Jehovah's Witnesses:Why was this not in any of the publications to inform you of the"NEW LIGHT"?

Question

Wednesday, 14 June, 2000, 15:00 GMT 16:00 UK
Jehovah's Witnesses drop transfusion banTransfusions will no longer lead to expulsion
By the BBC's Religious Affairs Correspondent Jane Little
Leaders of the Jehovah's Witnesses movement have revoked a strict ruling that their members automatically face ex-communication if they accept blood transfusions.
Jehovah's Witnesses: facts
An unorthodox Christian sect
Based in New York
6m members in more than 200 countries
Founded in 1884
They took the controversial decision at a secret meeting in New York, following years of recrimination from ex-members and non-Jehovah's Witnesses over the ban.

The religious community insists that receiving blood is still wrong.

But under the changes, transfusions have been relegated to "non-disfellowshipping events" - in other words you will not be thrown out of the religion if you have one.

That may come as cold comfort to many who have watched loved ones die because they refus

That may come as cold comfort to many who have watched loved ones die because they refused blood.
Only last week, a British Jehovah's Witness who lost pints of blood in a machete attack, renounced his faith at the last minute so that he could have the transfusion which saved his life.
Climbdown or procedural change?

But if this looks like a major climbdown, a spokesman for the organisation - also called Watch Tower - insisted it was merely a procedural change.

He said not taking blood remains a biblical injunction and a core tenet of the faith.

If a member has a transfusion, they will, by their actions disassociate themselves from the religion. The ruling emphasises personal choice, he said.

He added that if they repented afterwards, they would be offered spiritual comfort and the possibility of redemption.

But the distinction between what in other words amounts to resigning rather than being sacked, does seem to be a major shift.

Jehovah's Witnesses, wh

Jehovah's Witnesses, who number six million worldwide, have suffered years of adverse publicity over blood transfusions.

It now looks like they quietly want to downplay this issue and to emphasise less controversial elements of the faith.

Answer 1

I'm a doctor and have found myself in the appalling situation of trying to save a life where the patient refuses blood because they are a JW. If they have signed a form there's nothing we can do, but if it's a child ie if the parent refuses to allow their child a life saving transfusion, we can overrule them.

They get their anti transfusion beliefs as follows:


They cite four biblical texts (Genesis 9:4, Leviticus 17:12-14, Acts 15:29 and Acts 21:25). They say these mean that blood, the life-force, belongs to God and is not there for human use. They believe it a sin to eat not just black pudding but also to eat the flesh of animals that have not been properly bled.

And they extend the ban to transfusions. They won't even allow someone's blood to be stored before an operation and then used after it to replace their own blood loss. Blood is not to be stored; it is to be poured out and returned to God. Some JWs even reject dialysis or cell salvage on these grounds. Some will not accept red cells, white cells, platelets or plasma, but accept "fractions" made from these components.

There is a philosophical problem here. When a substance is broken down into components does the original remain? Some 90-96 per cent of blood plasma consists of water. The remainder is albumin, globulins, fibrinogen and coagulation factors. JWs say these may be used, according to conscience, but only if taken separately. Opponents say is like outlawing a ham and cheese sandwich but allowing the eating of bread, ham and cheese separately.

They are criticised for other inconsistencies. Blood fraction products are only available because of blood donation – a practice JWs condemned as unethical.

Many JWs still carry a signed and witnessed advance directive card absolutely refusing blood in the event of an accident. And the church's website still carries alarmist material about the dangers of transfusions in transmitting Aids, Lyme Disease and other conditions. It also exaggerates the effectiveness of alternative non-blood medical therapies.

What do doctors think?

The British Association of Anaesthetists guidelines insist that the wishes of the patient must normally be paramount. US doctors take a similar view; they know giving blood to someone who does not want it could get them sued – one of the busiest trauma hospitals in Florida even has a blanket policy of refusing to treat JWs.

Other countries, like France, take a more dirigiste view. And a landmark case in Dublin recently ruled that doctors were right to give a woman blood during childbirth because the right of her child to have a mother over-ruled her own right to refuse the blood.

