new light is on the way...
Thanks, mgm... I've created a link to that site which should make it easier to go to.
Please note the last paragraph where the WT spokesman is talking. Nothing has changed. You would still be disassociated (disfellowshipped described with a more innocuous word, i.e. WTS language) if you did not get on your knees and say you were sorry.
Edited by - Frenchy on 14 June 2000 12:48:25
Bad url guys.. take the dash out from between the and times.. then it will be correct.
Edited by - Roamingfeline on 14 June 2000 8:58:16
Unfortunately, most JW's will follow along, waiting on Jehovah(GB).
"Enjoy God's creation, ride a dirt bike!"
This is not new light.
"Paul Gillies, spokesman for the Jehovah's Witnesses, who have their British headquarters in Mill Hill, North London, said that not taking blood was still a "core value" of the religion. "It is quite possible that someone who was under pressure on an operating table would take a blood transfusion because they did not want to die. The next day they might say they regretted this decision. We would then give them spiritual comfort and help. No action would be taken against them. We would just view it as a moment of weakness." He said that even if the Jehovah's Witness did not repent,they would not be expelled but would merely be viewed as having "dissociated" themselves from the religion."
Again, this is not new light, not even double talk. If this reporter has the quotes right, this is bull crap.
Edited by - waiting on 14 June 2000 18:23:41
Hate to burst your bubble but the GB is only strengthening their position on blood. What they are doing is actually clamping down an any informed JW's who may accept blood. It sounds to me like a slap directed at the 'AJWRB' group who have been claiming new light on blood but are really reformers in opposition to the WTS blood policy. This I believe is in response to the success they are having through their educating JW's and the medical profession concerning this flawed blood policy. JW's are now being put on high alert that they will be considered apostates if they accept blood other than the approved fractions and will therefore bring upon themselves the consequences of DA which are exactly as DF...as opposed to the elders taking action against individuals who transgress WTS blood policy.
We have a store, today near closing time, several employees - all strong JW's (except me...) were talking. They brought up the issue of religion, as always, because they think I'm falling away.
I had printed out the Times article, but did not have it in front of me. But I quoted it - especially the paragraph printed above. They refused to believe me "the Society would never change the blood policy - founded in the Bible, etc. etc."
"Where did you read this?" Times religious article. "Oh, that explains it - they're always lying about us." Who is they?, I asked. "Everybody." Really? They were quoting the English overseers - not just elders, and no one has said that they lied. "Well, you can't believe anything anybody writes about us. I will never take blood," (etc. etc. etc.)
Do you want to see the article? It has the name of the English overseers the article is quoting. It's in my car - I'll go get it for you. "No, we don't want to read it." Case, and mind, closed.
I agree with the above, the rank and file will never agree to take blood unless it is written in a major study article - several times. That is, unless they're in a major accident or such - then we tend to reconsider our options in a hurry.
I also agree, based upon this discussion I just had - we tend to be a very opinionated, closed minded group believing only what the Society tells us to believe.
And by the way, these two brothers felt that anyone who dared take blood should be disfellowshipped or dissociated. And were very righteous when saying this.
It's so strange to stand back and look into our group.
I bet the same kind of conversations went on back when "organ transplants" were a no no. I can here them saying the same thing, "No way would I get an organ transplant, and anybody who does should be DF'd or DA themselves!"
Of course today if a brother or sister needs an organ transplant, most go right ahead and get one. Many don't even know that at one time they were as bad as getting a blood transfusion. Today it is just another major medical procedure that is up to the INDVIDUALS as to whether they get one or not.
I wonder what it will be like say 20 years from now when a brother of sister needs a blood transfusion?
We must not have much to do right now, huh? Weird talking (well, typing, so close in time sequence).
One of the brothers I talked to is very righteous. The other my age, just not as sarcastic as I am. I said that things were in a flux, and things have changed before. "Not biblical truths!"
So then I shared my information about vaccinations because the burning on the child's arm instead of the vaccine was done to my husband. The young brother wouldn't believe me. Thankfully, the older brother was here to back me up. Of course, they tried to justify the vaccine thing - blood, etc. I brought up how we, even in the '70's would not accept tetnus (?) shots. He had never heard of that before either.
The younger generation is even in the dark about the 70's and 80's. Reminds me of the quote I read somewhere:
He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the future, controls the present.
Would Friend consider this a circular argument? But when he kept reminding me that I used circular arguments - it occurred to me that that is how I have been taught by the Society.
I've had similar conversations with my family.
My sister is especially closed minded and a typical exchange would go:
Me: The organistion has been wrong before.
Her: No they haven't what proof do you have!
Me: OK, if I show you the proof, will you read it?
Her: No, it wouldn't be spiritually upbuilding
Me: AAaarghhh !!!
Some people are just so closed minded and 'controlled' in their thinking that they cannot be aware of how they come across sometimes.
They cannot face even the thought that the society could be wrong about anything and so will not even consider information that will prove it.