Mother in law told off for speaking to her daughter

by chuckyy 49 Replies latest jw experiences

• 

  cruzanheart

  But when they are reinstated, the brothers are so happy that can wait to hug them and welcome them back to the congregation.

  Bullshit. My father, an elder for 40 years, made ONE mistake and got himself disfellowshipped. While he was DF'd, I was warned several times by the elders that I shouldn't be associating with him or having him over for meals (which I disdainfully ignored). After he was reinstated, he was still treated like dirt by the elders to the point that, a year later, still being ostracized, he bought a gun and blew his brains out. That was two years ago today.

  I'm glad you had such a positive disfellowshipping experience and that your family was nice to you, but that doesn't happen to everyone. I was never disfellowshipped but saw firsthand as applied to ME as well as my dad how cold the "loving brotherhood" can be.

  You can quote all the Watchtowers you want -- what counts is what they DO, not what they SAY.

  Nina
• 

  chuckyy

  DAVID....

  I appreciate your reply, and some of the points that you have raised ,but what of certain fractions THAT WERE AVAILABLE but not considered scriptural at a specific time AND WERE LATER ALLOWED. Lets use the example of Factor viii, a blood clotting fraction of blood that is used extensively for haemophiliacs. This fraction was available for some time before the society allowed its conscientious use..and yet....it can be a life saving fraction.

  Also fractions such as interleukins that are used for treating some cancers, make up a tiny fraction of blood and are passed through the mothers breast milk...yet these i beleive cannot be accepted.

  The other thing that i wanted to mention was the storage of blood. Why is it that fractions can be accepted, when they have evidently been stored for a time as whole blood ??? If storage isnt an issue here, then what is wrong in storing your own blood before an operation??

  chuckky
• 

  David2002

  No Apoligies:
  
  Regarding "Except with the Society's current policies, you can have the bread, the ham, and the cheese, just as long as you don't eat the sandwich! Where is the logic in that? More importantly whre is the scriptural basis???"
  
  Actually, no, because red-blood cells are not allowed. I mentioned albumin which appears natuarally in other sources, suchs as eggs and vegetables. When it is separated from the whole blood, some may feel that it is not really blood, because it occurs in other sources such as eggs. Perhaps that is the reasoning behind why they leave it up to each Christian's conscience. From my understanding the separation of blood components into different parts is a relatively new technology. If that new technology can separate Vitamin K from the blood, would that taking that vitamin K be the same as taking blood? But I believe that it is very clear from the Bible in texts such as Acts 15:28,29 that we must abstain from blood and the definately includes blood transfusions.
• 

  David2002

  Diamond Blue: Regarding "Oh please.... Open your eyes...any religion that practices shunning for the reasons they do isnt showing love; throughout life we find friends some better than others...when a friend falls off the straight and narrow the answer isnt to distance yourself from them it is to support them and do your best to get them back on track and if they dont providing it isnt something totally abhorrent then you accept them as different and you respect their position. Disfellowshipping is supposed to be for those who are unrepentant sinners against God....not the WTBTS... God and even so i know of a number of occasions where people have committed immorality (as the dubs call it) and genuinely been repentant....but still been shunned....wheres the love in that...again open your eyes friend." I agree with that disfellowshipping is for the unrepentants ones. If one practices fornication, he sinning against God, not the WTBTS; if one is commiting adultery, one sins against God, not WTBTS, if one teaches false doctrines, he sins against God, not WTBTS, etc. The Bible is clear to me as to what it states in 1 Cor. 5:6-10. If disfellowshipping leads one to repent (which is the point of disfellowshipping - a disciplinary action to lead one to repent), and the bad behavior is stopped, and the person is then saved, don't you think that action is longrun is loving? (Compare Heb. 12:11)
• 

  David2002

  CruzanHeart, I sorry to hear about what happened to your father. Usually if one makes one mistake, he or she is just reproved, not disfellowshipped. I do not understand why the elders treated your father like dirt. That was unChristian and not according to what the Bible teaches and against WT admonitions. But remember the Bible does says that there will be some shepherds who will not treat the flock with tenderness. That can even apply to some elders today (Acts 20:28,29,30)
• 

