2021-November-S-147-Announcements And Reminders!

by Atlantis 17 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  pistolpete

  Grandpa!

  However, congregations have never been instructed to disfellowship those who voluntarily take blood transfusions or approve them.

  Well how about That! 🤪
  
• 

  Atlantis

  pistolpete:

  Yes, that statement is enough to sour your stomach! Others may want to have a brown paper bag handy when they read that one. Their take on it is, you "remove" yourself from the congregation by getting a transfusion. You, disfellowship yourself sort of speaking. But we know better than that don't we? You can always rely on the Tower to put a bad taste in your mouth. When I think of all those young kids who died because they refused a transfusion, it makes me sick.

  Grandpa!
• 

  pistolpete

  Atlantis

  When I think of all those young kids who died because they refused a transfusion, it makes me sick.

  Yea, that's a shame.

  Although I blame the parents for being so stupid to let their child, their own flesh and blood, die, because a group of old men,whom the parents have NEVER MET, but BELIEVE THEIR CLAIM ----to be the ones God has appointed to direct people in the right path.

  I don't know what else to say.
  
• 

  DesirousOfChange

  I don't know what else to say. ~ Pete
  

  How about........
  

  
• 

  Beth Sarim

  DoC;, LOL
• 

  Beth Sarim

  I don't know what to say either.
• 

  FFGhost

  Just to clarify:

  The QFR quoted earlier is from 1958.

  Accepting a blood transfusion became a DF offense in 1961:

  http://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/blood-transfusions.php

  Beginning with the Watchtower 1961 Jan 15 pp.63-64, blood transfusions became a disfellowshipping offence, highlighting the importance this doctrine had become to the Watchtower Society.

  Any "anointed" JW who took a blood transfusion today would be considered to have "disassociated himself by his actions" (functionally identical to be disfellowshipped, just named differently to protect WTS legally).
  
  
• 

  Atlantis

  FFGhost:

  The Ghost is correct with the information posted. However, in some congregations it would not have made any difference if the date was 1961 or 1971.

  There were some congregations that just would not take action against the anointed.

  Example:

  Eighteen years after 1961, or in 1979, two of the anointed were arrested in Fort Pierce Florida for shoplifting. They took pens and pencils to use for the "written review" because the congregation didn't have enough pens to go around.

  Nothing was done. Due to their age and the medications they were taking, the elders felt the issue should be swept under the carpet.

  Three JW's were in the store and saw the anointed husband and wife walked out with the police. (One of them was my pioneer buddy)

  It wasn't long before the whole congregation knew what had happened, and overlooked the issue due to the old age of the anointed.

  Stealing is also a disfellowshipping offense. It would just depend on the body of elders of a congregation. Stealing a few pens and pencils, and willfully getting a blood transfusion could be judged differently by a judicial committee.

  Elder's kids could also get away with just about anything. Time and time again there have been testimonies of these. Elder's wives also.

  Atlantis!