Are Jehovah's Witnesses Disfellowshipped for Taking a Blood Transfusion?

ThomasCovenant

Any 'proof' or quotes or experiences one way or other

sacolton

It's considered a "automatic disassociation" to willingly give or receive blood.

ThomasCovenant

Is this anecdotal or written instruction though?

mentallyfree31

Good question. I personally do not have the printed reference material for the consequences of taking a blood transfusion.

sir82

Short answer is "no".

In practical terms, the answer is "Yes".

About the year 1999 or 2000, the Society sent a letter to all COs in the US, and the COs considered that letter with all elders. It is not available on any website, nor does anyone below the rank of CO have access to it, to the best of my knowledge.

In that letter, it was explained that any JW who "willingly" accepts a blood transfusion has, by his actions, shown that he no longer wishes to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses and thus has disassociated himself. It goes on that 2 elders "may" visit the JW and determine his status; if he seems repentant, then perhaps with strong counsel they wouldn't have to "accept" his disassociation.

It is a similar situation to what happens if a JW joins the army or runs for political office; "by his actions he has shown that he has disassociated himself".

All of this was done so that the JW hierarchy could say, in court, under oath, that "we do not disfellowship JWs for accepting blood transfusions".

Of course, as anyone familiar with JWs knows, there is no difference whatsoever in how someone who is "disfellowshipped" is treated vs. one who has "disassociated himself".

And JWs have the gall to criticize those who "speak half-truths or knowingly twist the truth".

undercover

I think saco is right.. It's an automatic DAing these days. The terminology may not be the same as DFing but the results...and the announcement to the congregation...is the same thus resulting in the same shunning.

Just a bunch of legalese to keep the flock fooled but protect the corporation from liability...

The blood doctrine over time has become a real pain in the ass for the WTS, but they can't just drop it. To do so would admit error and mis-intrepretation of scripture. You can't have the dubs thinking that, "hey, if they were wrong here, maybe they're wong in other areas...". They also can't have people coming back to them with lawsuits for deaths that were incurred during the period of when they did ban blood transfusions. So they've slowly, over time, changed how they go about coercing people to adhere to the ban and how they identify just what 'blood' is and how it can or can't be used. It used to be, "no blood, no way, no how". Now, it's "no blood, except for most fractions or if through a continuous loop through this machine or if used in this way or that way". In order to try to get out of a mess, they've created a bigger doctrinal mess.

I try hard to not let the label "dangerous cult" to be identified with JWs because I hate for people to have the misconception of a People's Temple kind of deal, but when people's lives are at stack...and people have died...because of this stupid doctrine, it really does put the JWs in that "dangerous cult" category.

edit: Sir82 posted while I was working on my post and his info is more up-to-date and factual than my memory.

ThomasCovenant

•

Watchtower 15th Jan 1961 page 63

''In view of the seriousness of taking blood into the human system by a transfusion, would violation of the Holy Scriptures in this regard subject the dedicated, baptized receiver of blood transfusion to being disfellowshiped from the Christian congregation?

The inspired Holy Scriptures answer yes''

ThomasCovenant

Watchtower 1st August 1958 page 478

''One of Jehovah's witnesses who claims to be of the anointed remnant recently went to the hospital and took a blood transfusion, voluntarily. Should she be allowed to partake of the emblems of bread and wine at Memorial time?-R. J., United States.

We, of course, regret with you that this sister who professes to be one of the anointed remnant took a blood transfusion voluntarily during her stay in the hospital. We believe that she did the wrong thing contrary to the will of God. However, congregations have never been instructed to disfellowship those who voluntarily take blood transfusions or approve them. We let the judgment of such violators of God's law concerning the sacredness of blood remain with Jehovah, the Supreme Judge. The only thing that can be done in the cases of individuals like this is to view them as immature and therefore not capable of taking on certain responsibilities, hence refusing to make certain assignments of service to such ones.

Since an individual is not disfellowshiped because of having voluntarily taken a blood transfusion or having approved of a dear one's accepting a blood transfusion, you have no right to bar this sister from the celebration of the Lord's Evening Meal. As an anointed member of Christ's body she is under orders and command by Christ Jesus to partake. Whether she is unfaithful as to what she professes to be by virtue of taking the emblems of the Lord's Evening Meal is something for Jehovah God to determine himself. His judgment begins at the house of God. It is not for you or anyone serving the Memorial emblems to act as the judge, but to allow the emblems to go to anyone in the audience as these are passed along in the normal manner of letting each one have the opportunity to partake''

miseryloveselders

It used to be, "no blood, no way, no how". Now, it's "no blood, except for most fractions or if through a continuous loop through this machine or if used in this way or that way". In order to try to get out of a mess, they've created a bigger doctrinal mess.

When reading that line, it really impresses upon you how retarded the whole doctrine is. It would be laughable if not so tragic.

undercover

''In view of the seriousness of taking blood into the human system by a transfusion, would violation of the Holy Scriptures in this regard subject the dedicated, baptized receiver of blood transfusion to being disfellowshiped from the Christian congregation?

The inspired Holy Scriptures answer yes''

They do? I'd like to see that scripture...

Or is the WT considered that inspired scripture?

Are Jehovah's Witnesses Disfellowshipped for Taking a Blood Transfusion?

Share this