Public "Affairs"

Pathofthorns

I really tire of the word games these days. How WT public affairs representatives present things to the media so as to give an impression that is not quite accurate.

Not that they lie mind you, but if someone is led to the same false conclusion, what's the difference, really?

Here's a link to an article posted by Jan G. on H20 regarding blood (again.. ) [url] http://allafrica.com/stories/200010050377.html[/url]

The WT spokesman for the country's comments are interesting.

"There is no policy in the Church which bars anyone from blood transfusion, it is all a personal choice that anyone is entitled to," Samabona said.

While perhaps technically correct in the sense that no one can prevent you from taking a blood transfusion, the reader is left with the perception that its some wacko member that's killing his child and he can take a transfusion if he wishes.

Obviously those who are aware know that the official teaching is that you'll be shunned by family and friends and God will destroy you.

The article reveals this by quoting your average "Joe" Witness, who apparently missed WT PR lesson 101.

But Jason Sakala, another Watch Tower member, supported the parents' decision. He quoted Genesis 9 verses 4-16 to support his views that the eating of blood is forbidden and anyone who disobeys this is disobeying God's law.
"I am in support of the parents because they are using God's words as their guidance. If they decide to do otherwise then they will be disrespectful to God's law," Sakala told PANA.
He added, "putting one's life ahead of God's law is fatal, as Mark 8: 35 and 36 tells us."

All of this is because countries like France view us as a cult and that we DO have cult-like traits. Hence the jumping through hoops to make us look "normal" and free.

Path

Edited by - Pathofthorns on 6 October 2000 7:49:45

Frenchy

Path
This sort of stuff makes me very angry. It's bad enough to harbor and promote a dangerous notion but its quite another thing to pretend that you are not doing it.

-Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it-

RedhorseWoman

Along this same line, when asked if taking a blood transfusion would result in excommunication and shunning, the answer (according to the new light on blood) is that there would be no action taken against the individual by the congregation.

This is totally correct. However, they don't mention that the person taking blood is now considered to be disassociated.....same result, but the congregation is off the hook.

Seven

Path, IMO, personal choice=premeditated murder in this situation. Poor baby Beatrice! Yes, she has a name. It's tragic she was born into a cult. The surgery for biliary atresia is usually performed during the first 2 months of life-Beatrice is 6 months old. The surgery connects the liver to the small intestine, bypassing the malformed ducts. Often times a liver transplant becomes necessary.

Jehovah God wants to see an end to sickness, suffering, and death.-09/22/00,Awake p11.

I wish he'd start with baby Beatrice.

waiting

Meanwhile, Clement Samabona, spokesman of the Jehovah Witnesses' Watch Tower Society in Zambia said the refusal by the parents to consent to blood transfusion was their personal belief and not that of the Church.
"There is no policy in the Church which bars anyone from blood transfusion, it is all a personal choice that anyone is entitled to," Samabona said.

This is so interesting. The WTBTS spokesperson states that the refusal of a blood transfusion is not church policy and a personal decision.

But Jason Sakala, another Watch Tower member, supported the parents' decision. He quoted Genesis 9 verses 4-16 to support his views that the eating of blood is forbidden and anyone who disobeys this is disobeying God's law.

Notice, the WTBTS spokesperson says the WTBTS is in the clear. But another Watchtower member supports parents decision. Is he a brother or is he a spokesperson with authority?

Meanwhile, Beatice's parents are enraged with the Times of Zambia for carrying a front page picture Thursday of their baby lying in agony at UTH, with a swollen stomach.

What a terrible implication of what the reporter thinks of these parents. The loving parents are enraged at the bad publicity of the picture of their dying baby. At least, this is how it's written to be perceived. No mention of the sorrow of allowing Beatrice to die for God.

WTBTS Public Relations at work again - not doing too well, I might add. Poor Beatrice. Poor Beatrice's parents if they ever realize what, and who, they have given up - Beatrice.

waiting

Edited by - waiting on 6 October 2000 22:24:49

Frenchy

This is an excellent example of WTS 'double talk'. Having once been a victim of this stuff it continually amazes me how the same words can mean one thing to a JW and an entirely different thing to the public.
I hate the deception. If you insist that your members do not take blood then say so. Stand by what you preach.

-Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it-

Pathofthorns

Frenchy, I think this "double talk" must get really confusing for the old "old school" elders who were so used to telling it like it is, and telling everyone where to stick it.

The revelation book said toward the end, we'd be delivering all these hard-hitting messages and denunciations. All I see is a watering down of everything witnesses died for and believed in.

All of this selling out is evidence of an increasingly money oriented organization on the run, and desperate attempts of people to cling to authority that doesn't belong to them. Saddest of all is every watered-down comment in the press or our publications tramples on the graves of everyone who died for what they believed came from God.

I admire these people. Everyone that said no to a blood transfusion because they thought God said no. Every person that was raped or killed in Malawi or Nazi Germany because they remained nuetral, every child that endures mockings for being a Witness.

I have no problem dying for what i believe in, my ideals, and the simplicity of the message of Christ that we'd die for someone else's life. I'd consider that the hightest honor to die for someone or something you believe in. Its just these days, I'm making sure what I'm living and dying for is solidly grounded.

Path

Frenchy

Path:

Frenchy, I think this "double talk" must get really confusing for the old "old school" elders who were so used to telling it like it is, and telling everyone where to stick it.

It’s disturbing them but I don’t think it’s at the conscious level. I give ‘borderline’ comments like: “It’s a dangerous thing to let someone else do the thinking for you.” And I see them not their heads in agreement. Because of their conditioning, it’s impossible for them to think this could possibly apply to ‘THE TRUTH’. There are a few people in our congregation that are realizing what is going on but for various reasons see the need to stay in for now. They know how I feel as well. While still an elder, I gave a talk on the S.M. one night when the C.O. was visiting and I prepared it very carefully so that it would be full of double meanings. Those who knew what I was doing were petrified that at the end of the meeting I would be hauled off and reprimanded. Instead, the C.O. told me how much he enjoyed the talk! No one save those few who could see ‘outside’ the rut could fathom what I was really saying. There are many victims to this thing.

-Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it-

Public "Affairs"

Share this