WSJ Says: Blood transfusions now Ok for JW's! (page 2)

hawkaw

How about a reporter????

Do you at least have his name????????

hawk

doinmypart

WSJ 12/9/02 article, in Marketplace section, Title: "Mormon Elders Give a Reprieve To a Skeptic" by Jim Carlton.

JT

Yea, same as the voteing thing. You are no longer DF'ed for it. Just DA'd. Since there is no difference between the two other than the name, and the fact that they can at any time announce for any reason you DA'd (no need to even break out a judical commitee) it's a nice neat little spin they put on it to make them look better to the press

the Concept of DAing is able to accomplish a number of things-

1. DAed and DFing according to the legal desk carry different liabilty they feel- since no action is required by a judical committee-

2. create in the public eye that the church has done nothing it was the indiviual who did it

3. it allows jw to treat you the same way -- in fact DAing usually results in worst treatment

when i person is DFed it is viewed as due to ones WEAKNESS, whereas when one is DAed it is WILLFUL- DELIBRATE action you have intentionally turned your back on JAH

JT

Makes me wonder if that WT article was a strategic ploy for 'public' consumption rather than for the rank and file JW to use and, heaven forbid!, think for themselves.

jw live by 2 rules

1. written

2 Unwritten and a good jw knows them-

the wt has a long history of providing one position to Satan agents all the while "Mature" christians know what they are suppose to do-

Ask any jw WILL ONLY JW BE SAVED and they will tell you know

ask any 5 yr old jw kid what will happen to those who don't LOVE JAH OR GO TO THE MEETINGS

Sara Annie

Hawk--

Sorry about the delay in responding, I wasn't online....

doinmypart's information was correct. I can't find an online posting of the article in full, and the paper already made it to the recycling plant. The line I quoted in the post that started the thread is the total of JW mention.

Sara

hawkaw

Thanks for your help every one.

Now I will go find this guy's Email. I have already sent my letter to the editor but I want the reporter to get a copy.

hawk

hawkaw

OKay I just sent the Email to the reporter. Earlier this week I sent it to the news editor. I am guessing at the Email but I am usually 97% right when I send them off. I incorporated your comment Roddy - hope you don't mind.

December 19, 2002

Wall Street Journal

New York, New York

United States of America

Attention Mr. Jim Carlton

Re: Serious Misquote of Jehovah's Witnesses Faith in a December 9, 2002 article titled "Mormon Elders Give a Reprieve To a Skeptic" in the Market Place Section of the Wall Street Journal

Dear Mr. Carlton

I would like to thank you for doing the above article. However, I was shocked to read the following quote in the article:

"The Mormon Church, of course, isn't the only religion to shun or cast out dissenting members, scholars say. The Vatican has excommunicated Catholics for disobeying papal edicts. Many Orthodox Jews disown family members for marrying outside the faith. For years, Jehovah's Witnesses who received blood transfusions--a practice barred by the faith--were excommunicated, although they aren't anymore."

Sadly, this statement is not true for the children and other victims of the Jehovah's Witnesses. For the record, the leadership (Governing Body) of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, Inc. of New York changed the offence of taking certain banned blood therapies from a "disfellowshipping" offence to a "disassociation" offence. This change was published in many newspapers in April 2000.

The difference between the two terms is that in "disfellowshipping" one needs to be found guilty of a organizational offence by a group of "elders" in an in-house "Judicial Committee" hearing. Whereas, in "disassociation" one is automatically considered to no longer belong to the faith if one knowingly does a banned organizational activity.

In both cases, "disfellowshipping" and "disassociation", the Jehovah's Witness is expelled from the congregation and is required to be shunned by all Jehovah's Witnesses including those family members not living at home. The shunning policy was recently restated on pages 3 and 4 of the Watchtower's in-house publication called "Our Kingdom Ministry", August 2002 edition. Expulsion is a heavy price to pay when your JW life, family and friends are in this group and a reason why a lot of Jehovah's Witnesses will follow their leaders into death instead of saving their lives.

I guess to simply the terms "disfellowshipping" and "disassociation" for you - different bullets, same gun, same result - its all just smoke and mirrors for an organization trying to sell itself as an innocent little group. When in reality, it's shunning and other fear tactics make it a serious high control group.

As a person who has helped out the Association of Jehovah's Witnesses for Reform on Blood ( http://www.ajwrb.org ) to try and get this ever changing blood therapy policy removed for the protection of little kids and other victims, I hope you can either publish this letter or make a correction in your newspaper to set the record straight. The partial blood ban doctrine is based more on improper interpretations of science and medicine than the bible, it has hurt a lot of people, and needs to be exposed through mediums such as your outstanding newspaper.

If you would like to learn more about this doctrine, including why some blood therapies are allowed while others are not, or you wish further proof, please give me a call, Email or write to me at the address following my name. I have also sent a copy of this electronic mail to

[email protected] earlier in the week.

Your truly,

xxxxxx

WSJ Says: Blood transfusions now Ok for JW's!

Share this