Help! HLC member coming

by PrincessCynic 63 Replies latest members private

• 

  angel.face

  Just thought I'd share my 2 cents.

  I was a high risk pregnancy 2 yrs ago while being a witness and the HLC was involved with me. My likely-hood of needing blood was high and my baby's was even higher as he was born 3 months too early. I would suggest keeping the HLC off your case.

  Now my experience was that the HLC came talked with me, the social worker, and some nurses but never with a doctor. They gave us some advice as to how to avoid blood loss i.e delaying the clamping of the cord. Although the hospital staff were all aware that I was a witness they would ask me privetly with no one around if I was willing to accept a transfusion.

  Another thing, every healthcare provider must keep your file confidential. If you tell the midwife that you do not want her to share your info with HLC she will have to honor that (I believe by law in most jurisdictions).

  Also, it is not standard procedure to transfuse mothers during or after a normal delivery...even if it's a c-section.

  Congrats on the pregnancy and I hope you have a wonderful birthing experience!
• 

  troubled mind

  Princesscynic ,first of all congratulations on expecting a baby ! Exciting wonderful times are ahead of you !

  Now about all this HLC mumbo jumbo ....Time to WOMAN up and stand up for yourself, and your child aganist these morons . Educate yourself with all the good advice already shared here then, contact your midwife ,and explain your unique situation . Find out what you need to do on that end to keep anyone from meddleing in your personal medical issues . The hospital should have your wishes in writing . If per-chance something comes up during the birth just make your wishes known to whom ever is treating you .Sounds like your husband can be trusted to do this for you if yoiu are unable .

  Also note : Medical personel DO NOT GIVE BLOOD WILLY NILLY OR just to be safe OR to persecute JW's .....that notion is suggested by Witnesses and is a complete fabrication ! Your Doctor's,nurses and mid-wife are all there to see you through a safe ,successful childbirth TRUST them . Doctors know the use of blood carries some measure of danger (as with any other medical procedure ) They use it when appropriate to the patients benefit . Whole blood is rarely ever administered anymore ,it is mostly fractions depending on what your body is needing .

  More than likely you will have a normal childbirth and not even have to worry about all this , but it is wise for you to be educated and prepared for anything .

  Good luck and I am so happy to see others waking up to this completely barbaric ,idiotic doctrine !!!

  ( Back in 2005-6 I finally came to these same conclusions after my JW Mother and JW Sister both had open heart surgery .....after researching the blood doctine at that time I felt the real truth slap me across the face and I left the organization almost immediately after 44 yrs . )
• 

  Dogpatch

  DOC says,

  Didn't realise I couldn't be DFd! Even if it's pre-meditated?

  Unless there has been a HUGE change recently, that just is NOT (quite) true.

  True: No longer disfellowshipping people for taking blood transfusions.

  FACT: Anyone who willing takes a blood transfusion is considered to have DISASSOCIATED THEMSELVES BY THEIR ACTIONS.

  RESULT: THE SAME.. SHUNNING.

  This is no longer the case, unless the JW has other issues, like rebelliousness or other perceived sins. You are listening to one of the mouths of the WT PR machine, that is no longer their policy, but kept a secret by the third level of WT secrecy. You will not find it in the new elder's book; it is an inner organizational policy not even told to the elders in general.

  If you think this is stilll true, please provide sufficient evidence. And read this article: http://www.freeminds.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3200:how-the-watchtowers-unholy-trinity-speaks&catid=16:ethics&Itemid=702

  If you know and can VERIFY ANYONE who has been disfellowshiped for blood transfusions in the last year or two please let us know and we will investigate the case and be happy to revise our position. No hearsay... give a source or personal contact info to me at [email protected]. We have made this request for proof (not your repeating of the WT's PR machine) several times and have found none who fit this description within the last year or two, without having "other reasons" (like the patient's stated apostasy in belief, etc.) where they DO the "disassociated yourself" recent policy trick), by all means tell us and document it, otherwise your statement cannot yet be substantiated. "By the mouths of two or three Witnesses," please. They are still using that "your doing it, not us" and disassociating JWs for other supposed apostate crimes (Which is a cultspeak lie, they are doing it, not you, unless you actually tell them you disagree with them).

  This matter only applies to blood transfusions... we are not interested in other doctrinal issues on this matter, as they still use the policy you speak of.

  Thanks,

  Randy Watters

  [email protected]
• 

  DesirousOfChange

  Randy,

  So has this changed from the recent release of the new Shepherding the Flock book?

  QUOTE FROM 2010 ELDERS BOOK, Pg 111, 112:

  Willingly and unrepentantly taking blood.
  If someone willingly takes blood, perhaps because
  of being under extreme pressure, the committee
  should obtain the facts and detennine
  the indjvidual's attitude. If he is repentant} the
  committee would provide spiritual assistance in
  the spirit of Galatians 6: 1 and Jude 22, 23. Since
  he is spiritually weak, he would not qualify for
  special privileges for a period of time, and it may
  be necessary to remove certain basic privileges.
  Depending on the circumstances, the committee
  nlay also need to arrange for an announcement
  to the congregation: "'The elders have
  handled a matter having to do with [name
  of person]. You will be glad to know that
  spiritual shepherds are endeavoring to render
  assistance." On the other hand, if the elders
  on the committee determine that he is
  unrepentant, they should announce his disassociation.

  Doc
• 

  Dogpatch

  Yes doc, but they only use this second level of policy to weed out potential troublemakers, and only if it is an active rebellion against WT policy.

