as many of us saw in the pbs news hour program and the abc news nightline program the elders from one congregation failed to communicate properly to the elders in another congregation concerning the child molester jonathan kendrick when he moved to a new congregation.
i have parts of this " introduction letter " from the fremont congregation to the oakley congregation elders so you can read it for yourself and decide how irresponsible these wt appointed elders were.
dated 1/16/98 it opens : .
That Kendrick introduction letter is hard to read. It basically set the guy up in business for his next victim!
I also know that Watchtower has in the past re-appointed men as elders that it knew had a history of sexually molesting a child.
It is a cult.
i believe that since it is not politically correct to spank your child, the watchtower doesn't push parents anymore in that direction.. years ago, elders would sit a parent down and tell them that they needed to discipline their kids and if needed, give them a spanking, since the bible says, they won't die if you give them a beating.. what is the watchtower's view on this subject now?.
Historical footage: Watchtower and the Woodshed
http://ajwrb.org/science/blood-transfusion-letter-of-understanding.
"every parent among jehovahs witnesses worried about how local watchtower appointed elders will respond to letting their child have blood transfusion without opposing it should download this letter of understanding and be ready to hand a copy to them.
then ask those elders to leave them (the parents) and doctors alone to concentrate on the childs best interests.".
I was reading about the case you mentioned above from the newspaper article (I googled it) and also from your blog. In your blog comments I noticed a commenter referred to an elders only form S-55-E dating from 9/2010.
Do you happen to know where I could read that letter or what the gist of it is
You can see the whole S-55-E document HERE.
I wrote a short blog article about this document titled “No Copies Should Be Made”
Edited to add: For some reason the link I keep trying to embed to the S-55-E document reverts to plain text after a few moments. Don't know why, but after multiple attempts I've given up. If you check my blog article linked above--which link does remain live for some reason--you'll find where the document is linked for viewing.
http://jehovahswitnessreport.com/blog/jw-refusal-of-blood-transfusion-mother-and-baby-die#more-4001.
a 28-year-old woman and her unborn child have died because of the womans decision not to accept a lifesaving blood transfusion.. doctors at the royal hospital for women and prince of wales hospital in randwick, sydney, australia, have described the harrowing effect on hospital staff of two otherwise avoidable deaths.. the woman, a jehovahs witness, was seven months into her pregnancy when it was discovered she had leukaemia.. amy corderoy, health editor, reporting in the sydney morning herald states,.
more than 80% of pregnant women suffering from the cancer, called acute promyelocytic leukaemia, will go into remission with proper treatment, and the outlook for their babies is good.. .
It is estimated that approximately 1000 Jehovah’s Witnesses die annually worldwide and as many as 100,000 may have died by abstaining from blood transfusions since the blood ban was introduced in 1945.
I don't know the source of Dr. Welsh's statement above, but the figure of 1,000 annual deaths and the figure 100,000 deaths since 1945 is easily the case based on hard data compiled by Drs Beliaev, Marshall, Gordon, Smith and Windsor in their article Clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness of allogeneic red-blood-cell transfusion in severe symptomatic anaemia published in Vox Sanguinis, (2012; 103, 18–24). I've researched and written on this subject and a estimate using that hard data based on very conservative assumptions is that since 1961 at least 50,000 of Jehovah's Witnesses have died due to Watchtower's blood doctrine.
http://ajwrb.org/science/blood-transfusion-letter-of-understanding.
"every parent among jehovahs witnesses worried about how local watchtower appointed elders will respond to letting their child have blood transfusion without opposing it should download this letter of understanding and be ready to hand a copy to them.
then ask those elders to leave them (the parents) and doctors alone to concentrate on the childs best interests.".
So back on topic, the Society is trying to make some wiggle room for itself.
I think the whole reason for the change demonstrated in the letter of understanding agreement is the result of one thing: failure to have its way regarding JW minors (which is to let them die rather than attempt prevention of premature death by transfusion of blood) and lots of very negative media and legislative attention garnered for trying to have its way regarding JW minors and blood transfusion.
To my knowledge the first agreement of this sort reached involved the case cited in my blog article and recorded in Globe and Mail, May 5, 2005, Forced return to Vancouver angers girl, By Jane Armstrong. This was a very high profile incident and the agreement reached to treat the minor in the US (which Watchtower representatives were completely familiar with and supportive of) is essentially the same as found in the letter of understanding. Oh, and one more thing about that particular agreement, it was essentially the same thing Canadian medical providers were seeking but Watchtower at that time was unwilling to relent to in full public view. It was only a fluke that critical elements of this agreement were made public and that only as a casual remark from a medical facility staff member quoted in the article by Jane Armstrong.
http://ajwrb.org/science/blood-transfusion-letter-of-understanding.
