ok, i know the story of how it went, with the deal they reached with the bulgarian government, etc.
i know.. what i need to know is if there is an internal document that redefines willingly taking blood as a disfellowshipping offense into a cause for disassociation.
a letter from the branch?
I agree in general with you, Slim, in what seems to be a more apathetic disposition towards blood observance.
However, I have personally witnessed how the WT branch office in Portugal personally monitored (in real time!) how an old sister from my congregation agreed to take a blood transfusion for a heart surgery. She was promptly disassociated. (reinstated one year later) This must have been some 10 years ago.
ok, i know the story of how it went, with the deal they reached with the bulgarian government, etc.
i know.. what i need to know is if there is an internal document that redefines willingly taking blood as a disfellowshipping offense into a cause for disassociation.
a letter from the branch?
Mind you, the Catholic Church has a similar provision known as latae sententiae. Actually it almost seems as if the GB lifted the policy from the Apostolic Constitution "Sacrae Disciplina Leges". It's quite a vague text, buried under a ton of verbose, but basically it is the practice of a serious offense that has been previously deemed a sin by the church, and the practice of that sin doesn't require a decision from an ecclesiastical judge, for being self-evident. It is said that it is to be administrated very sparsely.
It's interesting that the WT had to resort to Catholic Church's tactics to try to shield themselves from liability.
Heck, without even saying so, they resorted to Saint Augustine to find an argument to condemn oral and anal sex .... imagine my shock one day, when reading Augustine of Hippo and seeing there that oral and anal sex were wrong 'because these were practices common in brothels' ... word by word the same reasoning that the Watchtower provided to condemn it back in the day. I guess a faithful Witness would reason that Augustine surely had a Watchtower magazine mail subscription.
ok, i know the story of how it went, with the deal they reached with the bulgarian government, etc.
i know.. what i need to know is if there is an internal document that redefines willingly taking blood as a disfellowshipping offense into a cause for disassociation.
a letter from the branch?
Thank you, Atlantis!
ok, i know the story of how it went, with the deal they reached with the bulgarian government, etc.
i know.. what i need to know is if there is an internal document that redefines willingly taking blood as a disfellowshipping offense into a cause for disassociation.
a letter from the branch?
All I can gather is that, somewhere in April 2000 there was a letter send to the Traveling Overseers instructing them about a change in the Ks91 "Pay Attention to Yourselves and to the Flock" page 95 (in English) . I don't know if that change was made manually or if a new edition was published. I have the Ks91 in Portuguese; My edition is from 1991 and on page 95 there's a reference to "fail to abstain from blood" as cause for disfellowshipping.
ok, i know the story of how it went, with the deal they reached with the bulgarian government, etc.
i know.. what i need to know is if there is an internal document that redefines willingly taking blood as a disfellowshipping offense into a cause for disassociation.
a letter from the branch?
Ok, I know the story of how it went, with the deal they reached with the Bulgarian government, etc. I know.
What I need to know is if there is an internal document that redefines willingly taking blood as a disfellowshipping offense into a cause for disassociation. A letter from the branch? Instructions given to Traveling Overseers? I would need something in writing. I can't believe that it wasn't more than just a change in the elder's manual between two editions.
I mean, they must have provided evidence to the Bulgarian government and the E.U. that they had changed their previous policies. I wonder what kind of document they provided.
Please, if someone has evidence of this organizational change, in writing, please point it out for me. Urgently needed for research.
Thanks.
R.
hello all.. i need a quick answer, and also a solid reference in the literature, please.. if a jw marries an unbeliever, there is reproof, it's frowned upon, it's disloyal, there will be loss of privileges, etc, but there's no other more serious consequences.
but, in a scenario where two people are free to marry, but one is a baptized jw and the other is disfellowshipped / disassociated, what are the consequences?.
thanks for your help.. r..
Also (sorry to be a pain), can someone explain to me what the "Coordinator's Committee" of the Governing Body does exactly?
In what way are they doing something different from the "service committee"? Or was it the "service desk"? Who is tasked with enforcing the directives of the Governing Body worldwide?
I mean also to know - in each Branch, there is a "service department". To which of the headquarter's Committees do they respond to?
hello all.. i need a quick answer, and also a solid reference in the literature, please.. if a jw marries an unbeliever, there is reproof, it's frowned upon, it's disloyal, there will be loss of privileges, etc, but there's no other more serious consequences.
but, in a scenario where two people are free to marry, but one is a baptized jw and the other is disfellowshipped / disassociated, what are the consequences?.
thanks for your help.. r..
Oh, and since we're on the subject, here's something else I need, please:
We all know that JW's treat "never-before-Witnesses" (worldly people) one way, and "ex-Witnesses" (disfellowshipped, disassociated) a different way. And, by comparing different passages in literature, it's easy to demonstrate.
However, I would like to find one example in the WTBTS literature (or vídeo, or public addressing) where this is expressed blatantly in the same article, or, better yet, in the same paragraph or even in the same sentence. Something like: "We treat worldly people THIS way, but, on the other hand, we treat disfellowshipped people THAT way". Can you help me out please? Thx
R.
hello all.. i need a quick answer, and also a solid reference in the literature, please.. if a jw marries an unbeliever, there is reproof, it's frowned upon, it's disloyal, there will be loss of privileges, etc, but there's no other more serious consequences.
but, in a scenario where two people are free to marry, but one is a baptized jw and the other is disfellowshipped / disassociated, what are the consequences?.
thanks for your help.. r..
Walter and BluesBrother, yes, in my days as elder, that would be my "go-to" basis for a decision to disfellowship a Witness that would marry a disfellowshipped individual.
Slimboyfat, yes, I guess that falls onto that category "it's-so-obviously-wrong-that-we-don't-even-have-to-put-it-in-writing"
Thanks Duran for the reference.
I was just wondering if anyone knew of a publication referencing that in print, or speaking of an experience to that effect. I guess the Elders' manual will have to suffice to support my claim. Anyway, if someone finds something, please let me know here. thx.
Cheers!
hello all.. i need a quick answer, and also a solid reference in the literature, please.. if a jw marries an unbeliever, there is reproof, it's frowned upon, it's disloyal, there will be loss of privileges, etc, but there's no other more serious consequences.
but, in a scenario where two people are free to marry, but one is a baptized jw and the other is disfellowshipped / disassociated, what are the consequences?.
thanks for your help.. r..
I understand the reasons why Ray Franz was disfellowshipped.
I was just wondering if there was ever something written, black on white, in any literature of the WTBTS that marriage with a disfellowshipped person would result in disfellowshipping for the JW.
I can see how it can be inferred from "insisting on associating with disfellowshipped ones" can be interpreted in this way. Just wanted to know if it was ever expressely stated.
hello all.. i need a quick answer, and also a solid reference in the literature, please.. if a jw marries an unbeliever, there is reproof, it's frowned upon, it's disloyal, there will be loss of privileges, etc, but there's no other more serious consequences.
but, in a scenario where two people are free to marry, but one is a baptized jw and the other is disfellowshipped / disassociated, what are the consequences?.
thanks for your help.. r..
Hello all.
I need a quick answer, and also a solid reference in the literature, please.
If a JW marries an unbeliever, there is reproof, it's frowned upon, it's disloyal, there will be loss of privileges, etc, but there's no other more serious consequences. But, in a scenario where two people are free to marry, but one is a baptized JW and the other is disfellowshipped / disassociated, what are the consequences?
Thanks for your help.
R.
