KM 2009 - misrepresentation on blood transfusions

by truthseeker 28 Replies latest jw friends

  • truthseeker
    truthseeker

    In the Feb 2009 KM there is a 10 minute part entitled "Answering Questions about Blood Transfusions"

    Notice the part I've highlighted in red. Exacty what transfusions do JWs allow their children to have? Their whole reasoning is a pathetic attempt to appease the householder without saying they flat out refuse blood.

    rs p. 74 - p. 76 Blood If Someone Says—

    ‘You let your children die because you refuse blood transfusions. I think that’s terrible’

    You might reply: ‘But we do allow them to have transfusions—the safer kind. We accept the kind of transfusions that don’t carry the risk of such things as AIDS, hepatitis, and malaria. We want the best treatment for our children, as I am sure that any loving parent would.’ Then perhaps add: (1) ‘When there is severe blood loss, the greatest need is to restore the fluid volume. No doubt you realize that our blood is actually over 50 percent water; then there are the red and white cells, and so forth. When much blood is lost, the body itself pours large reserves of blood cells into the system and speeds up production of new ones. But fluid volume is needed. Plasma volume expanders that contain no blood can be used to fill that need, and we accept these.’ (2) ‘Plasma volume expanders have been used on thousands of persons, with excellent results.’ (3) ‘Even more important to us is what the Bible itself says at Acts 15:28, 29.’

    Or you could say: ‘I can understand your point of view. I suppose you are imagining your own child in that situation. As parents we would do everything possible to safeguard our child’s welfare, wouldn’t we? So if folks like you and me were going to refuse some sort of medical treatment for our child, there would certainly have to be some compelling reason for it.’ Then perhaps add: (1) ‘Do you think that some parents might be influenced by what God’s Word says here at Acts 15:28, 29?’ (2) ‘So the question is, Do we have enough faith to do what God commands?’

    ‘You people don’t believe in blood transfusions’

    You might reply: ‘The newspapers have published stories about some situations in which they felt that Witnesses might die if they did not accept blood. Is that what you have in mind? . . . Why do we take the position we do?’ Then perhaps add: (1) ‘Do you love your wife (husband) enough that you would be willing to risk your life for her (him)? . . . There are also men who risk their lives for their country, and they are viewed as heroes, aren’t they? But there is someone who is greater than any person or thing here on earth, and that is God. Would you risk your life because of love for him and loyalty to his rulership?’ (2) ‘The issue here really is loyalty to God. It is God’s Word that tells us to abstain from blood. (Acts 15:28, 29)’

    Or you could say: ‘There are many things that are rather common today and that Jehovah’s Witnesses shun—for example, lying, adultery, stealing, smoking, and as you mentioned, the use of blood. Why? Because we govern our lives by God’s Word.’ Then perhaps add: (1) ‘Did you know that the Bible says we should “abstain from blood”? I would like to show it to you. (Acts 15:28, 29)’ (2) ‘Perhaps you recall that God told our first parents, Adam and Eve, that they could eat from every tree in Eden except one. But they disobeyed, ate that forbidden fruit, and lost everything. How unwise! Now, of course, there is no tree with forbidden fruit. But after the Flood of Noah’s day God again set out one prohibition for mankind. This time it involved blood. (Gen. 9:3, 4)’ (3) ‘So the real question is, Do we have faith in God? If we obey him, we have before us the prospect of eternal life in perfection under his Kingdom. Even if we die, he assures us of a resurrection.’

    ‘What if a doctor says, “You will die without a blood transfusion”?

    You might reply: ‘If the situation is really that serious, can the doctor guarantee that the patient will not die if he is given blood?’ Then perhaps add: ‘But there is someone who can give a person life again, and that is God. Don’t you agree that, when face to face with death, turning one’s back on God by violating his law would be a poor decision? I truly have faith in God. Do you? His Word promises a resurrection for those who put faith in his Son. Do you believe that? (John 11:25)’

    Or you could say: ‘It may mean that he personally does not know how to handle the case without the use of blood. If possible, we try to put him in touch with a doctor who has had the needed experience, or we engage the services of another doctor.’

  • daniel-p
    daniel-p

    Wow. The word "transfusion" is used in reference to blood. "Intraveinous injections" are used for saline, or blood expanders. Complete fucking idiot liars.

  • Tuesday
    Tuesday

    This Kingdom Ministry annoys me to no end.

    They don't mention all the other aspects of blood that are accepted. It's also such elementary language if someone answered my question like that I'd slap them for acting patrinizing.

  • truthseeker
    truthseeker

    I know, it's sick making isn't it.

    This is not the sort of reasoning that an average brother or sister comes up with out of their own originality.

    What makes it worse are the GB and those in the writing dept. who have to think of all these excuses to make their disgusting doctrine palatable.

    I'll never forget the brochure, "How can blood save your life?"

    Any thinking person who didn't know about JW blood doctrine and saw this booklet would conclude that blood can save your life when ironically, it is just the opposite considering that taking blood incurs Jehovah's wrath and could end your prospects of everlasting life.

  • cabasilas
    cabasilas

    Notice how they leave the impression that there's really nothing to worry about if they reject blood. Many JWs believe (mistakenly) that somewhere there's some alternative therapy they can count on in a pinch. That works for some things, but not for many situations.

    I'd say this is documentation that the Watchtower Society misleads their followers into accepting their blood doctrine without explicitly telling them they could likely face death in an emergency.

  • thebiggestlie
    thebiggestlie

    i find these kind of mindnumbing practice sessions/indoctrination sessions to be so tiring. How can a witness claim to "believe" anything. If a witness is asked "what do you believe" they might as well say "the faithful and discrete slave says i believe that..."

    the only biblical thing the society is good at is straining the gnat while gulping down the camel

    I can't wait to be free from all of this.

    Does anyone remember what the date of for the awake article that basically makes martyrs out of the children that have died for the societies blood policy? The one with all of there pictures on the cover and whatnot. i had it written down but i can't find it.

    tbl

  • cawshun
    cawshun

    Another double standard, don't save your life with a blood transfusion.

    To me that means, you take a life that could be saved. So do they just

    ignore the commandment: " Thou shall not kill"?

    They can break one of Gods commandments to keep another one, where is the sense in that?

    cawshun

  • Mrs. Fiorini
    Mrs. Fiorini

    It disgusts me the way they try to present their no blood policy as the best treatment, implying that any doctor that disagrees might somehow be an inferior doctor. They try to minimize the seriousness of the issue by saying some newspapers have stories about some who might die if they don't get blood. What about the newspapers reporting on the fact that someone did die. They also emphasize the risks of getting AIDS or other diseases, which is extremely rare since all blood is tested before it is administered.

    If they're going to take the position of no blood, they should have the guts to be honest about it, not give their members false ideas about the health and safety of the practice.

  • wha happened?
    wha happened?

    Let's face it folks. The writing dept has no critics. No one is actually going to step in and make corrections. It's like politicians or entertainers that surround themselves with Yes Men. Why do u think some of these people sound so idiotic? There's no one to keep them mentally in check

  • WTWizard
    WTWizard

    Here they go again, telling people the exact wording on what to say to the householders. Better if you just don't go out in field circus in the first place.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit