Could this possibly be true?!

by Frenchy 21 Replies latest jw friends

  • Frenchy

    I just read this on H2O:

    Posted by Joseph Malik [JosephMalik] on May 27, 2000 at 15:24:10 {FWFBGNMqK2wtN58YgBC6kwPNhmZ1io}:

    The GB voted last Wednesday to allow blood transfusions. Letters will be sent out saying that no action should be taken should anyone accept blood. Nothing official will be announced but the word should get around quickly once the letters are received.
    Perhaps this has already been discussed here on h2o but I just became aware of it recently. Good news for the reformers on here.

  • Frenchy

    Is everyone asleep? Be back in a couple of hours.

  • Simon

    Hi Frenchy
    If this is true then it is disgraceful that they should change the rules but STILL allow people to have to decide between the life of a loved one or following a rule WHICH NO LONGER EXISTS !
    I would hope that if it is official, that they would print it in the magazines (although I doubt they will for fear of lawsuits).
    Maybe the media will get hold of it and the word will get out that way ?

  • Frenchy

    Hello, Simon.

    Yes, I agree but it's not untypical. Sort of like the voting thing. Well, here's another post I am reproducing here from the H20 board.

    "Posted by ros [ros] on May 28, 2000 at 08:49:05 {B7OWPcyPY6dmhhsMJ.h27/SY5I9NtE}:

    With reference to Joe Malik's post below, I also got word this morning that the GB decided in last week's meeting to "roll back to the 1960 policy on blood." On this one, I don't know who Bethel source is, so I can't be positive, I want to emphasize that. But if this is a rumour, its a hot one!

    Like Joe said, I heard the Society is not going to publish anything in the literature. They are simply going to send a letter out to all the congregation elders to stop investigating and DFing people if they suspect or know of a JW accepting blood. It will be left a matter of conscience. The drift I get is that the WT's official position will remain a "no blood" stance, but it will be like their bedroom policy for married couples, which is essentially 'don't ask and don't tell'."

    Technically, if this is true: Then the 'rule' isn't being changed. "Blood transfusions are still wrong!" It's just that now we will not be df'ing people for doing it. This differs from the blood components in that this is now being called a matter of conscience.

    It seems pretty certain that nothing will be published in the magazines about it. Publishers will still be told that it's wrong and Jehovah will deal with the wrongdoers in his own fashion.

    It would be interesting to know exactly what is bringing this on if it is indeed true.

    Edited by - Frenchy on 28 May 2000 15:15:16

  • Seven

    I have long ago abandoned all hope

  • Seven

    Whoa! There must be demons in the machine. I wasn't even finished writing my post when-the your
    message has been posted appeared on the screen. :(
    What I was saying was: I have long ago abandoned all hope that anything will EVER change concerning
    transfusions. If they are not going to publish anything then it's same s**t, different day.

  • RedhorseWoman

    This sounds like another of those "politically correct" rulings.

    In this way, if a JW is asked about being disfellowshipped for taking a transfusion, the good little JW can truthfully answer "no, we are not disfellowshipped for taking blood. This is a matter of conscience for a true Christian". And yet, all the while the Society keeps the guilt machine running so that there is still absolute control of the masses.

    Such hypocrisy!!! It makes me nauseous to think of all of these changes simply to look good to the "world". No, we're not a cult...we don't run our members lives...we don't prohibit them from doing anything. LIES!!!

  • Ozzygal


    I wonder if this blood change is not so much to "look good to the world" as to be in a safer legal position to protect their accumulated monies.

    I was horrified when I read of the tax bill that had to be paid in France. I always believed we were a non-profit organization. How could a non-profit org manage to have a 50million dollar tax bill. Hmmm? That, in itself, almost had me stumbling out of the KH doors.

  • Frenchy

    If this is indeed true, it's still NOT a matter of conscience. It would still be called wrong but with no congregational action being taken against an offender. This makes it ever more compelling for the rank and file to continue to refuse transfusions. Witnesses will continue to die and the WTS will not be legally responsibile inasmuch as they are not imposing any sanctions against offenders. This is diabolical.

  • Frenchy

    Okay, here's another one from H20:

    "Posted by Lee Elder [TheLiberalElder] on May 28, 2000 at 15:00:15 {B7OWPcyPY63RTTYCED4sw1IXqCKa5s}:

    I have received enough reports from reliable sources
    that I am convinced a major shake up is in the works
    over the blood issue. Until such time as we receive confirmation in the form of some written communication from the WTS we have to treat all of this as rumor but that seems to be just a formality at this point. Exact details are unknown but all of the reports seem to indicate that the use of blood or previously forbidden blood components (red cells, white cells, platelets or plasma) will no longer be subject to the purview of WTS judicial committees. The WTS position will apparently continue to be that the use of blood is wrong but not a disfellowshiping offense. Those subscribed to AJWRB's mailing list will be kept up to date on developments as they come to our attention.

    If this story proves to be true, it is a remarkable achievement for AJWRB. We will respond to this development in large part based upon the manner in which the WTS goes about in informing its members of the change.

    Clearly, this development has profound implications for
    AJWRB. Nothing would please me more than the eventual realization that no need for AJWRB exists. I suspect, however, that our educational work will be needed for some time to come.

    Best regards,

    Lee Elder "

    I'm just passing this on, group.

Share this