If Ted Jaracz Dies Will the Governing Body Allow Blood Transfussions

by frankiespeakin 37 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  frankiespeakin

  I think when he finally kicks the bucket that the GB will allow the rank and file to save thier lives with a blood transfussion.

  From Randy's site:

  http://www.freeminds.org/bethel/gbgrowsold.htm

  Rumors of Power Play

  As yet there is no indication of any form of outright dissent within Bethel or the current leadership, but rumors are that GB member Ted Jaracz is the hard-line boss squelching all reform at present. He is in charge of the organization’s “storm troopers,” the Service Dept. One dissenter writes:

  There is a big philosophical split between the Writing Dept. and the Service Dept. — liberals versus conservatives. The Writing Dept. (was) headed by GB member Lloyd Barry, who I've heard mixed reviews about. I've been told by people who know him that he's fairly hard-line or fairly soft-line. I suppose it depends on one's point of view. Ted Jaracz heads up the Service Dept. and those who have commented about him are unanimous that he's a hard-line (omitted). The other GB members call him "The Boss" and they aren't just making fun. Barry and Jaracz, and of course their respective departments, have major disagreements about how JWs should behave and how the JW organization should be run. The nasty, hard-line approach of the last 20 years is due almost entirely to Jaracz' dominance.
• 

  M.J.

  I truly hope so. The sacrifice of lives for the sake of saving face over a bad move by their leaders in the 1940s is so tragic. But then again the resistance to change this policy probably stems from the threat of lawsuits more than anything else.
• 

  Scully

  I think they would still have to introduce New Light™ very very gradually to avoid a lot of unhappy people who may have lost loved ones unnecessarily.
• 

  frankiespeakin

  
  Scully,

  They probably do it as inconspicuously as possible to avoid loosing to many r&f.

  Here's a site that has the transcript for the BBC Panarama broadcast "Suffer the Little Children" back in 2002 july.:

  http://www.watchtowerinformationservice.org/panorama.htm

  I think the surprise interview with Ted Jaracz shows him to be a Sociopath to the nth degree what do you think:

  Convention	So it was back to America and back to a Jehovah’s Witness convention in Tulsa. We’d been told we’d find a member of the Governing Body here. Ted Jaracz is one of the men responsible for the Church’s Child Protection Policy. For more than two months we’ve been asking them for an interview. We want answers to some simple questions – why do they keep their database of suspected paedophiles secret, why don’t they report all allegations of abuse to the police, why do they send children back to the arms of their abusers? They’d refused to talk to us but here at last we had our chance.
  Doorstep Sync	Doorstep Sync BP: We’re from the BBC Panorama programme. BP: Tell me about the database. How do you justify keeping a list of paedophiles, men in some cases who have confessed to paedophilia but you have not reported them to an authority. What justification is there for you to keep that? TJ: You know, you are from Britain. You have privacy law. A directive from the European Union. You observe that don’t you? BP: So if allegations are made of child abuse, it’s alright to keep them private? TJ: I think that question has been answered to your satisfaction. BP: Could you just answer it now? TJ: I’m not going to repeat, I’m just going to tell you, you can see it all in writing. You know the Bible says do not go beyond the things that are written. We do not go beyond the things that are written.
  Shoving + Jaracz walking away	10.36.25 And that was that. No doubt, no second thoughts. Just a simple belief that Jehovah will sort it out; a belief for which others, younger and more vulnerable may continue to pay a price.
  	Bill Bowen Sync 10.36.44 MY comments: What a f#cking Loser this TJ is he can't even give a kind answer or not very nice reply to the new media, surely from someone who claims to be the faith & discrete slave he could have given a kinder reply that at least showed some concern for the victims. It is clear from this interview he doesn't even give a $hit. Nice Ted the whole Governing Body is so proud of you for handling that with such finese.
• 

  Honesty

  If they do away with the blood prohibition what will replace it?

  They have to make human sacrifices to appease the WT god.

  KOOL-AID, anyone?
• 

  Carol

  Well now I'm really confused....goes to show how long it's been since I've been associated, however here's my question. If it was "the truth" in 1969 and 1959 and 1949 and 1939, etc. (I think you can see the pattern here) and if Jehovah tells us in the BIBLE not to eat blood, i.e. blood transfusions, then how can they possible change the rules now? Does that mean we also should have been able to go to college, have premarital sexual relations, marry out of the truth, be homosexual if that's how we were born and oh yeh celebrate Christmas, Easter and Birthdays?
• 

  daystar

  Carol says,

  Well now I'm really confused....goes to show how long it's been since I've been associated, however here's my question. If it was "the truth" in 1969 and 1959 and 1949 and 1939, etc. (I think you can see the pattern here) and if Jehovah tells us in the BIBLE not to eat blood, i.e. blood transfusions, then how can they possible change the rules now? Does that mean we also should have been able to go to college, have premarital sexual relations, marry out of the truth, be homosexual if that's how we were born and oh yeh celebrate Christmas, Easter and Birthdays?

  See, this is where the house of cards falls. This is such a major issue that without some supernatural (ick!) stretching, New Light can't exactly be used to explain this without making suspect each and every other teaching the JWs promote.
• 

  jula71

  Carol, the rules have been gradually changing. Now "blood fractions" are allowed as a conscience matter.
• 

  frankiespeakin

  Caral,

  Maybe when Ted Jaracz dies they might be able to change it be cause they can take another vote on it. They need a 2/3 majority to change an existing policy as apposed to a simple majority where no GB policy was already in place.
• 

  Nathan Natas

  
  Carol asked,

  Does that mean we also should have been able to go to college, have premarital sexual relations, marry out of the truth, be homosexual if that's how we were born and oh yeh celebrate Christmas, Easter and Birthdays?

  YES! Didn't you get the memo?

  I couldn't resist joking with you... but seriously; organ transplants were OK, then they were cannibalism, now they're OK again. A similar evolution has been occuring with the blood policy. The way the blood policy is stated right now, any of the components of blood are OK to transfuse, as long as they are not transfused together and therefore equivalent to whole blood.

  It's like being told you can have two all beef patties, OR special sauce, OR lettuce, OR cheese, OR pickles, OR onions, OR a sesame seed bun, but you can't put them all together and have a BIG MAC.

  ...and that "matter of conscience" policy is thinly veiled baloney! Sure, it's a cosncience matter, but if you get a transfusion the congregation will be told that you are (by vitrue of your conscientious choice) no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses, and the "shun machine" will be turned on.