UK About To Flip-Flop On Blood?

by Englishman 13 Replies latest jw friends

  • Englishman

    I was having a chat with my apostate kid brother yesterday about witness beliefs. He finds that talking about JW's stimulates his mind almost as much as watching paint drying. I told him that our Mother was about to be imprinted yet again by the territorial WT savages, this time in the re-iteration of that loving practice known as disfellowshipping. He said that so what, it's no big deal, they will probably change their minds about it just like they did recently over the blood-issue. Yawn.

    Change over the blood issue?

    Well, yes, according to li'l bro, who lives close to Momma, she told him, just a few weeks ago, that the receiving of a blood transfusion was now OK for Jehovah's people.

    Now kid bro and Momma are both very clear thinking people, so it's quite unlikely that either are mistaken. I am also reliably informed that pre assembly meetings for long term witnesses only, are starting to occur, and that my Momma gets invited to these. Could this be another way to get change across gradually without alarming the new dubs? Is there change on the way, and is this new light being gradually introduced via private little meetings so that acceptance by the R & F becomes more likely?

    Anyone else got any input about this?


  • Dizzy Cat
    Dizzy Cat

    Hmm.... interesting, I'll put some feelers out. It seriously would not shock me at all. The Bible grounds for the transfusion rule is thin (to say the least).

  • nancee park
    nancee park

    There is no change as they simply say now that they do not disfellowship anyone for taking blood but rather if they are unrepentant that they took blood. Word trick in the Theocratic Warfare entourage so they can "try" to duck wrong death lawsuits and the like.

  • metatron

    ah, but there's a problem with simply using theocratic lies to cover up the mess.

    They forgot to put the doctrine in the new book for baptism - and didn't give out

    blood cards.

    Even stupid, braindead Witless zombies must ask questions now and then.


  • Matty

    I have not heard of any pre assembly meetings for long term witnesses, that sounds very interesting. Well, taking blood is now an act of disassociation, which is just a play on words, it means just the same thing as it always did as far as I can see. Examples of the blood stance are still being related at the meetings and at the conventions. If there is any change it hasn't filtered to the R&F yet.

    I really doubt if the policy will change.

    Edited by - matty on 9 August 2002 10:16:31

  • LittleToe

    Last December we were bored to tears in the elders school, as the article on what was acceptable was read out and "emphasised". We were encouraged to mark up the article along with the bruvver. It genuinely was all I could do to stay away, as I had pre-read it, as per instructions.

    You get DA'ed for transfusion, just the same as going to church or joining the armed forces.

    Different term, same result.

  • Englishman

    Li'l Toe,

    This new light came out in the last couple weeks I believe.


  • Matty

    The last couple of weeks? Whoa, now that's really interesting.

    The way that they are distancing themselves from the policy is self evident, but I thought they would chicken out of going the whole hog and scrapping the doctrine. But I guess that's what they did with transplants some time ago, but that was before the world went litigation crazy.

  • belbab

    If they are going to this extent to have special meetings to introduce changes gradually through a sort of grapevine distribution system there must be something in the background that is putting pressure on them, some threat.

    They are like politicians who leak out trial balloons to see what flies or not, and to see what the r and f 's reactions will be.

    Their coverup on the blood issue, saying it is up to the individual's conscience, yet holding out of sight the the real consequence that will fall on the one who uses transfusion, may be coming thin and exposed on the edges. Some astute persons may be calling them on their subterfuge, and saying the WT is still legally libel.

    Keep digging, especially in the UK, they may be meeting local needs there.


  • writerpen

    If they changed their stance on this issue, do you really think the dubs would care other than those who have lost loved ones in death due to this doctrine? Or would they just say, it's "new light?"

Share this