Posted by Friend [Friend] on April 05, 1999 at 11:06:06 {6.uz.4vynMBao8LWLRQ.OgnjR4Br/g}:
In Reply to: **?s for the reform minded posted by 5GJW on April 05, 1999 at 10:30:39:
5GJW
No, it is not my opinion. Archives at Brooklyn Bethel and older branch offices have thick files of letters from concerned JWs. Bethel received a lot letters especially in the early 50�s from individual JW�s essentially saying, �Why aren�t you guys doing anything about blood transfusions, the idea is repugnant and against the Bible!� A couple years of that and the Society decided it had merit. With a few exceptions, during that period the Society functioned much more like an association rather than a ruling authority. I believe there is at least one other participant on this form having also read a few of the described letters.
You must understand that JWs of that time were a particularly hardy bunch enthusiastic about setting up any tough standard differentiating themselves from anybody else claiming Christianity. Whether or not those standards could stand up to close critical scrutiny was not considered important as long as it held some merit. The mood was that if we can at all defend it we should institute it. I�m sure you realize that it is much easier to defend a total ban on blood than a partial ban. I�m not saying that either can stand up to close criticism but rather that to a novice one is more easily justified.
Friend