Are Jehovah's Witnesses Disfellowshipped for Taking a Blood Transfusion?

by ThomasCovenant 31 Replies latest watchtower medical

  • isaacaustin


    It was not a dfing offense in 1958, but by 1961 it was?? Am I interpreting this correctly?

  • cult classic
    cult classic

    There was a "brother" in our area who received a transfusion about 11 yrs. ago. He was battling leukemia and some other disorder. His prognosis wasn't good. It seemed he got better overnight. So the "friends" assumed he'd taken blood. It became "common knowledge" that he had accepted a blood transfusion. And neither he nor his wife denied it when asked.

    No announcement was ever made. But they were blacklisted so badly in their congregation/circuit that they just stopped coming. In effect they were disfellowshipped.

    edited to add: I do remember the couple starting to question the blood doctrine openly with close friends. These friends in turn told the elders that they were questioning the doctrine, so when he got better the assumption was he'd taken blood.

    I just remembered that part of the story. I was sad when I saw them out shopping one day. I hadn't seen them in years and I waved to the wife and she turned away........ I'm sure the whole situation really caused them pain.

  • 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. (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.

  • undercover
    But they were blacklisted so badly in their congregation/circuit that they just stopped coming. In effect they were disfellowshipped.

    Yes, even when they can't "get" you and DF you, they can "mark" you and then through the ole gossip mill, people will talk enough shit about you that others will "mark" you and before you know it you're being shunned... all without a JC meeting or announcement made.

    The WTS has really perfected how to use peer pressure to make the masses conform to group think and action.

  • cult classic
    cult classic

    You know this has got me thinking back.

    I learned of the situation when a mutual friend of the couple and myself were talking. She was catching me up on all the gossip and told me about the situation. The wife and my friend were actually good friends. They were bridesmaids in each other's weddings. I remember being shocked at how angry she was that the couple were questioning the blood teaching. Now this lady is a very liberal JW. And it totally took my breath away at how much venom she had in her voice about the situation. I remember her saying, "And I just know he took a blood transfusion. They are going to pay for this."

    Crazy huh?

  • ThomasCovenant

    Isaac Austin said 'It was not a dfing offense in 1958, but by 1961 it was?? Am I interpreting this correctly?'

    That's how I would read it. I looked on the CDrom and typed 'transfusion disfellowship'

  • oppostate

    No... No, JWs don't DF people for taking blood.
    Let me explain from experience.
    I sat in on a judicial committee. The brother 
    was not very active in service, only spotty
    meeting attendance, he had health issues,
    needed bypass, took blood, he admitted it
    in a handwritten note the Service Overseer
    got from him when he stopped by the hospital
    while the man was recuperating. The decision
    was made within five minutes of starting the
    meeting. The man had disassociated himself
    through his actions and admitted to the actions
    without writing he was repentant so the paper
    work was done and it was announced he was
    no longer a Jehovah's Witness, even before
    the man had a chance to get back on his feet
    and go on with life after the operation. No 
    visits from "the friends", no sisters making
    meals during his convalescence, he might 
    as well have died on the operating table
    as far as the congregation was concerned.
    He often took walks along the sidewalk in
    front of his house, to regain health, on a
    main street of town, many cargroups would
    go by I'm sure, I wonder how he felt looking
    at them looking at him from within their self
    righteous cargroups.
    To this day I'm sickened about the whole thing.
    Although I went along with putting the paper
    work through I first said let's talk to the brother
    let him get better and talk. I was voted down.
    I'm sick about it inside. It's one of those things
    I'm sure I'll have to answer for one day. All I 
    can add is that I'm truly sorry I went along with
    it. I hadn't seen him walking the sidewalk for
    a couple of years, maybe he went to a nursing
    home. The BOE then got a letter from his daughter
    who was never baptized asking if some brother
    would give the talk at the funeral home for him.
    None in the 8 man group of the BOE would 
    volunteer; it's not done for DF'ed and DA'd 
    It's a sick cult, we're all too afraid of breaking
    men's laws and too quick to uphold what deep
    down we know to be an inhumane and uncaring
    way of dealing with people we should reach out
    to help, to shepherd, to bring refreshment from
    the scorch of this "system of things" but we 
    do the easy thing and go along, to the heart
    ache and suffering of innocent ones.
    That's my experience on Blood and DF'ing.
    So... No, JWs don't DF people for taking blood..
  • moshe

    Jw's are between a rock and a hard place over blood transfusions. If they loosen the rules, it might seem that anyone who died in the past died a needless death- pretty hard to take, if that was your jaundiced baby you let die 30 years ago by denying a blood transfusion. If they drop the prohibition all together, then it appears that all JW's were sacrificed for a false dogma and the WT religion now has blood guilt over the loss of innocent life. As much as they might want to totally drop the no-blood dogma, it will be very hard for the leaders to do that, without lawsuits and more loss of membership.

  • nelly136

    i've just scoured the blood pages on the watchtower site,

    been updated by looks of it, (cleaned up for public consumption)

    anyways, you have to look very carefully to find clues on the severity of receiving a blood transfusion.

    A doctor may want to provide what he thinks is the best care, but he has no duty to seek legal justification to trample on your basic rights. And since the Bible puts abstaining from blood on the same moral level as avoiding fornication, to force blood on a Christian would be the equivalent of forcible sex—rape.—Acts 15:28, 29.

    and the jw punishment for fornication is..................................

  • nelly136

    .......of course as the others have said disfellowshipping sounds like the person on the operationg table has no choice,

    dissasociation by choice almost sounds like they have a free choice bleh

Share this