Posts by allyouneedislove

3

Wikileaks style anonymous "JW leaks" dropbox anyone?

by Fernando in

this post was inspired by rory-ks' post at http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/224582/1/so-lets-kick-this-revolution-up-a-gear.. a general strike?.

in response to an open ended innocuous call like:.

"if you are not 100% satisfied with everything you see, hear and experience within the congregation please join your brothers and sisters in communicating this to the powers that be by means of a general worship at home strike starting from 21 dec 2012 until all your concerns have been satisfactorily addressed via www.jwconcerns.com"?.

allyouneedislove

This site provides confidential documents via being leaked on sites like sendspace.

27

Do I have this right?

by allyouneedislove in

do i have this right?.

jw are to be completely obedient to the fds.

they are not to question, speak against the teachings of, or disobey the fds.. however, the fds's teachings change and many past teachings are now seen as incorrect.. still, though, jws are to completely and unquestionably obey all teachings of the fds, no matter if they personally believe such are wrong or if they carry severe consequenses.. .

allyouneedislove

@ Juan Viejo2

You said

Steven Unthanks' legal case in Victoria, Au named the "faithful and discreet slave" as a possible defendant, but the Watchtower legal eagle came back and indicated that the FDS is not a real person, group, or legal entity, but only "a theological concept." That was a lie.

Are there court documents that confirm the WTBTS said this? I would love to see them as confirmation.

Thanks

27

Do I have this right?

by allyouneedislove in

do i have this right?.

jw are to be completely obedient to the fds.

they are not to question, speak against the teachings of, or disobey the fds.. however, the fds's teachings change and many past teachings are now seen as incorrect.. still, though, jws are to completely and unquestionably obey all teachings of the fds, no matter if they personally believe such are wrong or if they carry severe consequenses.. .

allyouneedislove

Seems like a break in logic. I have tried to find an example in scripture to show that this type of theocratic structure is OK or an example that mirrors it.

27

Do I have this right?

by allyouneedislove in

do i have this right?.

jw are to be completely obedient to the fds.

they are not to question, speak against the teachings of, or disobey the fds.. however, the fds's teachings change and many past teachings are now seen as incorrect.. still, though, jws are to completely and unquestionably obey all teachings of the fds, no matter if they personally believe such are wrong or if they carry severe consequenses.. .

allyouneedislove

Do I have this right?

JW are to be completely obedient to the FDS. They are not to question, speak against the teachings of, or disobey the FDS.

However, the FDS's teachings change and many past teachings are now seen as incorrect.

Still, though, JWs are to completely and unquestionably obey all teachings of the FDS, no matter if they personally believe such are wrong or if they carry severe consequenses.

12

What Is Your Opinion?

by allyouneedislove in

how would you respond to the following statement:.

no one was negatively affected or died by heeding past understandings on blood fractions, organ transplant, hemodilution, etc.

most of the past understandings on medical procedures existed when the treatments were not being used on a large scale.. .

allyouneedislove

I don't know if everyone is understanding my point. Just for reference sake, I am trying to see if JWs were harmed while going along with PAST blood doctrine (for example: no albumin, other fractions, etc). Please lets not allow this to turn into an emotional thread. Just the facts please, ma'am. I understand, however, that emotions run high on this subject. Much thanks.

12

What Is Your Opinion?

by allyouneedislove in

how would you respond to the following statement:.

no one was negatively affected or died by heeding past understandings on blood fractions, organ transplant, hemodilution, etc.

most of the past understandings on medical procedures existed when the treatments were not being used on a large scale.. .

allyouneedislove

Thanks for that everyone. However, I was trying to get to evidence that people actually suffered from PAST blood doctrine of the WTBTS.

12

What Is Your Opinion?

by allyouneedislove in

how would you respond to the following statement:.

no one was negatively affected or died by heeding past understandings on blood fractions, organ transplant, hemodilution, etc.

most of the past understandings on medical procedures existed when the treatments were not being used on a large scale.. .

allyouneedislove

@ Phizzy,

If you have experiences/proof that many have died from the old "no fractions/organ transplant/etc." doctines, please share.

12

What Is Your Opinion?

by allyouneedislove in

how would you respond to the following statement:.

no one was negatively affected or died by heeding past understandings on blood fractions, organ transplant, hemodilution, etc.

most of the past understandings on medical procedures existed when the treatments were not being used on a large scale.. .

allyouneedislove

Hi everyone,

How would you respond to the following statement:

No one was negatively affected or died by heeding past understandings on blood fractions, organ transplant, hemodilution, etc. Most of the past understandings on medical procedures existed when the treatments were not being used on a large scale.

I have even been stumped by this one. However, The AWAKE! 1965 4/8 P.18 does says:

Then there are reports of prevention

having. been realized by means of the use

of Rh-positive haptens. These haptens are

a blood fraction taken from Rh-positive red

cells and given orally or by injection to ,a

woman whose blood shows a high degree

or titer of immunization to the Rh factor.

In one to four months the titer is down to

zero, at which time a pregnancy is rec-

o'mmended. Upon conception treatment is

resumed. Those using this method have re-

ported perfect results. However, this in-

volves the use of blood fractions, which

s objectionable on Scriptural grounds.

Yet, medical history shows the Rh injection became commercially available in 1968. This date is given on Wikipedia and in the AWAKE!:

***g9412/8p.24TheRhFactorandYou***

It showed up in 1968. After years of research and frustrating attempts by doctors to treat these very sick babies, which met with limited success, an immunization was developed that was effective in preventing the problem of “Rh babies.” This was good news. But how did it work?

A book by Douglas Starr states "...and by the late 1960s this injection became commercially available" (Blood - An Epic History of Medicine and Commerce, P. 208).

Furthermore, in that same year (AWAKE! 8-22-1965 P. 18) the WTBTS seems to have toned down their "objectionable" response by saying:

The fact that serums are prepared from

blood makes them undesirable to Chris-

tians because of the Biblical law against

the use of blood. However, since they do

not involve the using of blood as a food to

nourish the body, which the Bible directly

forbids, their use is a .matter that must

be decided by each person according to his

conscience. Vaccines, on the other hand,

do not involve blood in their preparation.

Quite a toned down statement only a couple months afterward.

Obviously, whether or not someone was difellowshipped or not is irrelevant. What matters is whether the WTBTS told JWs that certain medical procedures were unscriptual when they could have benefited from such. However, to benefit from such, I think it would be reasonable that such methods were considered safe and available as non-experimental. It seems that the WTBTS started allowing many medical procedures right around, or a couple years after they became widespread.

Any thoughts?

8