"every parent among jehovahs witnesses worried about how local watchtower appointed elders will respond to letting their child have blood transfusion without opposing it should download this letter of understanding and be ready to hand a copy to them.
then ask those elders to leave them (the parents) and doctors alone to concentrate on the childs best interests.".
It has not been established on this thread that the posted "agreement" is genuine and used by JW, but assuming that it is: You seem to be implying that the WT is derivatively consenting BT if a JW executes such related document. They are not. You also seem to be implying (again as you have done in the past involving C Plasma,) that the WTS is covert by not advertizing to the extent of your satisfaction WTS documents that you have decided that should be, because you think 'that the WT knows that they are contradicting their otherwise formal position on blood,' and that is why it seems to you that the WT is being secretive.Fisherman,
Whether the document at issue is authentic or fake is as easy as checking with the indicated source, which is not me. Within "this thread" is a link to my blog article that first brought this document to public attention. The source is cited if you care to check. I performed due diligence in obtaining a copy of this document directly from its source. I then shared it for public review. If this subject is important to you then you'll bother yourself to contact the same source. Everything you need to do this is referenced in my blog article. (See: Blood transfusion: Letter of Understanding ) If, on the other hand, you don't want to check with sources then there is little anyone can do to authenticate this document for you.
Nonetheless, my blog article does offer alternate sources that either refer to the same document (i.e., letter of understanding for use in cases of JWs and blood issues) or to an agreement that is essentially the same thing. (See references 3 and 6 in Blood transfusion: Letter of Understanding) In each of these instances Watchtower or its representatives are involved as a facilitator in the process.
When it comes to what this document (i.e., letter of understanding for use in cases of JWs and blood issues) represents in terms of contradicting Watchtower's formal position, my blog article is not silent and I see you avoid this. If you are interested in what has been actually said on this point I suggest you try reading. Look at my article's sub-section titled "What's changed". I didn't leave anything for implication. What I wanted to provide as a take-away for readers I bothered to put in writing. This change in Watchtower's formal position on blood for the circumstance at issue is as my blog article says. Oh, and to this day Watchtower has yet to make this change known to the rank-and-file JW community, though it bothered to make its policy of 1992 very clear. We can characterize this however we want but facts of the matter don't change. The letter of understanding document/agreement demonstrates a change in Watchtower's position and it's a change Watchtower has yet to publicize.
I am sure that you are very well aware of this, but it seems to me, that you nonetheless with your sophistry publicly misrepresent the intentions of the WT in the above related matter, and you also publicly misrepresent the purpose of such document that you have posted, that you claim is used by JW.I've shared documented facts of this matter. Apparently that bothers you. So what?
http://ajwrb.org/science/blood-transfusion-letter-of-understanding.
"every parent among jehovahs witnesses worried about how local watchtower appointed elders will respond to letting their child have blood transfusion without opposing it should download this letter of understanding and be ready to hand a copy to them.
then ask those elders to leave them (the parents) and doctors alone to concentrate on the childs best interests.".
Also, this letter is quietly making its rounds in the U.S. I believe.
If not by hospital administrators, Watchtower appointed HLC members are made aware of this option by Watchtower, and they are encouraged to make use of this letter in cases of JW minors when it looks like blood will become an issue. One source cited in my blog article relates the incident of a Watchtower HLC group asking for this document for sake of the JW.
... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.
it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.
they take pride in obedience.
Eating an unbled animal that had been found already dead was a relatively trifling matter.
And, I'll add, a matter that has no penalty attached to it. The sole resulting penalty mentioned is for not washing as required; not eating the unbled carcass found dead.
i think he probably will (it is the us after all) but i hope he doesn't.
he caused incredible pain and suffering to men, women and children who had never done anything to him.
many died in unimaginable agony, others are disabled for life.
I'd tattoo "child killer" on his forehead and put him in General Population at a regular maximum security prison.
Even better!
i think he probably will (it is the us after all) but i hope he doesn't.
he caused incredible pain and suffering to men, women and children who had never done anything to him.
many died in unimaginable agony, others are disabled for life.
I think the cost is inconsequential.
Not to those of us who are sick and tired of paying bills for creeps like this.
For the evil he did he should suffer captivity for life without access to anything he thinks he has a right to - religious books especially.
Religious books are something he'll have plenty of access to in prison.
What he doesn't deserve is a quick and clean death.
I think he should get what he gave others: a pressure cooker bomb planted at low level about 10-feet away should do the trick. It may not be quick and it may not be clean, but it should give him what he deserves.
