by Vanderhoven7 8 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
There are questions that come up from time to time that I need an answer to or a quotation from the Watchtower literature to support....but not necessarily worthy of devoting an entire new thread to.
If anyone has a questions that they would like answered, why not post it on this thread and see if our collective can be of assistance in answering it.
Here is mine for today:
Would a person who has a blood transfusion automatically be disassociating himself from the Jehovah's Witnesses?
Would a person who has a blood transfusion automatically be disassociating himself from the Jehovah's Witnesses?
I believe so...... based on the fact that they would be disfellowshiped as soon as the BT was given. Or disassociated which of course has the same outcome.
A BT is one of the best reasons to be disassociated or DF. Apart from your freedom from the dumbest religion ever............ you actually did something that in all probability saved your life, and/or helped you get well.
I had to have 5 pints of blood during open heart surgery and that was over 30 years ago. How great have those years been and continue to be? Absolutely just great!
I think the new policy on dealing with BT is that by accepting such a person has, by their actions, disassociated themselves.
Personally, I think the WTS is trying to move away from taking any direct action against anyone who chooses to accept blood. They are likely fearful that it will be the next onslaught of lawsuits.
In theory, yes. As DOC mentioned, this is for legal reasons, so they can say "we don't expel anyone for taking a blood transfusion."
In practice, if a JW accepts a blood transfusion, 2 elders will be assigned to "investigate". Unless they are super-hard-a$$, or unless the JW really wants to be gone, they will typically implant the idea to the JW that he took the transfusion while he was "under duress" and in a moment of weakness gave in.
So, in most cases, a JW who takes a transfusion won't be expelled (via DF or DA) unless he "draws" a bad pair of elders or if he decides that's the moment to express his belief that the WTS doctrine on blood transfusions is wrong.
How about a timeline with WT letters & Videos for the whole LDC / McHalls / no RBC / No Mortgage / Everyone paying like a mortgage - cuz we need a million KHs now. And now we are selling halls.
I would like to mention this two a few people I may be able to influence. You know those with JW Amnesia.
Thanks for the input guys. I do believe there was a quotation to that effect somewhere.
No one should be disfellowshipped for trying to save their life.
But for the record, non-blood medical management is the safest form of treatment if the option is available to you. In part, I am speaking from my own involvement (I played a very small part) in changing health policy throughout a large part of UK. Studies brought to the attention of the health services showed that in relation to certain kinds of cancer, if you did not have a blood transfusion the chances of a better outcome for you were much improved. Moreover, it was cheaper. So much so the military were interested.
The evidence was so overwhelming that clinicians and judiciary approved the change in policy very quickly. If I remember correctly the policy change was to use cell salvage rather than give a transfusion.
Non JW family members have undergone surgery without blood and have come through well. GP friends who at one time felt blood was necessary have changed their minds and would opt to not have a blood transfusion if possible.
But in my case I got df'd for sticking to the words of the prophet Daniel. But there are plenty of things they'll turn a blind eye to when it suits them as Sir82 said.
The wife of the PO in our last Cong was given a pass when she happily accepted a blood transfusion. She was a baptized older sister who only attended the Memorial and one or two meetings a YEAR. Yet was the life of the party at EVERY wedding, funeral, barbeque, graduation, get-together.
What happens to someone who accepts a BT completely depends on the elders who handle the case.
Would a person who has a blood transfusion automatically be disassociating himself from the Jehovah's Witnesses?
I would say that it depends on what the person wants, and on if they know how to play the game. A person that knows TTATT could easily maneuver matters so that if they want to stay in the organization, or if they want to fade, they could just make sure that all of their medical business is kept private. On the other hand that same person might be ready to go out with a bang, and they could leverage their transfusion as the ultimate "FUCK YOU!!!" to the organization.
A true believer wouldn't get a transfusion in the first place. If they did, they'd just go crazy with guilt and confess. Maybe then the elders would consider the "moment of weakness" defense and cut them some slack.
