by MacHislopp 18 Replies latest jw friends
Hello again,
To all of you concerned,
when I wrote that official
WTS letters were "buried "
in the NET I should have added
that "gold mine diggers"....
can bring them to the surface
or if you prefer ...the the LIGHT!!!!
I do enjoy all your comments.
Greetings J.C. MacHislopp
Mac,
It may be that not much is publicised to the R&F because DF/DA are essentially the same.
The elders' manual on page 103 reads:
Disfellowshipped and disassociated ones are shunned by those who wish to have a good relationship with Jehovah." (i.e. Jah=org.)
There is also the Bulgaria connection. This has been well documented on various sites/db but simply stated the Soc gave an undertaking in the European Human Rights Commission to take no action against individual members who take blood transfusions.
They're playing with words in their trickery and deceipt.
Ozzie
i'm feeling a lot more ignorant than i did 5 minutes ago. i thought i knew about most of the recent changes at the WT, but i didn't hear about this one. thanks for turning the light on on this one.
does anyone know where i might be able to read a little more about this? thanks-unanswered
sOMEBODY SAYS:
Seems if the change effects life or death, they prefer to stick the new light in the "questions from readers" section instead of making followers aware of it by making it a repetative study article
#################
AND WT says women are not smart- smile
U GO GIRL!!!!!!
YOU have stated the hard cold facts
dogmas that involved folks lives are put on page 28 - too many times
instead of a Letter to the congo, and a insert in the KM and a nice sunday study article to make sure that everyone got the new light
GREAT POST AND ON THE MONEY
JT
G'day unanswered,
There was a change of policy around the middle of last year with respect to the treatment of pubs who take blood transfusions.
For example, a USA letter addressed "TO ALL HOSPITAL LIAISON COMMITTEES" dated June 16 said: "If a baptized member of the faith willfully and without regret accepts a blood transfusion, he indicates by his own action that he no longer wishes to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses. The individual is no longer viewed as a member of the Christian congregation...." This letter was in response to an article in the June 14, 2000 issue of the Times of London that stated that JWs have changed their position on blood transfusions. The Society letter was denying it, but playing with words. DF = DA in this context.
Cheers,
Ozzie
thanks ozzie-that was exactly what i wanted. now i can dig that mag out of the pile my mother-in-law sends me.
G'day lurk,
You're so right. you could add to this "simplification = tax avoidance"
How often we've heard the term simplification in recent years. We had the simplification of food service which meant do away with it. Why? To avoid paying tax on the income from food served at conventions.
We had the simplification of offering literature free but asking for a donation. Why? To avoid sales tax, or in the case in Oz, to avoid the newly introduced GST (which is VAT elsewhere)
Can you think of any more?
As you rightly point out, it's hypocrisy, but I've never been able to understand what is wrong with paying tax? The borg have always pointed out the scriptural correctness of paying our taxes, yet they try their best to avoid it. If we had to pay tax on lterature sales, so what? The churches do, yet I see that the litearture available in Christian book shops is available at reasonable prices. Bibles are available at reasonable prices, some are as cheap as the previous NWT prices. I have personally seen churches offering Bibles freely to anyone who wanted to read it. So what's the big hassle in paying tax?
Ozzie
Hello again,
to complete the information, which I started,
here are the reference requested:
WTS "statement to the media:
14.06.2000 http://jwpressrelease6-14-00.jpe
WTS letter to all HCL 16.06.2000
Greetings J.C. MacHislopp
Until recently the Society had insisted that the use of all blood parts such as red or white cells including hemoglobin, plasma and platelets were also banned. To accept any such treatments was the same as having a transfusion. This ruling was based on the Biblical admonition to "abstain from blood." Now they have decided that some of these blood parts can be used!
Members in the USA are expected to fill in a "Durable Power of Attorney" and distribute this legal document to friends, relatives and their doctor so that in the case of an accident, the hospital would know that they were not to give the injured person a blood transfusion.
On 1 December 2000, elders in the USA were informed in writing by the Society that in line with articles appearing in both 15 June 2000 and 15 October 2000 Watchtower magazines, the DPA forms had been amended to allow members to accept the previously forbidden fractionated blood parts.
Using the name Lee Elder, the founder of AJWRB, a group that has been set up to determine the feelings of Witnesses regarding the ban on blood, stated the following:
" Even more significant is this further comment from the Watchtower Society: "only a small percentage of the brothers have filled out the Society's DPA form." This recent statement from the Watchtower Society is very important in that it shows that level of commitment to the Watchtower Society policy is very small. If a Jehovah's Witness is unconscious and exsanguinating and no DPA can be presented, I believe a very strong argument exists that the person is not committed to the Watchtower Society policy. Especially in light of this recent disclosure by the Watchtower Society, which reveals dwindling support for its partial blood policy. It is also noteworthy that nearly a year after ceasing its policy of disfellowshiping Jehovah's Witnesses who accept blood or the blood products that are still forbidden; the Watchtower Society has never informed the general membership of the change. Only the congregation elders have been informed to date." (www.ajwrb.org)
One elder, writing under the pseudonym Mr Shilmer, to avoid disciplinary action has asked the Watchtower's head office to justify this turn-around and clarify the position. A copy of his letter was sent to The Regional Ethics Council in Portland USA. A reply was received from Dr. Osamu Muramoto, which reads in part:
"I appreciate Mr. Shilmer's comment as an active Witness elder. Compared with Mr. Bartlett's letter, the opinions of Mr.Shilmer and Mr. Elder testify how diverse the views are on this issue among Jehovah's Witnesses. Since Mr. Shilmer raised the question of partial abstinence from blood, I would like to add one example to show how the new WTS blood policy is NOT abstaining from blood.
As I stated in this paper, and as clearly stated in the new version of the Durable Power of Attorney form printed by the WTS and distributed to the JWs in the United States last week, the new policy allows JWs to accept "all fractions" of "any primary component." The WTS has emphasized in its literature that those "fractions" are "small" and therefore acceptable.
When I ask JWs why those "fractions" are acceptable, most would reply, "because they are tiny fractions." Under this new policy, the most important "fraction" JWs are now permitted to accept is hemoglobin-based blood substitutes, which had been prohibited until recently. How "small" is hemoglobin as a fraction of the blood? Let me quote a simple sentence from a college- level anatomy textbook: "Discounting its water content, an erythrocyte [red blood cells, which WTS determined unacceptable] is over 97% hemoglobin, the molecule that binds to and transports respiratory gasses." (Reference 1. Marieb E. Human anatomy and physiology. 4th ed. Menlo Park, CA:Addison Wesley Longman Inc; 1998:630)
"If God commands to abstain from red blood cells, as the WTS teaches, why does the WTS also teach that accepting 97% of what God prohibits does not violate God's command?" (US spelling)
As the Society have changed their mind on so many other verses of scripture, and applied the scriptures on this matter in so many different ways, perhaps they will change their mind on this issue completely. If they do, it will be of no comfort to the relatives of those who have died as a result of their ruling.
More critically for the Society, these changes further undermine their claim that they have been appointed by holy spirit to dispense accurate knowledge which they insist the members eternal lives depend upon. By making the Bible's comments on the use of animal blood into a law regarding the life-saving use of human blood, have they carried out their "duty of care" towards the present lives of their members?
Trevor
