AuldSoul? AuldSoul you say? May he zest in peace.
Marvin Shilmer
Marvin Shilmer
JoinedPosts by Marvin Shilmer
-
83
Toasting AuldSoul
by jst2laws inabout two minutes ago the announcement was made that auldsoul was "no longer one of jehovah's witnesses".
he and jst2laws one minute ago toasted to celebrate.
please join us.
-
-
-
33
The Blood doctrine - A Medical or Scriptural issue?
by Jourles inif you were to ask any witness whether or not the blood doctrine is scripturally or medically based, you would receive the same answer 100% of the time.
"scripturally, of course.
there is one component in particular which shows the wts uses medically based information to cement its postion on what is and what is not allowed for a witness to accept.
-
-
Marvin Shilmer
AuldSoul,
The WTS’ Blood Doctrine allows Jehovah’s Witnesses to accept autologous transfusion of whole blood and/or any constituent of whole blood (including erythrocytes, leukocytes, platelets or plasma) so long as the removal of the blood from the circulatory system and its later transfusion is part of what the WTS terms a “current therapy”.
Since nowhere does the WTS define the parameters of “current therapy” then it is up the patient and treating clinician to make use of the term. Hence it is false for anyone to say that the WTS’ Blood Doctrine forbids autologous transfusions because the WTS’ Blood Doctrine only forbids autologous blood transfusion if the blood is transfused in some way other than in a “current therapy”.
Jehovah’s Witnesses have undergone therapies where some of their blood was removed and sent to a laboratory for treatment and later the next day this blood was transfused into the patient. This is an autologous transfusion of blood and it is not in violation of the WTS’ Blood Doctrine because the patient can rationalize it as a “current therapy” and, of course, the clinician goes along with the terminology for sake of his or her JW patient.
This summary underscores a major theological change in the WTS’ Blood Doctrine that occurred in year 2000 yet continues to fly under the proverbial radar screen. I still do not understand why more researchers have not caught on to this change and highlighted it. The change is this: Prior to 2000 the WTS taught that blood removed from a person’s circulatory system had to be disposed of. In the year 2000 the WTS jettisoned this doctrinal tenet, which allowed for what I described above and more. You can read about it in the October 15, 2000 Questions From Readers article in The Watchtower.
Marvin Shilmer
-
33
The Blood doctrine - A Medical or Scriptural issue?
by Jourles inif you were to ask any witness whether or not the blood doctrine is scripturally or medically based, you would receive the same answer 100% of the time.
"scripturally, of course.
there is one component in particular which shows the wts uses medically based information to cement its postion on what is and what is not allowed for a witness to accept.
-
-
Marvin Shilmer
Hello, Jourles
You write:
“Ask yourself, why is the WTS allowing the use of a protein such as hemoglobin, but banning the use of the very thin membrane which carries hemoglobin?”
For sake of razor sharp accuracy, the WTS prohibits Jehovah’s Witnesses from accepting neither hemoglobin nor RBC membranes. That is to say, Jehovah’s Witnesses can accept either or both so long as the two are not taken in the form of RBC.
Another point often overlooked is that the WTS does not always prohibit Jehovah’s Witnesses from conscientiously accepting transfusion of RBCs. Does anyone here know the published exception for when Jehovah’s Witnesses can accept RBCs without repercussion from the WTS or local elders?
Marvin Shilmer
-
5
Has the WTBTS read the Journal of Church and State Autumn issue as of yet?
by sf inwho can verify if the legal department has already read this?.
okay, or guess?.
skally
-
-
Marvin Shilmer
Skally writes:
“Who can verify if the legal department has already read this?”
I can. WTS legal eagles have read it.
Marvin Shilmer
-
-
-
Marvin Shilmer
Jourles,
Application? What the WTS does not want to have seen in the light of day is all the correspondence between itself and the UNDPI as it maintained its status as an associate NGO to the United Nations over nearly a 10-year period.
Anyone asking for WTS documents on this matter should ask for any and all documents, not just the initial applications for association. This is where the coziness of the WTS' association shows up. Of course, as AuldSoul has already pointed out, the very heading of the initial application says it all; its right there in bold print, "Association". After all, it is the WTS who has so ingrained JWs around the world that bad association spoils useful habits. How much worse can association get? The United Nations is supposedly the mother of idols!
Marvin Shilmer
-
-
-
Marvin Shilmer
Honesty,
Your experience is exactly one of the WTS' fears.
The WTS has tried its best to build an aura of moral high ground around its affairs and teachings; hence the WTS has acquired not a few adherents who are intent on maintaining themselves on moral high ground. Because these put morality above personal preference these moral high-grounders will drop the WTS like a hot potato if and when they discover the WTS has constructed itself on a moral ruse commonly called hypocrisy. When the WTS elected to voluntarily associate itself with the United Nations (supposedly the mother of all idols!) it tipped its hand that either 1) is it far from discreet (as in "faithful and discreet"!) or 2) it is hypocritical right to the core.
Marvin Shilmer
-
-
-
Marvin Shilmer
Hello, Jourles
You write:
"You can count on the WTS to never let their original application see the light of day again."
