JW's were allowed to take blood at one time?

by ithinkisee 14 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  ithinkisee

  http://members.aol.com/beyondjw/da.htm

  In this disassociation letter example it says the following:

  "At one time, all blood products were unacceptable. Later, it was acceptable to take one transfusion (considered as medicine, not nutrition). Later still, "small amounts" were allowed, then not even minute fractions were allowed. Other changes followed. Is this evidence of guidance from the God who never changes? Is the light "growing brighter" when "new light" reverts back to "old light"?"

  In what publications does it talk about allowing blood transfusions? I have been researching and could not find this.

  Did the Society then say you could take "one" transfusion? I am having a hard time finding this as well.

  Thanks in advance for your help.

  DM
• 

  Justin

  I think it was more a matter of the Society not taking a stand on the blood issue immediately when blood transfusions first became available to the general public. According to M. James Penton, author of Apocalypse Delayed: The Story of Jehovah's Witnesses (p. 153), while the first large scale blood bank was founded in Chicago in 1937, the prohibition on transfusions was not published until the July 1, 1945 issue of The Watchtower. So there would have been a lapse of eight years, during which time transfusions became widespread. Once the policy was set, I do not think they would have approved of even "one transfusion."
• 

  Voyager

  It was (allowed) for the anointed in1958!

  Watchtower/1958/August/1st/p-478/

  ************************************************************************************

  Questions from Readers

  ?

  One of Jehovah?s witnesses who claims to be of the anointed remnant recently went to the hospital and took a blood transfusion, voluntarily. Should she be allowed to partake of the emblems of bread and wine at Memorial time??R. J., United States.

  We, of course, regret with you that this sister who professes to be one of the anointed remnant took a blood transfusion voluntarily during her stay in the hospital. We believe that she did the wrong thing contrary to the will of God. However, congregations have never been instructed to disfellowship those who voluntarily take blood transfusions or approve them. We let the judgment of such violators of God?s law concerning the sacredness of blood remain with Jehovah, the Supreme Judge. The only thing that can be done in the cases of individuals like this is to view them as immature and therefore not capable of taking on certain responsibilities, hence refusing to make certain assignments of service to such ones.

  Since an individual is not disfellowshiped because of having voluntarily taken a blood transfusion or having approved of a dear one?s accepting a blood transfusion, you have no right to bar this sister from the celebration of the Lord?s Evening Meal. As an anointed member of Christ?s body she is under orders and command by Christ Jesus to partake. Whether she is unfaithful as to what she professes to be by virtue of taking the emblems of the Lord?s Evening Meal is something for Jehovah God to determine himself. His judgment begins at the house of God. It is not for you or anyone serving the Memorial emblems to act as the judge, but to allow the emblems to go to anyone in the audience as these are passed along in the normal manner of letting each one have the opportunity to partake.
• 

  TheEdge

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

  I know an ''older'' 'sister' who was disfellowshipped for having a blood transfusion.

  We let the judgment of such violators of God?s law concerning the sacredness of blood remain with Jehovah, the Supreme Judge.

  .....and I think things must have changed a lot - I can't recall ONE single case of Jehovah judging what is in individual's hearts.
• 

  MerryMagdalene

  But... then shouldn't all violators of all other laws of God's be viewed in the same way and all such judgements left up to God? What are they thinkin'?

  --Merry Merry Quite Contrary
• 

  A Paduan

  We do not judge these violaters of God's law

  Hard to believe someone could say that and not even get it

  Seared with a hot iron seems an appropriate description.
• 

  ChristianObserver

  Have you visited www.ajwrb.org ? If not, it is worth a visit. If you click on the History button near the top of the page, you will find 3 articles there which are very informative.

  1925 - The man who frequently donates blood for transfusion is commended. (Golden Age, 7/29, p. 683, #52).

  1940 - Report of a doctor donating a quart of his own blood during an emergency. It was portrayed as heroic (Consolation, 12/25, p. 19, #53).
• 

  Justin

  I wasn't aware there were any early statements of their actually approving blood transfusions. However, their not making transfusion a disfellowshipable offense until years after their initial condemnation is a different matter. Smoking wasn't disfellowshipable for many years either, but that didn't mean they approved of it.
• 

  TheEdge

  1925 - The man who frequently donates blood for transfusion is commended. (Golden Age, 7/29, p. 683, #52).

  So it's ok to give but not receive? - I know that a lot of ideas have flip-flopped progressed - and that Scriptures are now being interpreted manipulated to mean different things - but surely some things are black and white and GOD wouldn't expect us to have to wonder WHAT he means by something in a life threatening situation.
• 

  Honesty

  No wonder the Illegitimate apostate GB don't know who their father is.