To JW's: Were you aware that the Governing Body has changed it take on blood transfusions?

Question

** Jehovah's Witnesses drop transfusion ban **
The Jehovah's Witnesses withdraw a much criticised ban on accepting blood transfusions, but say they are still wrong.
< http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/1/hi/world/790967.stm

This is a news article I read on the internet from BBC (britian's broadcasting company)

What is your take on it?

Maggie: did you even READ the article?

Moises: So if fornication, smoking or celebrating Christmas is no longer a disfellowshipping offense, what would you say would be the reason to NOT disfellowship people of actions that you believe are CLEARLY forbidden in the Bible?

conundrum: thank you. and no I do not believer everything I read on the internet. however, when you read something on CNN's or ABC's or other reliable sources can be believed.

The First Dragon: I agree. I see this as a step away from the disfellowshipping process. If you are not disfellowshipped for the performance of a sin, as they have always done, I see this as a positive step, although rather hypocritical. Why would they still disfellowship for other "biblically supported sins" they they stand firm on and not this one?

Answer 1

No matter how the change is justified, we know a few things with all certainty:

1. God never changes His mind, the way humans do
2. No organization that claims to speak directly for God should be changing its mind either.
3. If a religious organization considers something to be consistently forbidden in Scripture, then whatever type of reprimand they have endorsed for the "offense" should be applied consistently. Anything else is just hypocritical.

What it looks like to me is that this decision is directly related to the death of that new mother that is all over the British newswire today. Must be alot of backlash because of this case.

Here's that story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/shropshire/7078455.stm

To "the One": You are absolutely right. When you grow up in the WT, you are constantly engrossed with morbid thoughts of what will happen to you should you even need a transfusion. I knew my parents would choose the WT over me. They always made me feel like a second class citizen anyway. I pretty much knew my fate was sealed. Not a very nice way to grow up. This was one of the biggest issues that caused me to run as far away from the WT as soon as I was of age.

Hello, Conundrum! This was NOT an internet article. Did you not notice that it was a BBC article, as in "British Broadcasting"???

Answer 2

So if I understand this article correctly, they still consider it a sin, but they will not disfellowship (excommunicate/shun) you for accepting one, but if you accept a blood transfusion you have automatically disassociated yourself from their organization and are treated the exact same way with the exact same effects as if you were disfellowshipped.
It seems to me that they are covering their collective behinds because their rules forbid it and it has cost people lives and with the sue happy people in this world, they would or could be held accountable in the courts for "damages". So by taking the disfellowshipping out of the equation, parishioners are taking the responsibility on themselves.
It's a win/win situation for the WBTS and a lose/lose situation for the individual JW and their families.
I wonder if they will take this same stand on other "sins" that they forbid?

Answer 3

@ bar.... has informed us, "The Bible says not something approximately "rank-and-report" Christians eliminating people who take the lead. rather, it counsels obedience to those "governing" us. (Hebrews 13:17) Any member of the governing physique who grew to become spiritually corrupted may be bumped off by potential of the comparable technique that the different Witness who will become spiritually corrupted is bumped off." First it somewhat is not biblical yet then it rather is biblical, sounds like ordinary Watchtower double talk. they have finished now with "New mild" as there has been too lots of it, now the "mild is getting brighter" is how they are getting new suggestions. whilst technology makes new discoveries, this by some potential enables the Watchtower to re-translate, "Abstain for blood" to have new meaning and permit some factions of blood to be injected, however the interpretation nonetheless denies the injecting of different factions. basically like their history of what's and is not allowed, they won't enable you be responsive to from one minute to the subsequent what the present policies are. here is the Watchtower’s history on the priority of blood # 1940 Blood transfusions are suitable # 1945 Blood transfusion at the instant are not suitable # 1956 Blood serums could be dealt with as blood and are banned # 1958 Blood serums and fractions suitable # 1959 storage of very own blood unacceptable # 1961 Blood fractions at the instant are not suitable # 1964 Blood fractions are suitable # 1974 Blood serums are own selection # 1975 Hemophilia treatments (component VII & IX) at the instant are not suitable # 1978 Hemophilia treatments (component VII & IX) are suitable # 1982 Albumin is appropriate # 1983 Hemodilution is appropriate # 1990 Hemodilution isn't suitable (Blood Brochure) # 1995 Hemodilution is appropriate How could they be responsive to what's present day??

Answer 4

It seems that accepting a transfusion has become an act of self-excommunication, whereas previously a person was excommunicated when authorities learned of the transfusion.
This, it seems to me, is not a change of position on the issue, but rather a spiritualizing of the choice. Rather than presenting the sin as an outward action subject to external discipline, it presents it as a personal decision for or against the JW religion. This is certainly a more modern point of view regarding spiritual life, and I think it is a step in the right direction.
I should clarify that I am not JW and don't agree on the prohibition of transfusions. I see the emphasis on personal responsibility as a positive move.

Answer 5

I must say I have never understood someone that believes that it is a good idea to refuse a treatment that would save a life. It is said because of what is said in the Bible about it. However the Bible also depicts and advocates Murder, Rape, Suicide, Morbid Violence, Incest, Bestiality, Sadomasochism, Homosexuality, Voyeurism...and atrocities of all manner. But please don't save my life...

Hmmm, and people wonder why their kids have morbid thoughts. Parents preaching these sorts of values, no wonder they are confused. Don't want to give me a blood transfusion but you will have me believe in a book that is made up of seven headed monsters?

Answer 6

This Blood thing has me quite upset. I was studying with the Witnesses but now I need to find out what is up with this.

Answer 7

Well the bible didn´t change that so we learnt that from the bible and the bible forbid it and we will attach to the bible.

no matter if you are disfellowship or not the judgement day if we don´t have a clear concience we are going to be in trouble.

fornication is not a sin for disfellowship everything depend of your attitude, if you have a bad attitude and show no repentance you will be disfellowship for fornication and another one maybe not , exactly the same with blood transfusion and we know that, at the end God almighty will see our heart to see our motivations, but blood transfusion still are a sin, like or not.

Answer 8

Watchtower doctrinal flip flops cost human lives

http://www.freeminds.org

Answer 9

Well, they've changed their mind about when Armageddon was going to happen about 6 times already and they still never admited they were false prophets!

Answer 10

Cool, maybe that means they are one step closer to embracing the Trinity.

Motorcycle - As the Rush Comes

There's a coldness in the air
but i don't care....
(Embrace me...surround me)

Traveling somewhere
could be anywhere
there's a coldness in the air
but i don't care
we drift deeper
life goes on
we drift deeper
into the sound

(Embrace me...surround me.. as the rush..)