DF'ed for Organ Transplants?

I'm in a discussion with a JW who is claiming that the Society never actually prohibited organ transplants between 1967 and 1980. She has read the 1967 article, but feels that, since the article does not specifically state that anyone taking a transplant will be disfellowshipped, that it was simply discouraged, but not prohibited.

Can anyone help with a reference demonstrating that JW's could be df'ed during that period for accepting a transplant?

Hi, 

I still have the Bound Volumes of Watchtower and Awake magazines and the CD-ROM from the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society.  I can do the research for you.  To my current knowledge, it never was a disfellowshipping offence but I will research it for you and post it here.  Check back later today or tommorrow.

Thanks

Thanks!

My ex-wife took all my bound volumes, and my WT CD-ROM usually crashes my system when I use it, so I'm at a definite disadvantage for doing research. I can't wait for them to issue the new CD-ROM, in hopes that it will work better than the one I have.

   

     I think the JW is right.   What's the point?

gb

The Way I See it      http://www.freeminds.org/buss/buss.htm
 

     

I scanned through the bound volumes, but couldn't locate the CD-ROM.  I'll have to hunt for it or get another one.  I could only find one article in the Watchtower (March 15, 1980) that talked specifically about actions for members who had transplants.

Taken from the Watchtower:

 

Questions From Readers

* Should congregation action be taken if a baptized christian accepts a human organ transplant, such as of a cornea or a kidney?

Regarding the transplantation of human tissue or bone from one human to another, this is a matter for conscientious decision by each one of Jehovah's Witnesses.  Some christians might feel that taking into their bodies any tissue or body part from another human is cannibalistic.  They might hold that the transplanted human material is intended to become part of the recipient's body to keep him alive and functioning.  They might not see it as fundamentally different from consuming flesh through the mouth.  Such feelings may arise from considering that god did not make specific provisions for man to eat the flesh of his fellowman when he made provisions for humans to eat the flesh of animals that had been drained of their life sustaining blood.  They may give consideration also to the way people in bible times viewed sustaining themselves by taking in human flesh.  For example, see the account at 2 Kings 6:24-30; Deuteronomy 28: 53-57; Lamentations 2:20 and 4:10.  At John 6:48-66, Jesus spoke figuratively of eating his flesh and drinking his blood.  On hearing this discussion and not perceiving the spiritual significance of his words, some of his Jewish disciples were shocked and turned from following him.  These accounts illustrate how some humans felt about eating human flesh.

Other sincere christians today may feel that the bible does not definitely rule out medical transplants of human organs.  They may reason that in some cases the human material is not expected to become a permanent part of the recipient's body.  Body cells are said to be replaced about every 7 years, and this would be true of any human body parts that would be transplanted.  It may be argued, too, that organ transplants are different from cannibalism since the "donor" is not killed to supply food.  In some cases persons nearing death actually have willed body parts to be used for transplants.  Of course, if a transplant should require taking in another persons blood, undeniably that would be contrary to God's command. -- Acts 15:19,20.

Clearly, personal views and conscientious feelings vary on this issue of transplantation.  It is well known that the use of human materials for human consumption varies all the way from minor items, such as hormones and corneas, to major organs, such as kidneys and hearts.  While the bible specifically forbids consuming blood, there is no biblical command pointedly forbidding the taking in of other human tissue.  For this reason, each individual faced with making a decision on this matter should carefully and prayerfully weigh matters and then decide conscientiously what he or she could or could not do before god.  It is a matter for personal decision. (Gal. 6:5)  The congregation judicial committee would not take any disciplinary action if someone accepted an organ transplant.

End of Article (Watchtower March 15, 1980  pg.31)

 

Wow, lots of typing there.  When I find my CDROM I will research this more and post my findings.  Hope this helped somewhat.

 

The point is that I was trying to illustrate the Society's fallibility to her using the organ transplant issue. She's grasping at any straw she can to say that they were giving good advice because transplants were too new then and they weren't safe, so the Society's info was OK. I told her I felt the Society was bloodguilty because people had died over this teaching. She says no, the JW's could do whatever they wanted.

Matter of fact, I saved the chat (I am breezyone2001) - the conversation rambles a bit, but you can see why I wanted this info:

