the convention.
The new book: "Worship the Only True God" is a remake of the old book: "United in Worship of the Only True God".
When the announcement was made at the convention, it was introduced as a "simplified" version.
The three (3) chapters not included from the old book are:
Chapter 14- "I make a Covenant With You for a Kingdom"
( probably to change their doctrine on the 144,000 and
Christ's Rulership date)
Chapter 19- "What the Mosaic Law Means to You"
(they alreadly flipped-flopped on military service-
saying compulsory service is ok for JWs)
Chapter 20- "Life and Blood-Do You Treat Them as Sacred?"
(they already changed on the blood issue, saying its
ok to transfuse certain components, etc).
I did not get a chance to look at all the chapters in the new book, but of the ones I did notice that they changed some paragraphs around, added or deleted some scriptures. But the book looks basically the same as the old except for the deletion of the above chapters.
Ronin1
Red wrote: They've already started to back off on the blood issue by stating that people do not get disfellowshipped for having a blood transfusion, but instead disassociate themselves for doing it.
They called off the dogs. That's a good start. Train the dogs to not attack and then just make it a personal choice issue.
It's just a game called life and death.
gb
They have also taken out the three points in chapter 2? on the Trinity.
The elimination of the points on the trinity may not signal a change in doctrine. They may have been dropped simply because no one cares anymore. There's no point in explaining why you don't believe in the trinity if no one knows what the trinity is anymore.
Actually, Runningman, my experience is that even 20 years ago most people didn't know what the trinity was inside or outside the organization.
It was once considered one of the original false doctrines Russell and his followers found were not "scriptural" along with hellfire and the immortal soul. Of course, we don't hear much about hellfire either except from the Baptists.
I just thought it was just one more thing that drops away from the body of teaching JWs hold so dear. Considering that the JWs have a whole brochure devoted to the topic of the trinity, I was surprised that 3 paragraphs would be dropped.
Maybe it is a case of trying to mainline themselves.
Can you imagine the trouble it must have been to try and teach the Trinity in New Guinea Pidgin (or other languages) just to have to turn around and unravel it. It probably confused the poor dolts in their huts more than anything else.
We used to have to explain 'bestiality' and such to the stupid Kentucky householders, just so they would know what was so bad!
So, yeah, the new abridged and watered down versions (ummm...'simplified') must be so much easier for them to translate...
You knowim, onefella bigheaded fella what havim threefella head, bigfella...englis knowim 'Trinity' olsem, youfella pickaninny no more knowim, otay?
does anyone think that maybe it may be harder now for the GB to let go of the blood issue because of the internet? when I was in jr high studying for talks (back in 82/83) I remember hearing some mention of 1975 but no one ever really laid out exactly what had happened. it wasn't until years later (92/93) that I actually found out what the fuss was about. and I found out about it online. now, with the internet so much more accessible than it was and the numerous accounts of people's personal stories/tragedies involving the blood issue on many different sites, is it even plausible that the GB would actually still try to deny that they counseled against taking blood for so many years?
will
13th:
20 years from now, when the blood issue will have long since been designated a conscience matter, it will be swept under the rug and the decades long ban will be considered to be of little importance to dubs at that time. Then they'll come out with another "history" book such as the Proclaimers book that will gloss over the issue and make it seem as though they never really made a big deal of it. And old-timers who were affected by the issue will be counseled along the lines of -
"Can any of us rightly be upset with Jehovah because we can now accept in good conscience something that was previously unacceptable to us? Certainly this would not be the case..."
blah blah blah blah
Edited by - dantheman on 14 July 2002 11:38:48
