KS Blood-Handout s-55-e (PDF)!!!

by yknot 69 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Gayle

    The WTS has a history of making statements creating for themselves evolving "loopholes." The leadership is very good at it, mastery of double talk, at least, even their own rank & file followers hardly even notice it. Unfortunately, most rank and file JWs don't develop loopholes strategy skill, except only maybe after years of trying to survive/endure through the JW world/reality.

    Consequently, most JWs don't understand the "blood fractions" loophole of the GB, most just quickly, easily make a decision that they won't do "any" fractions, as that would be too complicated for most to try and figure out and how to justify to themselves. Even, putting something "in writing" will be too difficult for them to clarify, at that time of stress, that most won't.

  • sir82
    This could well be an administrative move to ease the burden on elders and HLCs so that they don't have to form committees to prosecute JW parents as long as the doctor says, "I'll try."

    If that is the case, that would be very significant.

    It would indicate the GB is concerned with appearing cruel in the eyes of the world (or at least, the world's courts), and are willing to bend their doctrines so as to avoid such an appearance.

    They seem to have revealed a weakness.

    Could the next step be similar concessions in the area of shunning family members?

    Not likely it would happen in the US, but in the decidedly more secular European courts a well-planned lawsuit or 6 may prompt additional "handouts" in the future.

  • Doubting Bro
    Doubting Bro

    This goes along with conversations I've had with someone I know on the HLC. We were talking about young kids (not "mature minors") and he described trying to fight blood for a young one as "pissing in the wind". He's right, they can get court orders easily and quickly and the only thing the parents get is legal bills (provided there's a non-WT lawyer involved), headaches and news coverage. He said that as long as the parent's objections are noted, they have done the best they could.

    Now, maybe this person disagrees with the WTS stance on blood and is a reformer. I just don't get that sense at all given what I know about him. He's also pretty moderate as far as elders with big circuit/district responsibilities go but I don't see him as a liberal. So, maybe that's what his personal ideas are but he presented them to me as the official HLC party line.

    I really think this handout is simply to save the HLC time from getting involved in every case when a young child needs an operation.

    BTW - the sentence about not talking about the resurrection hope just proves how deceitful the WTS wants their followers to be. So, on the one hand, the main arguement as to why JWs don't worry about withholding life saving treatment is because God can bring the child back anyway and it's more important to abstain from "blood". On the other hand, don't talk about that main doctrine?

  • nelly136
    Parents can inform the court that they are refusing blood on deeply held religious grounds but are not refusing medical care and have no intention of "martyring" their child. This setting may not be the best time for parents to mention their strong faith in the resurrection, as this may convince the judge that they are unreasonable.

    theocratic warfare (its not lying, theyre just not worthy of being informed) at its very best.

  • Nickolas

    Outstanding work, Yknot. I hereby nominate you to be elevated from the footnotes in the upcoming book "The Rise and Fall of The Watchtower" to the main text. Keep it up and you might get an entire page. A chapter if you're really ambitious.

  • Heaven

    If a mature adolescent is involved, request
    that the hospital evaluate his
    decision-mak ing capacity and request
    that the court hear from him

    Uummm.. exactly how does a mature adolescent request this when they are DYING??!!! They aren't gonna be around long enough for a "request that the court hear from him"!!

    The WTS... taking Christ's example of breaking the law for the right reasons and turning it around for all the wrong reasons (aka to enhance THEIR agenda). A-holes!

  • stuckinamovement

    I think if this got into the hands of a Judge who was hearing the case, that the sincerity and truthfulness of the Society, the parents, and the HLC is really called into question (understatement of the year). It is a case of the Society giving disingenuous instructions. If the instructions were only for the HLC they would have been sent directly to the members of the HLC instead of the entire group of elders in the organization.

    I wonder if this will be published in Bulgaria?

  • Doubting Bro
    Doubting Bro

    Sorry, I meant that I thought this was already the HLC's instructions and that by getting this info into the hands of the local elders, it would save the HLC time having to discuss every situation involving a minor child.

    I totally agree that this would be damning information to present to a judge. Disingenuous indeed!

  • IMHO

    Whatever happened to promoting the blood alternatives.

  • Cold Steel
    Cold Steel
    Recently I have had communication with a mole from Bethel who has been there many years, and is privy to certain information from the Legal Dept. regarding several matters, not the least of which is the blood transfusion issue among Jehovah’s Witnesses. Obviously the identity of this person must be kept a secret, especially since they have no intention of leaving at this point.

    From what you're saying, this "mole" is soaking the organization by collecting a paycheck (and pension) and is pretending to believe in something he doesn't. If so, he's rationalizing his beliefs, kind of like someone who is against second amendment rights and being in the NRA, collecting a salary and secretly sending their enemies information. In short, even though I don't believe in the JW religion, what does he hope to accomplish? If the JWs are wrong on such an issue, they can't possibly be the true church of Jesus Christ. First they have the wrong dates, now the wrong doctrines. The JWs teach that the human soul sleeps at death, but Peter talks about the gospel being preached to those who are dead. How would that be possible? Well it's the "spiritually dead," we're told. But Peter says that the preaching was done so that they could be "judged" according to those in the "flesh," but "live" according to God in the "spirit." That's two major doctrines now and the church simply can't survive that, and the dates, and remain credible. As for the mole, I have conflicting feelings about him smuggling stuff out of the church HQ. Everyone's leaking things these days!

    The concept was that the “new light” now came directly from Jehovah by means of his “holy spirit” via the “faithful and discreet slave” (the supposed 144,000 chosen to be of the “heavenly calling” and who were supposed to be feeding the “sheep at the proper time”) This doctrine is presently under flux as of 2007, but this will not be discussed here.

    The JW leaders have emphasized time and time again that they do not receive revelation from God. But what is "new light" if not revelation? Was it new light or revelation when Peter saw the vision of the sheet with unclean animals on them that signified the gospel being taken to the Gentiles? Other Christian sects say that the "other sheep" were the Gentiles. Only the JWs saw the sheep as being another class of people (which I'll not discuss here, either), but the JWs are the only ones who see it the way they do. How many torpedos can they survive and maintain their position as Christ's true church. (Actually, they see themselves as "Jehovah's" church, but the New Testament clearly has Jesus claiming the church as his. That's another big miss.) The point is, new light is revelation. The blood doctrine that initially was contrived by the JW leaders was not rational, so new light correcting that doctrine goes way beyond the change to the circumcision doctrine. That doctrine was given by God, but the blood doctrine as interpreted by the JW leadership was not. To change it would be significantly different than the circumcision and gentile changes. They were changes in divine policies. What happens when you change a policy that's dead wrong?

    I personally don't think the JWs will change their policy, but their best bet would be to come out and say they were wrong. And I don't see how they can separate "new light" from "revelation."

    They also need to change their "stake" vs. "cross" takes. Historically they're just WRONG. Fortunately for this one, it's not a deal killer. They can just say they were wrong historically and, because it isn't based on revelation, they can continue on.

Share this