I don't disagree. But there is still an advantage to asking for copies of these supposedly innocent documents that supposedly verify what the WTS claims.
The advantage is to demonstrate how the WTS refuses to verify itself to its own membership, even when the verification is 1) admittedly in possession, 2) easy to produce and 3) should supposedly stamp out any doubt about the veracity of WTS claims.
Those of us experienced in this do not need another dog and pony show to demonstrate what we already know. But outsiders will learn a great deal from this refusal.
Marvin Shilmer
-
-
-
Marvin Shilmer
AuldSoul,
You know this is the standard boilerplate response the WTS is sending out these days, regarding its voluntary association with the UN that is. I suggest you write a second letter asking to have copies of what the WTS' letter describes as "papers filed with the United Nations that we have on file." After all, the WTS has advised us to put things in writing for sake of verification, and all you want to see is verification of the WTS' claim, and it should be easy enough to provide. You should include a check in your letter stating that the money is reimbursement for the expense of copying.
Marvin Shilmer
-
103
REVIEW OF JCS "BIG NEWS" ARTICLE
by Oroborus21 innote: the catholic molestation cases have mostly been evaluated under employment law theories not the tort of misrepresentation or under non-fraud related tort claims]; fails to address important legal considerations such as standing and statute of limitations; and finally and most importantly, the essay fails to address in any meaningful way the inevitable constitutional arguments that would be raised by opposing (watchtower) counsel.
supreme court justices do not have the time to browse through law journals and the implication that they would be interested in an essay is even more deceptive.
the society does not cite a 1960 study as evidence that blood transfusions are hazardous.. here is the actual quotation in context:.
-
-
Marvin Shilmer
Steve2 writes:
“I'd be interested in the source of the "50 percent cave in" and accept blood figure.”
I don’t know about the 50 percent figure you question, but certain facts about the WTS’ Blood Doctrine compared to the population of Jehovah’s Witnesses are well documented.
For instance:
Jehovah’s Witnesses have never universally assented to the WTS’ Blood Doctrine, yet the WTS has imposed this Blood Doctrine on all Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Jehovah’s Witnesses have asked the WTS to accept the medical use of blood.—Letter published anonymously, Further on Blood Transfusion, Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, Inc., The Watchtower, 1950 May 1:143
WTS appointees have voiced disagreement to the WTS about the Blood Doctrine.— R. Jensen, personal letter to Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, dated March 1, 2000
The WTS admits that its Blood Doctrine is not determined by a majority conviction among Jehovah’s Witnesses.—Anonymous, Be Guided By The Living God, Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, Inc., The Watchtower, 6/15 2004
So far as a percentage of Jehovah’s Witnesses who are willing to accept forbidden blood products, a well documented study by Dr. Karen Benson(1) showed 10 percent of JW cancer patients willing to accept WTS forbidden blood products. But if you want to know a percentage of Jehovah’s Witnesses that use from the donated and stored blood supply, my personal experience is that in excess of 90 percent are more than willing to do so. Of course most of this use from the donated and stored blood supply is not of products from blood that are forbidden by the WTS. But it is use of the blood supply nevertheless!
Marvin Shilmer
______________
Reference:
-
103
REVIEW OF JCS "BIG NEWS" ARTICLE
by Oroborus21 innote: the catholic molestation cases have mostly been evaluated under employment law theories not the tort of misrepresentation or under non-fraud related tort claims]; fails to address important legal considerations such as standing and statute of limitations; and finally and most importantly, the essay fails to address in any meaningful way the inevitable constitutional arguments that would be raised by opposing (watchtower) counsel.
supreme court justices do not have the time to browse through law journals and the implication that they would be interested in an essay is even more deceptive.
the society does not cite a 1960 study as evidence that blood transfusions are hazardous.. here is the actual quotation in context:.
-
-
Marvin Shilmer
Oroborus21/Eduardo writes:
“A religious organization that publishes a medical related publication that has nothing to do with its beliefs may also be found to be liable (but it woudl be an extremely difficult case.)
“A religious organization that publishes a medical related publication that is integral to its belief-system is not going to be found liable.
“What people consistently fail to appreciate is that religions do not have to tell the truth or provide factual information, even on secular matters IF they are part of the religion.”
Then you agree there is potential here that the WTS is legally culpable since the WTS has taken great pains over the years to delineate its religious view on blood versus the medical science on blood (i.e., the medical science proffered by the WTS!)
Do you seriously disagree that the WTS has taken meticulous pains over the years to point out that its presentations of medical science on the subject of blood is completely aside from its doctrinal religious view that is, supposedly, completely based on the Bible?
Eduardo writes:
“The bottom line problem for anyone wishing to challenge the blood doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses is that it is a belief (currently) and such things as Witnessing at the door or via the Literature are considered to be part of the indoctrination process. the essay even calls the blood brochure "indoctrinating literature."”
The article does not challenge the WTS’ Blood Doctrine. It challenges the legality of the WTS’ presentation of medical science.
Marvin Shilmer