Divinity Atlas

Sacred Correspondences
Sign In
Text size
100%
Theme

Switch Atlas

Source

Jehovah's Witnesses and Blood Transfusions (Wikipedia)

Wikipedia

Wikipedia's article on Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions, read directly for this pass, which states that the first statement on blood transfusion appeared in the Watchtower of 1 July 1945, extending the scriptural blood prohibition to transfusion, and that the original statement specified no penalty for accepting one; by January 1961 the organization ruled that conscientiously accepting a transfusion was a disfellowshipping offense, described in the source as an application of increased strictness. This description is adapted from Wikipedia contributors under CC BY-SA 4.0; changes were made. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

Facts
Assessment
Reliability Tier
3
A community-edited tertiary reference, not peer-reviewed, but the two dates it supplies, the 1 July 1945 Watchtower and the January 1961 disfellowshipping ruling, are corroborated across the outside search results read alongside it and carry no live dispute; used for the settled institutional dates, not for interpreting the underlying doctrine.
Notes
Cited for the 1 July 1945 Watchtower statement extending the blood prohibition to transfusion, and the January 1961 ruling making acceptance a disfellowshipping offense.
Citation
Publisher
Wikipedia
URL
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's_Witnesses_and_blood_transfusions
Source Type
reference
Connections

Associated With

Jehovah's Witnesses, Denominations

This source names Jehovah's Witnesses directly: "Wikipedia's article on Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions, read directly for this pass, which states that the first statement on blood transfusion appeared in the Watchtower of 1 July 1945..."

Source Jehovah's Witnesses and Blood Transfusions (Wikipedia)
Claims Backed By This Source (8 claims)

This source backs 8 claims across the atlas. As facts: 7 well-attested. As cited relationships: 1 holds.

Disposition By Topic

  • Sources, 7 claims: 6 well-attested, 1 holds.
  • Doctrines, 1 claims: 1 well-attested.
Comments (0)
No comments yet. Be the first to share a thought.
Reader Challenges (0)
No disputes yet. Spotted an error or a better source? Open the first one.