Reform on blood issue?!?!

by Wishididntknow 29 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Wishididntknow

  Not sure of the validity of this but I thought I would put out there.... Danny Hazard seems like a loose cannon...But...your thoughts?

  Associated Jehovah's Witnesses for Reform on Blood are announcing the beginning of the end of the Jehovah's Witness Blood Doctrine.

  Since 2000 the Watchtower Society was forced to change their semantics on how they handle punishing its members for taking blood transfusions to save their lives.The European Court of Human Rights negotiated this change when the country of Bulgaria refused to acknowledge the Watchtower Society as a religion, due to the fact that the Watchtower punished its members for accepting needed medical procedures to save their own, or their children's lives with blood transfusions.

  But AJWRB has been tracking the development of these changes, and we have searched for any actual occurrences of a JW (who wants to stay a JW) getting disassociated for taking a blood transfusion.We have not found a one. In the past we have not been able to get Watchtower Service Dept. members to say that they would not disfellowship someone for taking a blood transfusion, this being the case even long after the 2001 semantic change, let alone, getting them to say they won't disassociate someone for such a sin,and we could never get them to state categorically that they would not disfellowship for taking blood.

  But now I have been told personally by Watchtower Service Dept. personnel,that taking a blood transfusion is *not a disfellowshipping offence*.

  This is yet another subtle semantic change for those not intimately familiar with Jehovah's Witnesses, but to the trained, experienced Jehovah's Witnesses, this is a loud 3 alarm fire. They are literally saying, *taking blood is not a serious enough sin to get one disfellowshipped now.*

  Getting disassociated, carries with it exactly the same sentence as getting disfellowshipped.It causes complete social death in an individuals life. All contact with family and friends are severed under the threat of those family and friends also being disfellowshipped or disassociated if they speak to you. Hence, if taking blood is no longer a disfellowshipping offence,then it is no longer a disassociating offence.
• 

  james_woods

  I would not believe it until a bona-fide announcement of this is printed in the KM or the Watchtower.
• 

  leavingwt

  But now I have been told personally by Watchtower Service Dept. personnel,that taking a blood transfusion is *not a disfellowshipping offence*.

  This is yet another subtle semantic change for those not intimately familiar with Jehovah's Witnesses, but to the trained, experienced Jehovah's Witnesses, this is a loud 3 alarm fire. They are literally saying, *taking blood is not a serious enough sin to get one disfellowshipped now.*

  Getting disassociated, carries with it exactly the same sentence as getting disfellowshipped.It causes complete social death in an individuals life. All contact with family and friends are severed under the threat of those family and friends also being disfellowshipped or disassociated if they speak to you. Hence, if taking blood is no longer a disfellowshipping offence,then it is no longer a disassociating offence.

  IMHO, the available evidence does not support this conclusion.
• 

  Violia

  They have said the same thing about joining military , voting etc. They say that by your actions you have DA'd yourself. Blood has fallen under that category too. It is all just legal stuff , it is not a real change.
• 

  jwfacts

  Hence, if taking blood is no longer a disfellowshipping offence,then it is no longer a disassociating offence.

  That is not correct. There are several scenarios that I can think of where it may be one, or the other or both.

  For instance, an offence can be both d/a and d/f, such as Apostasy. A person can be d/f for apostasy, or a person can d/a for it.

  However, someone can d/a for something not a d/f offence. For instance a person can d/a simply because they cannot be bothered being a JW anymore, despite doing nothing wrong or having no disagreement with doctrine.

  In the case of blood, the step of d/a occurs prior to d/f, and hence replaces it, does not do away with it. A person is automatically d/a for blood, so does not need to be d/f for it. It is a very minor techical difference, but really came about due to trying to circumvent Bulgarian law.
• 

  ziddina

  Kewl!!!!

  I think I'll renew my vows, join the nearest Kingdom Hall, and arrange with the local hospital for a blood transfusion...

  
• 

  Wishididntknow

  leaving...what does IMHO mean?
• 

  Anony Mous

  Read the elders book. One disassociates himself by participating in or promoting other churches (by work, attending, donating etc.), accepting blood transfusions and a few other things. Yeah, they don't disfellowship you, they just tell that you disassociated yourself thereby skirting any freedom of religion, illegal medical advice and other legal issues.
• 

  NewChapter

  leaving...what does IMHO mean?

  In My Humble Opinion.

  This is just a game of semantics. Accepting a blood transfusion is also disassociating yourself from the congregation. The penalty is the same, only you don't have the luxury of fighting it out in a JC.

  NC
• 

  metatron

  They're lying. It's simple. However, they need to be careful about this because evidence of active disassociation such as reading off the person's name and actively shunning them, even if they try to associate, means they lied to officials.

  I do wonder, however, if it's possible that they haven't DA'd anybody since I have never read about or heard about such a thing - and it would be newsworthy, indeed. The person might be able to protest to the human rights types the Watchtower lied to and expose them.

  That's a bit of a liability. Know of any contrary examples?

  metatron