Evidence is growing that the Society now recognizes the grave
danger of holding on to the blood doctrine and is quickly trying
to 'fade it to black'.
It is likely that most Witnesses will passively go along with this
fraud and deny that they were ever required to avoid blood transfusion.
It is easy to imagine the Society publically asserting that
blood transfusion was 'always a matter of conscience' and not have
any more than a handful of Witnesses question the change especially
with the new intensified policy of disfellowshipping anyone who
The motivation now for seeking their destruction is more clear than
ever: Their cruel, sociopathic use of disfellowshipping and renewed emphasis on breaking up families and friends with it. As long as this
remains, ( and is emphasized anew) there is no reason to relent
and leave them alone - even with the loss of the transfusion fraud
So, the question is: what is their weakest link? Where is the most
vunerable spot in their armor? How best to defeat the Watchtower?
Feel free to respond. At this point, their public reputation has
been ( and likely will continue) to be justly blackened. The task
of their defeat therefore shifts to finding the next effective way
to chip away at their control.
I think it might be the use of the name 'Jehovah'. This doctrine
is probably, at present, the most imaginary and utterly unsupported
teaching they have. Thinking that early Christians used the Tetragrammaton to any significant degree must be considered a fantasy.
Every time Jesus said "Father" he avoided using "Yahweh" (or whatever).
Recognition of this error also leads to taking note of how the
organization carefully avoids referring to the "Lord Jesus Christ"
in common conversation - and ignores Christ almost completely
in published 'life-experiences' in the Watchtower when expressing
FURTHERMORE, I THINK THEY ARE FRIGHTENED OF THIS FACT!
Take a good look at recent magazines (like Sept.15) that subtly
emphasize their "proof' that Christian writers used the Tetragrammaton.
Their continuing strategy is to 'build walls' of defense around
various doctrines or practises - no different from legal matters
where they seek to erect precedents of case law, one after the
other, to protect themselves.
The process of chipping away must continue
since they have brazenly rejected ethical reform.