My wife called a said that she saw something on JWD about a major change in blood-doctrine announced - but I don't see any excitement that looks like anything has changed at first glance on the forum. Any info please!
Jeff
Is there a WTS change on Blood?
by AK - Jeff 7 Replies latest watchtower medical
-
-
-
Elsewhere
The WTS made a public statement in 2001 that they will no longer DF anyone for accepting blood products. This was done to cater to countries that banned the activities of Jehover's Witnesses because of concerns about the health of the members of the religion (the countries did not like the idea that the WTS banned their own members from getting medical aid).
What the countries failed to realize is just now legalistic the WTS is. Yes, it is true that the WTS will no longer DF a person for accepting blood, HOWEVER... the WTS also told the elders that a JW is to be considered as having "Disassociated himself by his actions".
Basically the WTS did an end run around the requirements of the other countries while internally eliminating the need to hold a JC. Basically they now can have a person shunned without the person even knowing about it until after the fact.
-
IP_SEC
WTS also told the elders that a JW is to be considered as having "Disassociated himself by his actions".
Yes, we had an issue of blood in unbaptised publisher. This is exactly what the co said to us.
-
Thegoodgirl
IP SEC:
YOu mean the co announced it from the stage???
-
IP_SEC
No the elders asked him what to do about a ubapt person who took blood. The co went in to a bunch of detail on how to handle blood. One of the things he mention to the elders was that if a person too blood and didnt show any signs of repentance, he should be dissassociated like Elsewhere said.
No he didnt say anything from the platform, and as far as I can reckon we never got a letter on it and it hasnt been int he WT. It was in a letter to the COs.
-
greendawn
They are gradually over the years loosening up the prohibition they want to do away with it totally but are afraid of the legal consequences and also that they can lose a lot of their members if they backtrack totally.
Giving the new light non sense as a justification will not do for an explosive issue like this. -
jomac
If a person takes blood and appears to the elders to not be absolutely ashamed of it, then the person is considered to have by his own actions cut ties to the Watchtower organization and is no longer a JW in good standing. An elder will announce at the platform that So-and-so is no longer a JW. The terms disfellowshipped and disassociated are no longer used.
By this means the Watchtower organization can hope to not be sued successfully for disfellowshipping in those nations where litigation for defamation of character can be successful against a religious organization and its local elder representatives. They can say they do not DF although they do.
Also by doing it this way the government officials in nations that would otherwise not approve the Watchtower organization as a legally recognized entity worthy of receiving tax exemptions can be easily confused and thus made less likely to strip the organization of such recognition with benefits.
I believe a thread on this board elsewhere some time back also said they now allow each individual member to decide if to allow animal hemoglobin in a transfusion but make a point not to make this change well-known to JW members, which means people will still die who should not have to.