That is a long-winded title for a discussion of a recent BBC article relating how the Jehovah’s Witnesses leadership has changed the longstanding rule against blood transfusions to now allow most such blood-related medical procedures, often in connection with major surgery or lifesaving treatments. Pay attention both to the article’s discussion of the human impact of the prior policy as well as the roundabout way the JW spokesperson explains the change and why it happened now rather than twenty or forty years ago.

Interestingly, the article explains that the JW ban on blood transfusions only dates to 1945, in the wake of the widespread use of blood transfusions during World War Two. The JW spokesperson quoted in the article clarified that “the basic teaching has not changed and that the transfusion of whole blood is still prohibited.” The article then notes that “for decades, most transfusions have not used whole blood, instead using the specific components of blood that are needed by the patient.” Consequently, most Witnesses are now free to get what are commonly termed “blood transfusions” (but which use only certain blood components, not whole blood) in connection with a variety of surgeries and other medical treatments.

The JW spokesperson also notes “that even after the new edict, some Jehovah’s Witnesses could still decide they did not want to accept a transfusion.” After a lifetime of standing firm on this difficult policy, often at great personal risk, I can see how some current Witnesses might continue to choose not to receive the now-allowed blood treatments.

Justifying the change, the JW spokesperson said,

The change is being justified by permitting the use of blood components, like plasma and red blood cells and platelets, in the huge numbers of medical procedures that were previously banned.

He went on to add that “the Bible references ‘abstaining from blood’ but not ‘various components that could be extracted from blood’.” Or he could have said, “that was a policy, not an unchangeable doctrine.” Or he could have said, “after prayerful inquiry over many years, a revelation from God has now given us further light and knowledge on the subject, resulting in this change.”

The article also highlights the individual cases of some Witnesses who lost a family member in light of the prior policy. Particularly touching is the account of a woman whose aunt died because of the policy — then she later ended up divorced from her husband “after it came to light that he had had a blood transfusion as a child.” So you can see that the prior blood transfusion ban had a deep personal impact on many Witnesses — and the new change is likewise difficult for many JWs to accept, as welcome as it may be to others.

The closest LDS parallel may be to the termination of the public practice of polygamy in 1890. It was explained as a revelation, not at all a response to public or government pressure. And it caused some grief for many Mormons (particularly those who were then in a plural marriage) while being welcome to many other LDS at the time.

Whatever explanations or justifications are used, and whatever you may think of them, we should admire and applaud this JW policy change. It will be a blessing to those who need blood products as part of a surgery or treatment. It will save lives. It can be described objectively, I think, as an accommodation of religious doctrine or practice to advances in science and medicine. It might be a model for how similar changes have occurred or will occur in LDS doctrine and practice.

Consider coffee and caffeine. Once upon a time, drinking Coca-Cola was deeply frowned upon within the Church. The reasoning was that coffee has caffeine, and Coke has caffeine, so avoid it as well. I’ll bet a lot of you were taught to drink root beer or Sprite but not Coke when you were a kid. In light of the JW change, perhaps we can now explain the current LDS policy and practice like this: Practicing members of the Church cannot drink whole coffee, but can drink coffee components such as caffeine in other drinks like Diet Coke (about 45 mg per can) or in pill form like Excedrin (65 mg per pill) or No Doz (100 mg or 200 mg per pill). Even supercharged energy drinks are okay (some have up to 300 mg per can). Just don’t drink whole coffee.

As with the explicit JW change, I think we can applaud the implicit LDS change that now allows you to take as much caffeine as you want. There was never an announcement, just a change over time, likely reflecting behind-the-scenes directives from senior leaders to local leadership to just stop talking about it and please, please do not deny temple recommends because someone drinks Coca-Cola. But no LDS leader ever had to explain the change. And that’s another way to approach a change in policy or practice: rather than explain or justify using one of the reasons noted above (new and better reading of scripture; policy not doctrine; revelation) just quietly shift the approach and don’t say anything. The first rule of doctrine and policy change: don’t talk about doctrine and policy change.

The same “don’t say anything” approach happened with birth control, which was a really big deal up until maybe the 1980s or so. Then it just sort of disappeared from LDS discourse. No announcement, just no more finger-wagging or commentary. And here is the current LDS policy on birth control, at section 38.6.4 of the current Handbook, titled “Birth Control.” Keep in mind the general membership has only had access to the LDS Handbook and its extensive list and discussion of various LDS policies for a decade or two. FYI, this is the entire policy stated in the current Handbook:

It is the privilege of married couples who are able to bear children to provide mortal bodies for the spirit children of God, whom they are then responsible to nurture and rear (see 2.1.3). The decision about how many children to have and when to have them is extremely personal and private. It should be left between the couple and the Lord.

First, go and read the excellent BBC article. Then return and discuss.

  • What’s your reaction to the JW blood transfusion policy change?
  • Any other LDS candidates for updating policy or practice in light of science or just changed social or cultural views or practices?
  • The “don’t explain anything” approach to LDS changes seems to work pretty well, actually. Especially since it avoids any need to explain or justify a change.
  • “Don’t explain anything” seems related to the “don’t apologize for anything” rule that LDS leaders follow. The issue of institutional apologies was also raised in the BBC article.

.