  THE WT attorneys are loathe to see something like this going public, as it would be the worst kind of PR. And if its not for "doctrinal" reasons (admitted disagreement with the WT), they do all they can to keep it hidden, even on a congregational level. Re-read the quote you made from the Shepherding book again... they don't WANT to DF or DA someone in these cases. It's now very bad publicity - a relatively new PR move. Governments like Bulgaria, who were lied to by the WT on "we do not disfellowship anyone for taking a blood transfusion" are now being seen as a lie internationally (the WT just developed the "you DF'ed yourself" policy to get recognition in those countries, along other legal reasons).

  Did you read my article?

  Rebuttal please.

  Randy
• 

  Dogpatch

  In addition, we have discovered that even the HLC members (though acting hardcore BEFORE the transfusion) will advise the JW who has already had a transfusion to just keep quiet and repent, so no one in the congos even know. So many of these cases are never known by even members of your own congregations.

  However, if they detect the victim has a "bad attitude" towards the WT and might spread the truth of the matter (highly unlikely to happen in a life-and-death emergency situation when you are very weak and vulnerable and not able to present your case with boldness), they will want to weed you out as a troublemaker, giving the reason for their DFing or DAing as having an "unrepentant attitude."

  Kind of like what they have been doing in the pedophile cases.

  We are going to see more of this, mark my words. :-))

  Randy
• 

  Londo111

  From the past track record with how they handled the hemophilia issue, the Society is unlikely to put this into writing in the Watchtower. However, something like this needs to go public--say there were an article in the New York Times, proclaiming that the Society no longer disfellowships or disassociates those who take blood. They would be forced to acknowledge it.

  A newspaper article would certainly be seen and circulated by the 'faithful' and many would quite likely ask their elders, who would have to inquire themselves. The Society would have to respond.
• 

  diamondiiz

  Randy;

  I too am interested how to interpret what you're saying. Shepherd book is from 2010, so they either included that policy in the book knowing they don't follow it or have changed it some time after but there is no letter or anything that states otherwise.

  I don't believe elders believe what you claim regards to the policy. So if an incident did occur, are you saying the elders would call the Bethal before having a jc or would they simply follow instructions in the elders book and proceed as stated? (never been an elder but I doubt they call Bethal regarding every time they're about to have a jc)

  If elders were to call Bethal and were told that they can't assume da due to blood acceptance, wouldn't this "hidden" policy spread rather quickly throughout jw world? I don't see how elders would keep such hidden policy just to themselves as most likely they would tell their wives and not carry blood cards which again would spread to friends and at least there would be rumors of it until wts would have to address the issue. So far I haven't heard anything contrary to the elders book coming from jws. This so called new policy is too juicy for jw elders to keep it to themselves. There could be a reason that you haven't heard of believers being da for accepting blood, is because they either repent and continue on or are kicked out and because like other df believers don't associate with "apostate" community. Such cases must be quite rare as well which may be another reason we don't hear from the few that were viewed as da for blood acceptance.

  I think it was stated by someone that they spoke to Bethal service committee and they agreed that blood transfusions are acceptable now, if you have a recording of such statements from upper level of wts it would be great to share this recording.
• 

  Dogpatch

  Read some of the testimonies above of actual experiences in pregnancy and similar, and it all the more illustrates this.

  It's the "toothless lion" policy now. At least for blood transfusions, and has been for sometime in the pedophile cases, where you aren't going to find the "two witnesses" of a specific crime on a specific date, so they end up not DFing or DAing the pedophile, as it is even worse PR.

  Nothing that new, people. Don't be gullible to what the "Shepherding" book says, a lot of it is even cultspeak to the elders. Why do you still trust what they say? Go by actual statistics or findings, not scare tactics which have been used for ages by the WT. The truth becomes known when the Service Dept. is called by the elder(s) for advice, and the advice is often very different than anything they would EVER put in print.

  Does anyone watch dramas of huge multi-billion dollar secular organizations that have several hidden layers of policy? This is rampant in the world. The organizastion must be preserved at all costs, and maintain a good appearance. So they have weighed their options on how to cleverly keep this tactic going.

  Randy
• 

  Dogpatch

  Diamondiz, they have plainly stated in their latest BOE letter to the rank-and-file NOT to call the WT on policy, but to go to the elders. The Sherpherding book does not say to DF or DA them, unless for vocal or written rebellion. And I would imagine, especially since Zen's call to the Service dept. on the matter, they will start prosecuting for secretly recording a private conversation. Plus I am absolutely positive the Service Dept. and the WT attorneys crafted this pernicious and disgusting BOE letter to curtail this very thing from happening anymore. it happened to me when I called Gene Smalley on the blood issue a couple of years back.

  As recent as 2-3 months ago, you could actually call Bethel and ask to speak to Gene Smalley, etc. but try it now for yourself. If you get through, he screens you and directs you to the local elders. The days of speaking directly to these people involving doctrine, unless you are a identifiable elder in goood standing (they keep records quite well now) and this can be verified, are over. The BOE letter (April 9, 2012) makes it policy, really. HALF of the letter discusses phone calls, recordings, people listening in, and threats to elders to NEVER share what they hear from the WT directly. So what idiot elder is going to risk their scare tactics?

  Try it and you will see what I mean. In years past I and many others could call the Service Dept., ask for a specific desk, and get to talk to Jaracz, Smalley, and others (but they would still often screen you).

  Repeating their doublespeak, even to elders, is just succumbing to their mind control.

  Read this article on my attempt to talk to Smalley:

  http://www.freeminds.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=241:gene-smalley-and-the-watchtowers-blood-transfusion-doctrine&catid=19:medicine&Itemid=706

  Randy