regarding blood

by never a jw 8 Replies latest watchtower medical

• 

  never a jw

  As a father of a baptized JW 17 year old girl I am concerned about her stand on blood. So I decided to do some research. I found the following in the elders' book "Sheperd the Flock of God" pages 110-112

  "3. Actions that may indicate disassociation include the following:

  …

  • Willingly and unrepentantly taking blood. If someone willingly takes blood, perhaps because of being under extreme pressure, the committee should obtain the facts and determine the individual's attitude. If he is repentant, the committee would provide spiritual assistance in the spirit of Galatians 6:1 and Jude 22, 23. Since he is spiritually weak, he would not qualify for special privileges [no big deal (my own comment)] for a period of time, and it may be necessary to remove certain basic privileges. Depending on the circumstances, the committee may also need to arrange for an announcement to the congregation: "The elders have handled a matter having to do with [name of person]. You will be glad to know that spiritual shepherds are endeavoring to render assistance. On the other hand, if the elders on the committee determine that he is unrepentant they should announce his disassociation."

  I have known of few cases of adultery in recent years among JW relatives or JW friends. Even a case of elder's wife running off with the husband's dear friend and fellow congregation elder. The culprits were back two days later, very contrite and ready to atone their sin. However repentance was not enough, the culprits had to do their time. They had to humiliate themselves going to meeting for a year and suffer the shunning of friends and family. They had to go through the inquisition of the elders, who would not leave any stone unturned (leave no detail to the imagination)

  Adultery hurts the feelings of people, refusal to take blood kills people. This tells me that, since they allow death to happen, JW leaders consider accepting blood even worse than adultery and yet, there seems to be an easier way out for the patient accepting blood than there is for the adulterer. Just show repentance, prove that you were pressured and you are off the hook; the elders appointed by God will forgive your transgresion. But if a lesser trangresion is commited, namely adultery, then you have to serve a much longer and harsher sentence.

  Isn't this disproportionate application of punishment to the crime a hint (along with the inconsistency of the blood fractions doctrine) that the leaders of the JW want to get rid of this criminal doctrine of the blood, but they can not find an easy way out.

  Your thoughts....
• 

  JustVisting

  In JW-think it makes perfect sense. If you take blood and live, you have renounced the blood of Christ and are therefore worthy of spiritual "death". If you bang your fellow elder's wife, you can get off if shed crocidile tears or due some time by deing DF'd for a year.
• 

  WhoYourDaddy

  batshit crazy people.
• 

  rebel8

  I've been out for a long time, so take this fwiw. I was told I would be "damaged goods, like a rape victim" if blood was forced upon me. We're not talking voluntarily, and then repenting. We're talking full-on being forced, held down and transfused.

  You may need to know the background on what this insult exactly means in dubdom. @ that time, rape victims were considered damaged until the New System, when jehoho would remove the taint and wipe the memory of it from the minds of both the victim and her fellow sisters and brothers.

  I was told no one would marry me (a bigger deal for dubbies than it even is for normals). My very cells would always be stained with the sin. I would never be able to get it out of my body until jehoho fixed it after Armageddon. (Part of that is rooted in their medieval beliefs about biology. You can find more in Golden Age magazine--they believed the life force [soul] resided in the blood and thus you would be somewhat inhabited by the donor. I was asked, "OMG, what if a criminal donated the blood you were given?")

  Also, I do not remember repenting from voluntary transfusions to be any actual option. Perhaps they said that on paper, not sure. Could be one of those things they say verbally differently than what's in print. I thought taking blood was considered a sin worthy of bloodguilt (similar to a mortal sin), that you can only redeem by dying. That's what I was told.

  Depending on the circumstances, the committee may also need to arrange for an announcement to the congregation: "The elders have handled a matter having to do with [name of person]. You will be glad to know that spiritual shepherds are endeavoring to render assistance. On the other hand, if the elders on the committee determine that he is unrepentant they should announce his disassociation."

  What version did you get this from? I've never heard of that announcement.
• 

  never a jw

  Rebel8,

  It's the latest version (2010) of the book of elders. I have the full book in PDF. I suspect things have changed from the days of the references to blood transfering you the personality of the donor. But mainly, I feel that the Governing Body wants to make the blood transfusions issue as unconspicuos as possible without actually changing the doctrine. The other two options are 1) to take a flagrant, but very controversial position against blood transfusions and 2) to drop the doctrine altogether, but face a bunch of civil lawsuits (maybe even criminal) from those who lost a relative for refusing a blood transfusion.
• 

  eyeuse2badub

  If needed just take the blood tranfusion and claim you were pressured into it. Tell them that the doctors used "medical warfare" to trick you. Save your life and don't be stupid! Tell them you only took "fractions" (lol) but by the time you knew it the many "fractions" 'overlapped' and enough "fractions" made it whole blood and all the while this happened "invisibly" to to those without "eyes of understanding"! I'm sure any body of elders would understand this reasoning.

  Just saying!

  eyeuse2badub
• 

  Giordano

  My sense of it is that the society is looking to protect their legal ass from law suits that they 'compelled' someone to avoid a transfusion because of the fear of shunning.

  I think it's as much about getting them off the hook as it is about the individual JW.
• 

  quellycatface

  It's none of their businesses.it's a medical matter.end of.

  Abstaining from blood is only relevant for child sacrifices and pagan rites. Not 21st medicine.
• 

  never a jw

  eyeusetobadub

  Funny way of suggesting something useful. If the moment ever comes, I will put so much pressure on my daughter and doctors that she will come out of the hospital with plenty of blood, alive and ready to be forgiven. If not forgiven, it's war against the evil organization.