Is taking a blood transfusion a "Disfellowshipping or Disassoication" offense?

by booker-t 33 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  Earnest

  Blondie, subsequent to the article "U-Turn on Blood Transfusions by Witnesses" in the London Times of June 14, 2000 the Society issued a press release to say there had been no change in policy.

  The press release said :

  An article published in the June 14, 2000, issue of a British newspaper has incorrectly publicized what it feels to be a major change in the religious doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses regarding blood transfusions. In order to correct the misinformation, Jehovah's Witnesses are providing the following statement. The Bible commands Christians to "abstain...from blood." (Acts 15:20). Jehovah's Witnesses believe that it is not possible to abstain from blood and accept blood transfusions. They have consistently refused donor blood ever since transfusions began to be widely used in civilian medical practice in the 1940s, and this scriptural position has not changed. If one of Jehovah's Witnesses is transfused against his or her will, Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe that this constitutes a sin on the part of the individual. This position has not changed.

  If one of Jehovah's Witnesses accepts a blood transfusion in a moment of weakness and then later regrets the action, this would be considered a serious matter. Spiritual assistance would be offered to help the person regain spiritual strength. This position has not changed.

  If a baptized member of the faith willfully and without regret accepts blood transfusions, he indicates by his own actions that he no longer wishes to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses. The individual revokes his own membership by his own actions, rather than the congregation initiating this step. This represents a procedural change instituted in April 2000 in which the congregation no longer initiates the action to revoke membership in such cases. However, the end result is the same: the individual is no longer viewed as one of Jehovah's Witnesses because he no longer accepts and follows a core tenet of the faith. However, if such an individual later changes his mind, he may be accepted back as one of Jehovah's Witnesses. This position has not changed.
• 

  konceptual99

  This change has never been published in a way that makes it clear to the R&F. Many still think it is a DF offence. The point may be moot but it is yet another case of a lack of transparency.
• 

  GLTirebiter

  There's little practical difference. Whether you quit or they fire you, you will be "no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses", shunned, and the new topic for the congregation gossips. If you ever want to return, you will be treated like dirt until you have been deemed to have proven your repentance.
• 

  DesirousOfChange

  how do the elders even know that you had a transfusion? If any Witness reports you, the Witness should be summarily fired for violating serious federal and state laws. People, in general, want privacy for medical decisions. How did they know about oral sex?

  WOW! If I'd have known you received oral sex with a transfusion, I'd have taken one when I was a teenager!

  Doc
• 

  Justnowout

  Lest we overlook, the differentiation on DF'ing and DA'ing came into play because the org promised one small euorpean country, belgium, that they wouldnt kick people out for taking a transfusion. what they didnt say was that it would viewed going forward as the person voluntarily having left the org.

  the only other DA'ing offense is military service: the branch CANNOT, in the usa, by law, discriminate against somewho serves in the military for anyreason. Thus it too became a DA offense and not a DF'ing offense. Some local dumbasses wrote a letter to brooklyn a few years df'ing someone for joining the military. The branch called as soon as they got the letter and said, and i quote, "this didnt happen. You didnt write this letter. We didnt receive it."
• 

  NAVYTOWN

  Who exactly gave the elders the permission to involve themselves in a person's private medical treatment? Health decisions are between the patient and the doctor....period!!! Strangers have NO business trying to butt in. Why are glorified nobodies given any say at all? If I was a JW and in the hospital, I would instruct the doctors and nurses to place a NO VISITORS sign on my door. That would be for Elders, nosy JW friends, and hard-core JW family. YOU have the final say about who enter your hospital room. No need to EVER 'confess' anything to the glorified janitor Elders. It's NONE of their business whether or not I got a blood transfusion. Of course, the PERFECT way to deal with the blood issue is to just STOP ATTENDING and go on to live a normal non-JW life. Tell anyone who objects, incliuding elders and hard-core family members, to mind their own business. Then refuse to discuss anything further.
• 

  Daniel1555

  In my case it was a bit different. I never took blood. But I told the elders that I would accept blood for me and my little son in a medical urgency and I stated all reasons why. I also told them that I also find it ok to donate blood.

  The elders didn't know first what to do with me. After months of debating, answering loyalty questions to the governing body, the elders decided that I disregard basic jw teachings but that I am allowed to believe what I want. They didn't df or da me but said they would if I tell other brothers and family about my views.

  But if I took blood unrepentantly, I would be da by actions.
• 

  Londo111

  For any JWs researching this topic:

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWNlyyM32ts&list=UUnXY0-N67N4a5a8eKbar-iw
• 

  Vanderhoven7

  Marked
• 

  sir82

  There cannot, by definition be involuntary disassociation.

  I think you should call Brooklyn Bethel, ask for the service department, and let them know. They seem to be misinformed.