They renounced the Blood Transfusion issue??!!

crinklestein

They are seriously backpeddling, these freakin jackasses! They have changed their mind about the issue of blood transfusions and have made it a non-disfellowshipping act! While I never agreed with it to begin with I think this is crazy.

"If a member has a transfusion, they will, by their actions disassociate themselves from the religion. The ruling emphasises personal choice, he said. He added that if they repented afterwards, they would be offered spiritual comfort and the possibility of redemption.If a member has a transfusion, they will, by their actions disassociate themselves from the religion. The ruling emphasises personal choice, he said. He added that if they repented afterwards, they would be offered spiritual comfort and the possibility of redemption."

So basically you can have one, be treated like crap by everyone else, repent, and all is forgiven. Sounds like the Catholics: You can do whatever you want as long as you repent afterward.

I tell ya what. If I had a loved one that died because she couldn't get a transfusion that she really wanted and needed to save their life I would sue the hell out of the WBTS after they change their minds!

No Apologies

Crinkle, where did you find this little piece? It is true that blood transfusions are now a DA offense. I am just curious where this quote is from.

ISP

Its not from any WT I've seen. Its possibly from a letter. The R+F will not be aware of it..........so I don't think its a big deal.

ISP

RunningMan

Actually, it's not a big deal. In the past, accepting a blood transfusion meant being disfellowshipped, which is another word for shunning.

Today, accepting a blood transfusion means being disassociated, which is another word for shunning.

All they are trying to do is make it look like they are not forcing people to refuse blood. Some unquestioning outsiders may fall for this, but it is just a change in symantics. It's the same policy that is in effect for voting or serving in the military.

Now, aside from this, the blood doctrine is being slowly dismantled. Any component, except for four listed ones, is acceptable. I predict that they will gradually weaken the doctrine, and then some day, they can deny that they ever said it. Just like vaccinations.

Scully

I wonder how long one would have to remain disassociated for accepting a blood transfusion?

The reason I'm asking is because red blood cells have a "shelf life" of approximately 110 days. Typically, a unit of blood cannot be stored for more than 56 days from the date it is donated, leaving only about another 54 days at the very least before all the red blood cells that have been transfused break down and are excreted by the body.

Let's err on the excessive side and say that someone receives a transfusion that was made from blood donated 2 weeks earlier. You're looking at 96 days - max - or just over 3 months - of having someone else's blood circulating in your system.

Doesn't it seem redundant and excessive to make someone remain DA'd beyond the three-month maximum that it would take for a transfusion to be out of a person's system??

And what happened to the "moment of weakness" clause that used to be in effect whereby a person could accept a blood transfusion in a life or death situation - out of fear of death presumably - and only receive private reproof, rather than being disfellowshipped?

What about JW parents allowing blood transfusions for their minor, unbaptized children, who are technically NOT members of the congregation (because membership is apparently determined by way of voluntary baptism by water immersion), why should they be punished for saving the child's life in order for them to make a personal decision to be baptized at a later time??

This doctrine can't last much longer. It's been ripped to shreds and there's nothing to hold it together any more beyond the stubbornness of a group of a dozen or so men and their legal counsel.

Love, Scully

RunningMan

Ah, yes, good logic, but a person is never df'd or da'd for committing a sin. They are df'd for being unrepentant. Sin passes, but rebellion lingers.

In other words, you can do anything you want with virtual impunity, as long as you promptly kiss their ass.

crinklestein

I found it here. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/790967.stm

It was a link that I found while visiting this site: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/790967.stm

Some very interesting things indeed! I never heard of the UN scandal before today so I looked it up. Those rat bastards are bad mouthing the UN in one breath and secretly aligning themselves with them in the other breath. I've missed alot of action since I left. Glad of it too.

ApagaLaLuz

Well here in the U.S. I haven't heard anything about that. My nephew has a rare blood diease. I had to call 911, 2 weeks ago and have him in the hospital. He spontaneously bleeds from the nose and ears. He bled so much form his nose they wanted to give him a blood transfusion. I asked is there were any other options. (it wasn't life or death)

They gave him saline and vitamin K shots, then cauterized his nose and packed it. He was fine. I'm not a big fan of blood transfusions. But members of the hospital laison called me at the hosiptal to ask if I needed any assistance.

My family is still very adament about no transfusions. I haven't heard otherwise

SPAZnik

There is little or no difference, from a witness point of view, between disassociation and disfellowshipping. Both are shunned. Both are welcomed back "if repentant".

metatron

Keep this mess in the public eye!

If you are a Witness, you ARE AUTOMATICALLY EXCOMMUNICATED for joining the armed forces of whatever nation you are

in. You are AUTOMATICALLY EXCOMMUNICATED for saving your life with a blood transfusion.

After the Bulgarian Blood Fraud, some in the know in the Society claimed that Witnesses weren't automatically DF'd for taking

blood. They've all been proved liars.

metatron

They renounced the Blood Transfusion issue??!!

Share this