There are even more subtle dilemmas to come. One asks whether doctors are obliged to give chemotherapy, which is normally accompanied by a blood transfusion, to patients who insist on having it without the blood, without which it is highly likely to fail. As medicine advances things are likely to get more, rather than less, tricky.

One more thing. Their literal interpretation of the Bible allows them (not unlike the Catholic church) to keep child abuse secret: Not good. They take Deuteronomy 19:15 literally, which demands two witnesses to a crime (not easy in cases of abuse). And they cite 1 Corinthians 6:1-11 – "Does anyone of you that has a case against the other dare to go to court before unrighteous men, and not before the holy ones?" – to justify trying to deal with criminals with courts of elders rather than courts of law. A Panorama investigation reported they have an internal list of 23,720 reported abusers which they keep private. Studies in the US suggest they have proportionally four times more sexual assaults on children than the Catholic Church.

Any religion which literally interprets the Bible, and keeps its doings secret can be a cause of harm in my view. And the idea that a woman can die leaving twins, motherless because of an obscure text in the Bible appals me as a doctor and a human being.

Dr Evie Wallace

Answer 2

I have Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, the works of Josephus, and I am planning to read Vine's Expository of the Bible and The Origin of Species within the next year. I have six Bible translations. No, we do not have to study one of the WT Society's publications every personal study session. However, Prov. 18:1 warns us about isolating ourselves. Those who study on their own, without any outside help, will eventually start to get off base in their thinking. We have learned to trust the WT Society as an organization that dispenses spiritual "food at the proper time." Matt. 24:45. Jehovah's methods and teachings are explained there and nowhere else. Of course, as you know, many people hate us for various reasons. So, it would be unwise for a Witness to search out other teachings, as they could warp our Bible-trained concience. Having said that, we're not ordered to follow the WT Society "or else". I choose to live this way because I have learned that it is the best way of life. That viewpoint perhaps has been more rounded-out by talking with many religious people, looking at the statements made on this forum, and in general keeping my head out of the sand.

Answer 3

All of you are hilarious. Even IF this were true, i still would not except blood transfusions because of what the bible says about it. It doesn't even matter what our religion says or stupid doctrine. We have a hope for the future when all those who died by supposedly "not accepting blood transfusions" will live again forever on a paradise earth. Believe what you want, it doesn't matter to me, but I go by what the bible says and it says not to intake blood into our bodies. Do you read the bible? If you did you might understand why it is that JW's don't accept B.T.
I'm not being argumentative. Just askin' a question.

Answer 4

This huge cover-up that you trying to expose to the world was clearly explained in the publicly available Watchtower magazine that is distributed in the millions of copies monthly.

Where it said in the 15th Jun 2000 issue- 'Hence, some Christians reject such (blood) products, just as they reject transfusions of whole blood or of its four primary components. Their sincere, conscientious stand should be respected.'


Perhaps if you had read the magazines you would have known the truth ,, but as usual - you get it wrong again and again.


The only conspiracies are in your head, and only those not interested in truth will listen to your rants.

Answer 5

So where's the change?

""If a member has a transfusion, they will, by their actions disassociate themselves from the religion."

What's the difference if one is disfellowshipped or one disassociates himself?

Sorry but you fail to produce any "New Light" in this "question".

Answer 6

Is there a question in here?

Btw, the "NEW LIGHT" is currently being sold at Lowe's and Home Depot.

Answer 7

LOL vic, I might just screw in a governing body member into my light socket next time my bulb burns out. Expect I might just have to grab a child so he would turn on.

Answer 8

I do not see how they can sleep at night when they have the doctrine victims' blood all over them

Answer 9

I KNEW THIS WAS GOING TO HAPPEN! All the lives lost with this stupid doctrine.

And JWs will stroll peacefully along and say that now it is OK.

Answer 10

Your avatar is pretty symbolic of that religion!

Ha! Ha! She changed the avatar.......it was a clown.