Any elders on this forum- blood question

by sspo 4 Replies latest watchtower medical

  • sspo

    I had to step down as an elder for 2 years now so i don't know if there is any new " light " from the GB concerning taking blood. The watchtower keeps on saying it is a personal decision that every JW has to make whether to get a transfusion or not.

    I would like to know if you take a transfusion what are the consequences in the congr.

    Do the elders have any instructions from the GB on how to handle it?

    If it is a personal decision to take blood and you do, will you get Df or maybe lose priviliges in the cong.

  • blondie

    This site is manned by current and ex-JWs as well as those who have served on HLCs and are or were elders. It is fairly current and comprehensive. They have a page with people you can contact for further information.

    Not that I am discouraging any comments, but it could be a useful site to bookmark.


  • garybuss

    Anybody got November KM yet? What's it say?

  • truthsetsonefree

    Provided that the elders even know.... If they do, then they are to look into it. But they do not disfellowship for this anymore. It is the same as it was when you stepped down as an elder. They are to determine by Judicial Committee if the person did this willfully or merely under the pressure of the moment. If the person if not a "willful sinner" then some restrictions aree put in place. If they are "unrepentant" then they are to be disassociated. Of course the one thing that has changed is not regarduing blood but ratherdf'ing announcemenmts. now the DA and DF announcements are identical. And of course the effects are the same. The DA just gives the Watchtower more "wiggle" room legally. Note Jim Pellechia's comments on this article found on ( " The new rule--which was quietly adopted in a private meeting of the religion's leaders in April and has not yet been fully explained to all the world's Witnesses--stipulates that members who take blood will no longer be actively excommunicated, or ``disfellowshipped,'' by the religion. Instead, members who accept blood transfusions will be judged to have voluntarily ``disassociated'' themselves from the 3 million-member denomination, whose adherents also refuse military service and consider other Christian churches to be ruled by Satan. Canadian Jehovah's Witness official Dennis Charland said the faith continues to teach that the God of the Bible, whom Witnesses call Jehovah, literally commands them to ``abstain from blood''--as mentioned in Acts 15:20 and other biblical passages. The penalty for this sin is to lose access to spiritual paradise. James Pellechia, a Witness spokesman at Watch Tower headquarters in Brooklyn, N.Y., said The Times of London reporter who wrote the article alleging a change in policy, which was picked up wire services and newspapers in the United States, Canada and Britain, ``was trying to make mischief." "(The reporter) called it an `extraordinary U-turn' for the Jehovah's Witnesses. It's no turn whatsoever. It's a minor change in procedural terminology,'' he said. However, a University of Victoria anthropologist who has written a book about the Jehovah's Witnesses said she believes the religion's leaders changed the wording of their blood-exchange policy to make it easier to legally fend off people who have been shunned by the religion." tsof

  • Balsam

    I had two elders here the other day and they were asking if I was interested in reinstatement. I told them no as I knew their policy on blood was wrong and I would not be interested. They both admitted that it was a point of controversy with many. They did not specify who the many were though. So the Elders are well aware that the blood policy is a real sore spot.


Share this