Does anyone know if this article is true or not?

by Keyboard22 26 Replies latest watchtower scandals

  • jgnat

    I'm not so sure about the article, It needs further investigation.

    By the way, we might have a researcher on our side, if we can manage to hook up.

    Adrian M. Viens Department of Philosophy/Joint Centre for Bioethics
    University of Toronto (Canada)

    "I'm a D.Phil student in the Faculty of Philosophy at Oxford University, where I am working on the topic of reasons and practical authority. My dissertation attempts to diagnose and hopefully remedy central assumptions within the literature on practical reason, moral philosophy and legal philosophy concerning how reasons are ultimately determinative in establishing what an agent ought to do. "

    I wonder how he would dissect the Watchtower reasoning and judicial system?

  • jgnat

    If this quote were accurate, "Unbelieving Mates", or UBM's. might cut it out and keep it in their wallet/purse. Just in case their partner were ever in a position to decide.

    Paul Gillies, speaking for the British Jehovah's Witnesses headquarters in Mill Hill, north London, said, "It is quite possible that someone who was under pressure on an operating table would take a blood transfusion because they did not want to die. The next day they might say they regretted this decision. We would then give them spiritual comfort and help. No action would be taken against them. We would just view it as a moment of weakness."

    ...followed by a Judicial Committee hearing and removal of priveledges.

  • parakeet

    ***while the abstention from blood products is still a major tenet of the JW religion, since the punishment has been downgraded (namely from excommunication to forgiveness/counseling)***
    Isn't the Society's stance that JWs who allows blood transfusions automatically DA themselves?? They aren't DFed (excommunicated) anymore in order to protect the WTS from lawsuits??
    The person making this statement doesn't seem aware of the DA policy.

  • Nathan Natas
    Nathan Natas

    This "change in policy" is nothing but semantic wordplay.

    Previously, if a JW accepted a blood transfusion, he was disfellowshipped.

    Now, if a JW accepts a blood transfusion, an announcement is made to the congregation that that person is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses. They are said to have disassociated themselves by their actions.

    It is a distinction without a difference, a play on words for the sake of Public Relations and obfuscation.

    Disfellowshipped = Disassociated = Disfellowshipped. There is no difference in the way the two "classes" of people are treated. Both are subject to the barbaric and inhumane family-breaking practice of shunning to the maximum degree.

    This "change without changing" began years ago when the Watchtower told the govrnment of Bulgaria that they didn't disfellowship a follower for accepting a blood transfusion so that the Watchtower Society could benefit from improved relations with the Bulgarian government.

    Religiously speaking, the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society is whore-spawn.

  • luna2
    Religiously speaking, the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society is whore-spawn.

    Which is actually an insult to whores...and their spawn.

  • earthtone

    Okay, so after reading this article and then the rapid response.. It's still basically the same policy. No blood transfusion right? If you accept one you get a judical meeting or your announced DA'd. I'm understanding this right, right?

  • fullofdoubtnow

    As any ex jw on this forum knows, there are two "faces" to the wts, the public one, of which this article is yet another example, and the private one, which is what they are really all about.

    There are other examples, like when JR Brown talks about their child abuse policy being designed to protect their children, when in reality we all know it is used to protect the wts from bad publicity.

    The "love bombing" and outward display of false happiness shown towards newcomers at their meetings is another example, designed to lure yet another unsuspecting victim into the cult.

    I don't believe that they have changed their policy on blood at all, not to the extent that this article suggests anyway. Let's face it, this is their most well - known doctrine, there can be very few people anywhere in the world who haven't got some inkling of the wts stance on blood transfusions.

    This article is nothing more than another attempt to improve their public image, and if any jw did accept blood, the action taken by the wts would be somewhat more extreme than the spiritual comfort that Paul Gillies talks about.

  • rebel8

    There was a U turn, but it was a few years ago. They changed it from a DF offense to "regarding the person to have DAd themself" because of a LEGAL maneuver done abroad, to solace the government authorities. See my brochure on this topic ----> check the references listed in footnote #2: Brochure: JWs and Their Beliefs about Blood.

  • Gerard

    I feel that this 'article' was inspired by the new "blood cards" which seemingly now allows blood products. I can't find the link to those scans...


  • sspo

    Any elder on this board that might know? something from The GB on file

Share this