by Nathan Natas 8 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
This week a 14 year old JW named Dennis Lindberg died because he refused blood transfusions which were part of his treatment for leukemia.
This has garnered some unwanted attention on JWs from the Seattle News media.
There are two of these programs available for download:
KVI radio Thursday, 11/29/07 - http://www.badongo.com/file/5384064
KIRO radio Friday, 11/30/07 - http://www.badongo.com/file/5384118
each file has had extraneous material removed.
Thanks for posting and getting all the unnecessary parts out!!!
purps
Thank you, Nathan Natas!
I only listened to Thursdays so far. It is SO sad that this 14 year old chose to die. Fot what reasons I would say that nobody knows, IF he were not a JW and living with JW gardians for the past 2 years.
Being an active member INSIDE the JW sect for 10 years leads me to believe that. There are three things that stood out in my mind when listening, so I'm going to say them now, while they are fresh in my mind.
#1 is that JWs who make a conscience decision to accept a blood tranfusion have to REPENT for making that "conscience decision". If they do not REPENT FOR THAT "SIN"( i.e. accepting the blood tranfusion), then they WILL BE DISFELLOWSHIPPED. On what grounds? On the grounds of being an UNREPENTENT SINNER. So much for being free to make decisions according to ones conscience!
#2 is that the public do not know that JWs are taught that if one dies before the "new world gets here"/before armageddon arrives, they are automattically forgiven for thier sins. DEATH FORGIVES SINS is what JWs are taught. And if anyone remebers being 14 years old, then we remember plenty of "sins of the mind", even if not acted out. And hpw many of us who were JWs at that age GUILTY with a captal G of the "secret sin" ? !!! We were defitely guilt ridden for being human beings because we didn't know that we were NATURAL human beings with NATURAL thougths.
getting carried away so moving on....
#3 is that a JW who called said that there are TWO FLOCKS. Did anyone else catch that JW speaking that one truth about what JWs are taught?
I, when I was a JW, nor any other JW back then would ever say those words (even though we were taught that by our human leaders), to the public/everyone outside of the JW sect!
gonna listen to Friday's now, and thank you SO MUCH once again!
peace,
gwen
Nathan Natas,
Thanks again. I just listened to Fridays and I'm SO upset I can't even think straight right now.
Before I head to bed and for now, I will say this. If a JW who is 14 years old sets a bulding on fire, I'd be willing to bet that his JW gardian or parents whould say " well, he's ONLY A 14 YEAR OLD CHILD! He's immature!
One other thing is that it would be nice if JWs would state which is true....accepting a blood transufusion is against thier faith, or that accepting a blood transfusion is not going against ther faith, but is a conscience decision. Seems the JWs who phoned in are not in "unity" as JWs calim to be.
Either way, I don't think the judge made the right decision in letting a 14 year old child make that life or death decsion for himself. Had he truly been raised that accepting a blood transfusion is a conscience decision, he probably would have treated that as he had other "conscience decsions" the GB allow it's adherents/JWs to make. He would have not treated accepting a blood transfusion as a sin in which he would have needed to prove to those who hold the title of elder in his congregation that he was repentent for.
I'm tired and realize I'm getting carried away, so I'll say goodnight and see what others here have to say. It's a SAD situation! I hope that aunt can someday forgive herself for teaching the teachings of the GB to her nephew.
peace and goodnight,
somebody/gwen
I only listened to Thursdays, but it was really good. Ken Schram really did his homework. I loved his list of beliefs that he got the one man to agree were true. It made them sound so silly. Ken is a well-known and highly respected newsman in Seattle, and I listen to him all the time. I am so glad you got this recording. I missed it.
One other thing is that it would be nice if JWs would state which is true....accepting a blood transufusion is against thier faith, or that accepting a blood transfusion is not going against ther faith, but is a conscience decision. Seems the JWs who phoned in are not in "unity" as JWs calim to be.
I agree completely, but I think it demonstrates how little about their religion many JW's actually know. To say taking a blood transfusion is a conscience issue is so ignorant, to me, that it defies any other explanation. And the guy kept insisting he was right.
Nate,
I made a video using a portion of one of those radio talk shows you posted. Here's the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrRg9LPTiYg I used the photos of young Dennis, his parents and a Kingdom Hall with a visitor in front. See what you think. I made it in response to someone who posted a video about his case. (The poster is a non JW and wants people to discuss the subject. Check it out. W.Once
I listened to Thursdays show, I had already listened to Fridays.
Such a difference in the two hosts. Thursday show the host had alot of info that Monson did not(as Monson was surprised to hear about the shunning!)
This has opened a huge can of worms.
The Thursday show from KVI is the same radio station Kerry Louderback Wood is going to be interviewing on at 6:00 am Pacific Time (plug)
Should be great to hear her clear a few things up.
purps
nice video wasanelder
Gwen (Somebody) said,
#1 is that JWs who make a conscience decision to accept a blood transfusion have to REPENT for making that "conscience decision". If they do not REPENT FOR THAT "SIN"( i.e. accepting the blood transfusion), then they WILL BE DISFELLOWSHIPPED. On what grounds? On the grounds of being an UNREPENTENT SINNER. So much for being free to make decisions according to ones conscience!
This is a GREAT point, and it oscillated in my head all last night as i slept, but the "Tower of Teflon" slides aside again...
Of course to a reasonable person your statement sounds reasonable, and I agree with you in general, but I have two thoughts irritating me:
First is that as far as I can tell the WTB&TS has never said that getting a blood transfusion is a "conscience matter." It is forbidden, period. The only people who would not get punished for receiving a blood transfusion are those who grovel and cry and REPENT, as you indicated. In another thread I posted quotes from The WATCHTOWER ranging from 1961 to 1997 and they all indicate that blood transfusions are wrong and that disfellowshipping is a possibility for anyone who gets a transfusion.
Now, the matter with receiving blood fractions is different - that's a conscience matter, even though there is NO SCRIPTURE that says blood fractions are OK. And just how would they get their permitted blood fraction if the blood was poured out on the ground like they say it is supposed to be?
So that is item #A.
Item #B has to do with the weasel words the WTB&TS uses to define "conscience matter" - it isn't YOUR conscience we're talking about -- it is ANYONE else's. If we can find some delicate flower somewhere who is offended by ANYTHING you do, well, Sister, you'd better stop doing it!
For as long as I was associated with the JWs, it bothered me that some acutely "sensitive" parataxic old biddy could attempt to control my choices by saying that something "offended" or "stumbled" her. And I'm talking about things like a brightly colored tie or the length of my sideburns or if I wore a moustache or combed my hair a certain way. A person like that should be told to "mind their own business" or "go to hell," but in the Xtian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, they are the ultimate determinant of what is right or wrong. I think this is a primary reason for the psychological turmoil that most JWs experience: they are taught not to trust their own judgment but the judgment of a mythical "someone else" who *might* take offense. That's why the WTB&TS attracts and incubates neurotics and worse.
Before I posted this reply I spent a bit of time researching what the WTB&TS has to say on the subject of "conscience" and it made me furious. It is complete Orwellian doublespeak and yet another mark of a CULT.
So I WISH that the argument you make above could be applied to the WTB&TS, but when they say conscience they mean something entirely different from what most people mean - an individual's personal sense of right and wrong.
Nathan it's such a sad thing that your good work is about such a bad topic. I listened to both tapes and it's sad that some more knowledgeable apostates didn't call in. I'm sure many here could have straightened out the listening public to the teaching of the wts. sorry that only purple sofa ( she did well) was about the only one that had any idea what were talking about. john
