by ThomasCovenant 31 Replies latest watchtower medical
Take the matter out of the abstract and create a practical scenario.
If a JW father has a family study and explains to his wife and childen that HIS FAMILY is not going to carry blood cards, because they're not opposed to accepting blood in a lifesaving situation. What would the consequences be, if the decision of this father became public knowledge among the members of the congregation?
oppostate your post was really good on highlighting the callous nature of the WTS.
I heard that the reason for da instead of df for blood transfussions was to protect the WTS from potential lawsuits.
Take the matter out of the abstract and create a practical scenario.
If a JW father has a family study and explains to his wife and childen that HIS FAMILY is not going to carry blood cards, because they're not opposed to accepting blood in a lifesaving situation. What would the consequences be, if the decision of this father became public knowledge among the members of the congregation?
The father would be talked to by the elders. If the father did not change his views then he would not be used in the congregation. I do know of a case where one was df for not following the counsel of the elders where they wanted a brother to stop associating with a married sister. If the father in this case did not follow the counsel of the elders he could be df. If the father is promoting this among the congregation, then he would definitely be df for apostasy.
If the father did not change his views then he would not be used in the congregation. I do know of a case where one was df for not following the counsel of the elders where they wanted a brother to stop associating with a married sister.
Like I always say - it all depends on the level of prejudice of the local body of elders. The above, IMHO, is NOT a strictly legal WTBTS disfellowshipping offense.
The dual penalty - DA versus DF - is indeed (much like it was back in the military draft days) a most hypocritical way for the WTBTS to try to cover their sorry butts legally from any liability. I don't know if a court of law would actually see any difference in the two.
I stopped carrying a no- blood card a couple years before I left the KH in 1988. I remember the elders reminding me I needed to get my card signed and I told them I wasn't going to carry that card anymore. His eyes opened wide and the elder gave me the "look". - did I care? No, I did not.
Thomas
I believe it was first banned in the July 1, 1945 WT page201
Negative comments about transfusion first appeared in 1944 and were repeated in 1945 Watchtowers
Much stronger condemnation appeared in the 1949, 50 and 51 Watchtowers and Awakes
Willfull acceptance of a transfusion became a disfellowshipping offense in 1961.
In the year 2000 a procedural change was implemented, which made willful acceptance of a transfusion automatic disassociation.
That development is documented here:
Bill Cetnar tells of an incident where one of the anointed class recieved a transfussion to treat leukemia in 1949, everyone knew and no one said anything.
On the other hand Bill, who neither recieved or gave blood was df'd in 62 for simply making his position on blood transfuions known.
I could not find a recent reference to d/a for blood use but the following were found in respect of the previous practice of disfellowshipping. The only difference is that the d/a route is used for "sins" that they do not want to be seen as expelling members for. like joining the military, or voting and now, blood..
Proclaimers Book chap 13 p 183/184
"The respect for life shown by Jehovah’s Witnesses has also affected their attitude toward blood transfusions. When transfusions of blood became an issue confronting them, The Watchtower of July 1, 1945, explained at length the Christian view regarding the sanctity of blood. It showed that both animal blood and that of humans were included in the divine prohibition that was made binding on Noah and all his descendants. (Gen. 9:3-6) It pointed out that this requirement was emphasized again in the first century in the command that Christians ‘abstain from blood.’ (Acts 15:28, 29) That same article made it clear from the Scriptures that only sacrificial use of blood has ever been approved by God, and that since the animal sacrifices offered under the Mosaic Law foreshadowed the sacrifice of Christ, disregard for the requirement that Christians ‘abstain from blood’ would be an evidence of gross disrespect for the ransom sacrifice of Jesus Christ. (Lev. 17:11, 12; Heb. 9:11-14, 22) Consistent with that understanding of matters, beginning in 1961 any who ignored the divine requirement, accepted blood transfusions, and manifested an unrepentant attitude were disfellowshipped from the congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses."
Pay Attention to The Flock Unit 5a lists a lot of serious matters for which a Judicial Committee would be formed - one of these is
"Failure to Abstain from Blood"
Blues Brother, you will not find a written reference in any WT publication. As I related above, the CO visited each congregation and shared a "letter" from headquarters with the elders telling them that from then on anyone unrepentantly taking a blood transfusion will be considered as having disassociated themselves. The WTS did tell BBC News that (see my quote above). The elders were not allowed to touch, let alone read the "letter" and were not given a copy for their files. They were just instructed to write in in the margin of their elders manual. The CO even said that what he was reading was "not a letter."
Blondie
There is nothing in print in the WTS publications regarding disassociation. BBC had a reference to it. When the CO visited each congregation, at the elders meeting, he verbally told them that it had changed to disassocation. He read it from a piece of paper with WT header but would not let the elders look at this "non-letter" nor was a copy given to the elders.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/790967.stm (below is quote from this article)
But if this looks like a major climbdown, a spokesman for the organisation - also called Watch Tower - insisted it was merely a procedural change.
He said not taking blood remains a biblical injunction and a core tenet of the faith.
If a member has a transfusion, they will, by their actions disassociate themselves from the religion. The ruling emphasises personal choice, he said.
He added that if they repented afterwards, they would be offered spiritual comfort and the possibility of redemption.
But the distinction between what in other words amounts to resigning rather than being sacked, does seem to be a major shift.
