New Blood policy for JW medical professionals?

by FreeAgent 41 Replies latest watchtower medical

  • careful

    After mentioning this to someone else, a thought came to mind, reinforced by respectful_observer's comment above. Since so may of the org's changes are motivated by legal concerns, does anyone know of a legal case that might lie behind this "under-the-radar" change? Something's got to be behind it, and as I stated above, it's doubtful that it's theology.

  • blondie

    Some changes are due to some teachings having reached the expiration date, such as 1975 and what a generation is. As 80 years after 1914 approaclhed, 1994, approached the WTS changed the generation. And then had to explain why the end was not coming as soon as expected and lengthened to time period by adding another generation. 1975 came and went and no new system, the WTS had to rewrite history, or the 7,000 year creative changed in 1987 to "thousands of years."

    The Mormons due the same thing getting direction from on high to change their doctrines.

  • waton

    If this becomes known to the personell officers in the medical institutions, particularly in the US, would that not lead to a reluctance to hire avowed or even just hanger-ons Jws?

    Imagine having spend 4 years in University and now nobody will hire you? because ambulance chasers have now another hook , "you employed a caregiver that in effect told you they would not administer the most effective treatment" ?

  • FreeAgent

    Hey all,

    Returning to this topic, did anyone ever provide a copy of the mystery letter read to the JW medical community last year? If not, it looks like we may have a crack in the case from an unexpected source, a leading JW apologist. See below for an excerpt from Rolf Furuli's new ebook. Included in his critique of the GB's general abuse of authority, he uses this recent blood policy action as an example, and refers to a letter of 15 June 2018. The section includes a partial transcript, ostensibly from that letter. Sorry about quality....

  • Finkelstein

    One thing you can see of the JWS organization is that men can openly build a framework of power around themselves just by saying we are the chosen ones (FDSL) in god's eyes or in other words are bible interpretations are correct, other men's bible interpretations from other organizations are not.

    The Blood issue with the JWS has cost the lives of thousands, from babies to the elderly.

  • Vidiot

    It's funny...

    ...quite some time back, it looked like the Org was aiming to quietly phase out the blood prohibition (whilst going out of their way to avoid appearing as though they were phasing it out, of course).

    The world around them changed considerably from 9-11 onward, though.

    Instead, now - especially due, I'm sure, to all the increasing pressures they're currently experiencing - they've chosen to dig in their heels instead.

    This is telling, because it's absolutely what True Believers would do if/when they...

    a) ...are certain that God's got their back no matter what...

    b) ...view the secular world with extreme suspicion, and...

    c) ...genuinely believe the End really is Nigh.

  • road to nowhere
    road to nowhere

    My impression is a lot of stances are taken simply to be controversial. Blood, flag salute, voting, education.

    The blood is a muddy mystery now. I stand in respect for others, like judges. Allowing others to follow their conscience on saluting is polite.

  • Finkelstein

    Aww the power cant you just feel it ?

    the human compassion and love , well maybe not.

  • Vidiot
    road to nowhere - "My impression is a lot of stances are taken simply to be controversial. Blood, flag salute, voting, education."


    Pick a contrarian stance, and find or concoct a "Biblical"/religious pretext to justify it...

    ...Rutherford and Fred Franz were fucking experts at that.

    Problem with that MO, though, is that more often than not, the stance ends up being demonstrably wrong...

    ...but out of pride and self-delusion, the architects of said stance double-down, even becoming dogmatic and offensive about the issue if they're called out on it (or worse), to the point where they fall into the habit of crying "persecution" at every turn.

    Of course - as I've said before - going around jabbing people in the eye with a stick when you're embarrassed and then whining when you get a beatdown for it doesn't actually make you persecuted... just makes you an asshole.

  • dropoffyourkeylee

    I agree completely, I believe Rutherford introduced things with the intent of provoking a confrontation, and to take things to court. Arguing before the Supreme Court was his dream and goal.

Share this