Have you seen thsi on Blood?

mouthy

Have you seen this? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/790967.stm

awildflower

Unbelievable, how is that a choice!..........wf

leftbelow

So this story is from 2000 and I bet almost no JW even knows about it. "Gods Channel" must be scrambled

BabaYaga

Wow, Amazing Grace, very interesting indeed. Of course, basically they are saying that by one's actions, one has disassociated. Just legal speak. As BlueCanary said:

you can't fire me, I quit!

Wednesday, 14 June, 2000, 15:00 GMT 16:00 UK

Jehovah's Witnesses drop transfusion ban

Surgery Transfusions will no longer lead to expulsion

By the BBC's Religious Affairs Correspondent Jane Little

Leaders of the Jehovah's Witnesses movement have revoked a strict ruling that their members automatically face ex-communication if they accept blood transfusions.

Jehovah's Witnesses: facts

An unorthodox Christian sect Based in New York 6m members in more than 200 countries Founded in 1884

They took the controversial decision at a secret meeting in New York, following years of recrimination from ex-members and non-Jehovah's Witnesses over the ban.

The religious community insists that receiving blood is still wrong.

But under the changes, transfusions have been relegated to "non-disfellowshipping events" - in other words you will not be thrown out of the religion if you have one.

That may come as cold comfort to many who have watched loved ones die because they refused blood.

Only last week, a British Jehovah's Witness who lost pints of blood in a machete attack, renounced his faith at the last minute so that he could have the transfusion which saved his life.

Climbdown or procedural change?

But if this looks like a major climbdown, a spokesman for the organisation - also called Watch Tower - insisted it was merely a procedural change.

He said not taking blood remains a biblical injunction and a core tenet of the faith.

If a member has a transfusion, they will, by their actions disassociate themselves from the religion. The ruling emphasises personal choice, he said.

He added that if they repented afterwards, they would be offered spiritual comfort and the possibility of redemption.

But the distinction between what in other words amounts to resigning rather than being sacked, does seem to be a major shift.

Jehovah's Witnesses, who number six million worldwide, have suffered years of adverse publicity over blood transfusions.

It now looks like they quietly want to downplay this issue and to emphasise less controversial elements of the faith.

Black Sheep

I don't see it as being a big change at all. It is just weaseling their way out of the responsibility for deaths of JWs their partners and their children.

It is like Charles Manson pleading that he didn't stick the knife into Sharon Tate.

It only does away with the need for a JC. Everything else remains the same.

Let the shunning begin.

Cheers

Chris

Dagney

That is the current stand...no DF'g, but you diassociate yourself by taking blood.

That was the actual thing that made me look for the first time on the interenet about JW's, 2000 I think it was in a QFR.

White Dove

Instead of being fired, you are layed off, forced to quit. Big difference...not.

Thanks Mouthy, it's funny but I was just wondering about this very question. I have been out for so long I wasn't sure if they disfellowshipped or not for taking blood. I see from that article they don't disfellowship, they just don't acknowledge that person any longer... I wonder what the difference is?

Snoozy

JimmyPage

This just further proves what weasels they are. Always trying to make themselves look good. Who cares what happens to those adversely affected by their shunning and blood policies.