Excellent, thanks. Does this mean you're no longer anonymous?
I first heard about the "liberal elder" during a meeting for field service in 1999. One of the first things I googled, or whatever the search engine was then.
Great to hear your story Lee. Looking forward to part two - please let us know when it is up. I enjoyed looking at your site last year when I was doing research. Its very interesting to hear how it all came about.
Londo111: Very interesting. If I knew that, I had forgotten it. He seemed quite familiar with the Watchtower. Nice gentlemen on the phone. Clearly not fond of the JW's for obvious reasons I did not appreciate at the time.
Slimboyfat: I am technically still anonymous. I was interviewed for a documentary back in March in which I used my real name. At this point, its not really a big deal anymore. Seems like you might have mentioned that story to me before? Remind me how the person conducting the meeting for field service knew me?
doubtful1799: Sure I will post a link here when its published.
Here is an exert from FF's talk about 1975:
"that`s all we can say to John Dart the religious editor of the Los Angeles Times or anybody else out there in the world who wants to know what we have published regarding this critical year,we know its a critical year,we know we are near something,but were not saying"
The audio can be found online on Youtube and other places. His tone conveys more information on the meaning than the words do...and it is obvious that the audience receieve the meaning about 1975 and were ecstatic. You can also tell the sarcasm dripping in FF's voice when he mentioned "John Dart".
What a great article. I have two friends who serve on HLCs in their areas and in talking to them it seems that they have a two pronged approach depending on the audience.
When talking to doctors it's all about alternative treatments, ethics, non-blood management best practice etc. One of my friends suggested he knew more about the medical techniques and approaches than most doctors who were not specialising in specific areas of practice (e.g. hemotology, anesthestists, consultants etc). It's very much a case of suggesting reasons that are based on costs, technical improvements, ethics etc.
They don't get into the detail of the doctrine with doctors. They certainly don't get into the illogical aspects of the policy.
With Witnesses it's much more making sure they accept some treatment that the WTS considers acceptable, don't embarrass the HLC by accepting something banned and certainly don't die. They avoid the technicalities where they can, keep it simple and try and make the choice as black and white as possible. In the most cases, just so long as the patient knows the treatment is acceptable to the WTS then they are happy.
I often wonder how many HLC members wake up to the nonsense of the blood policy when they get appointed?
Londo111: Thanks for the quote. Do you happen to recall the year that is from? Was it the International convention in 1969?
Konceptual99: Yes - that mirrors my experience as well. We've had quite a few HLC members with AJWRB over the years. Getting ready to publish the story of one HLC coordinator in the near future. Always thought it was strange the way the WT talks about blood and conscience, and the need for the doctors to respect it. At the same time, very few of the friends understand all of the various blood products that are permitted. They will frequently say no until an HLC member comes along and says, "its ok - the WT says so". Then of course they routinely accept it. There is no respect for individual conscience in these matters. Just the requirement to comply with what you are told.
I'm not too sure...it was likely the late 60's. Here is the video...he mentions John Dart around the nine minute mark.
At the same time, very few of the friends understand all of the various blood products that are permitted. They will frequently say no until an HLC member comes along and says, "its ok - the WT says so". Then of course they routinely accept it. There is no respect for individual conscience in these matters.
Are most hospitals aware that the average JW has no clue, and really no choice?
Why do hospitals allow the elders to be inside the rooms of the patients when they can see the undue influence?
I remember the talk. Such hubris and equivocation. I was baptized at the time, but just a kid.