  David2002

  Get BusyLiving, Regarding-- "you?re told not to eat a ham and cheese sandwich. But the sandwich also includes mustard. You know not to eat the ham and the cheese, but maybe you can have the mustard.} "LOL. Unfortunetly this illustration is garbage. 'The mustard' that you speak of is in actuality part of the 'blood'. I don't mean to be rude, but what are you thinking? Where in the Bible does it specify what type of blood fraction is a conscience matter to use and what is a disassociating offence?" To be honest, after I posting that, I thought it was kind of funny myself. But it was to late for me to remove it. A little bit too rough. But I did mention in my earlier post, that albumin, which is now permitted, appears in eggs and vegetables. The point I was trying to make is that perhaps by separating albumin from the blood as a whole, it in itself is not blood. If for instance, the new medical technology they can separate Vitamin K from the blood (Vitamin K stops overclottng), does that make the Vitamin K blood? I think that should be left as a matter of conscience.
• 

  David2002

  Chukky,
  
  Regarding:"I appreciate your reply, and some of the points that you have raised ,but what of certain fractions THAT WERE AVAILABLE but not considered scriptural at a specific time AND WERE LATER ALLOWED. Lets use the example of Factor viii, a blood clotting fraction of blood that is used extensively for haemophiliacs. This fraction was available for some time before the society allowed its conscientious use..and yet....it can be a life saving fraction.
  Also fractions such as interleukins that are used for treating some cancers, make up a tiny fraction of blood and are passed through the mothers breast milk...yet these i beleive cannot be accepted.
  The other thing that i wanted to mention was the storage of blood. Why is it that fractions can be accepted, when they have evidently been stored for a time as whole blood ??? If storage isnt an issue here, then what is wrong in storing your own blood before an operation??"
  
  It may have to do with more informaton becoming available on those fractions. It may have been learned, for instance, that albumin is naturally available in non-blood items such as eggs and vegetables, and at the point it may have been decided that accepting that factor can be left up to the individual. I do not know why certains fractions can be stored and they accepted. I thought storing our own blood for future use was a matter of conscience.
  
  I am actually researching this topic. I got a book called "Your Body Your Choice", written by Jehovah's Witness apologists. Unfortunately, it does not include a index page, where I can check topics quickly. I was told that there is also a recent dissertation on Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusion, which was also written by a brother. The dissertation supposedely discusses the history of JW's and there objections to transfusions, and may include info on the issues of factors. I am trying to find out the full title to see if I can get a copy of it. Edwin Mellen Press also released a new book on JW's and transfusions, but it is a bit expensive. But I will probably buy it to research the topic.
• 

  cruzanheart

  That was unChristian and not according to what the Bible teaches and against WT admonitions.

  Ya think?

  But remember the Bible does says that there will be some shepherds who will not treat the flock with tenderness. That can even apply to some elders today

  You know, I told myself that for years. And years. And years. Through -- hm, let's see -- 9 congregations. LOTS of elders, not "some." LOTS of letters to the Society and a few, form-letter type replies. When does one stop and say "enough, I've had my proof -- this is not what Jesus preached about"? I reached my limit. You have yet to find yours.

  Nina
• 

  chuckyy

  DAVID

  Regarding the storage of blood. The society have taught for many years that once blood has left the body, 'it should be poured out upon the ground., This, bringing it up to the modern day means, as the society say, that Blood should not be stored. Hence, storage of whole blood in any form, even if it is your own, is viewed as unscriptural. So again, it begs the question:

  WHY CAN WE ACCEPT FRACTIONS THAT WERE EVIDENTLY STORED AS WHOLE BLOOD FOR A TIME, when storage of blood is unscriptural???

  CHUKKY
• 

  berylblue

  I personally do not understand why some leave the truth to believe in a God that tortures one forever in a hell, to believe that Jesus is God, etc

  I have not left the "truth" to believe in that or any other bull. I've had enough bull from being both a Catholic and a JW to last me the rest of my life.

  Consider me a very happy agnostic.