cindeeva: former JW? How come?
breezyone2001: because I found out about all the lies and false prophecies
cindeeva: oh ok well thats sad...
breezyone2001: I's sad that I spent so many years inside a false organization, before I found out that Jesus is the way, THE TRUTH and the life, not some organization or set of doctrines
cindeeva: OH ok well if you were here long enough in the truth you would know that we believe Jesus is the way and the truth and the light
breezyone2001: you call your organization "the truth" - you give it a position that belongs only to Jesus
cindeeva: No I said Jesus is the truth and we are following him
breezyone2001: was the Watchtower society following Jesus when they joined the UN?
cindeeva: They didnt
cindeeva: You listen to too much gosip
breezyone2001: yes, actually they did - there's documented evidence
cindeeva: Where in the apostates are us magazine?
breezyone2001: you believe them too readily - they are practiced liars
cindeeva: Yeah and you are a well trained follower of this system of things
cindeeva: I prove to myself what I choose to believe is true
breezyone2001: not at all, I am a follower of Jesus
cindeeva: Then we are all in the same boat together
breezyone2001: sure you do - that's why you change your opinion every time the organization gets "new light"
cindeeva: All following our savior
breezyone2001: The WT teaches the savior is Jehovah, not Jesus
cindeeva: How long did you claim to be a witness?
breezyone2001: I was a JW for 30 years - served as pioneer and MS
cindeeva: And you still were mislead by satans people
cindeeva: Thats sad.
breezyone2001: I was misled by Satan's people for that 30 years
cindeeva: An angel of darkness
breezyone2001: ever see the Wizard of Oz movie?
cindeeva: a little of it when I was in grade school
cindeeva: So where is this supposed representation of the organization joinging the UN?
cindeeva: Pardon joining
breezyone2001: remember the end, when Toto pulled back the curtain and they say the man behind the curtain?
breezyone2001: hold on, I'll get you a link
cindeeva: yeah what does this have to do with religion?
breezyone2001: after they saw the man behind the curtain, they couldn't go back to being afraid of the Wizard, could they?
cindeeva: no they couldnt
breezyone2001: The WT is like that - once you see thru their lies and false prophecies, you can never believe them again
cindeeva: I see it as this... if you want to find fault in anything mankind is in dealings with you will find fault... If you are searching for the truth and want to accept it you will.
breezyone2001: But it has to be true - not just claim to be. There are lots of groups that say the same thing, "if you are sincerely looking for the truth, you'll find us"
cindeeva: Well then how do you know that what you are doing is true?
breezyone2001: The WT has a long history of false prophecies, in fact, nothing they have predicted has ever come true
breezyone2001: so how can you believe what they say about the future now?
cindeeva: The WT does not make prophesies.... it mearly quotes them from the bible
cindeeva: What prophesy are you speaking of?
breezyone2001: there are many - they specifically predicted Armageddon for 1914, the destruction of the churches in 1918, the resurrection of Abraham Isaac and Jacob for 1925'
breezyone2001: not to mention the "generation of 1914" - that was the "Creator's promise" and "Jehovah's prophetic word"
cindeeva: Ok... well if that is what you were lead to believe then you dont have faith that the light gets brighter and brighter. JEhovah reveals his purposes in his time...
breezyone2001: Who lied? Jehovah? Or the Watchtower?
cindeeva: Noone lied it was the beginnings of the bible groups... Jehovah has refined his worshippers
breezyone2001: Yes, that's the excuse they use (even though Proverbs 4:18 has nothing to do with information being revealed)
breezyone2001: since when? the 1990
breezyone2001: 1990's?
cindeeva: Did not the Disciples who stood in front of him and saw his miracles make disasterous mistakes?  Why because they are imperfect humans
breezyone2001: the generation teaching was just revised in 1995
breezyone2001: the disciples never gave dates for the end, and required all believers to accept their teachings or be disfellowshipped
cindeeva: You were disfellowshipped werent you?
breezyone2001: no
cindeeva: You just came on to some false information and decided to leave?
breezyone2001: no, I found out the truth and decided to leave. It wasn't false info, I actually had the publications that made those predictions in Jehovah's name
cindeeva: I am not attacking I am just reaffirming my faith... thats what the bible says to do.. and that is what the organization urges us to do... prove to ourselves that this is the right way of life.
breezyone2001: Then you should try to prove that the JW leadership are not false prophets...they claim to speak for Jehovah, and they have many times predicted things in his name that did not occur. In ancient Israel, they would have been stoned to death
cindeeva: Some have the right heart condition to accept the truth and see throught the ploys that Satan puts out there trying to take the sovereignity from Jehovah but in the end there will be a harvest and then we will all know the truth.
breezyone2001: Yes, but unfortunately it will then be too late for those who have followed men
cindeeva: As for me and my household we follow Jehovah and his son...
breezyone2001: in whatever way the Watchtower tells you to. So who is the real authority in your life?
cindeeva: No mere human governs us... If when you were a pioneer you followed man then you werent at the right mindset as to what was involved in being a JW
cindeeva: Jehovah and Jesus are my authority.
breezyone2001: would you die today rather than accept blood?
cindeeva: Yes indeed.
cindeeva: WT did not publish the bible it was inspired by GOD
breezyone2001: would you have died rather than accept an organ transplant between 1967 and 1980 when the Society prohibited those?
cindeeva: Blood is sacred... is that not plain enough
breezyone2001: or a smallpox vaccination between 1934 and 1952?
cindeeva: I was only 3 in 1980 but yes my parents refused blood when I was born because my mom was told that I would die and I am still here today ALIVE!
breezyone2001: what about an organ transplant? would you have refused that?
cindeeva: Yes if it is containing blood particles
cindeeva: I would rather die faithful that get a few extra years as a displeasing person to GOD.
cindeeva: What year did you leave?
breezyone2001: that wasn't the criterion. From 1967-1980 the Society forbid transplants because it said they were cannibalism. You'd have been disfellowshipped for taking one
breezyone2001: would you have taken one or not?
cindeeva: No I would not have if it was containing blood
breezyone2001: You're dodging the question
cindeeva: I am answering honestly
breezyone2001: blood wasn't the issue - they said transplants were wrong in themselves, with or without blood
cindeeva: They (the general public) also said that it was completely safe to accept blood in the early 80's... hence infecting many with AIDS
cindeeva: Would you accept blood to save your life now as it is?
breezyone2001: so my question still is, would you have taken a transplant if you needed it? Assume no blood was involved.
cindeeva: Yes.
breezyone2001: so you would have been disfellowshipped
cindeeva: Then so be it but I have the faith in me to know that Jehovah has provided a way for us to follow
breezyone2001: between 1967 and 1980 it was a df'ing offense to take a transplant, even without blood
cindeeva: and this quote is from?
breezyone2001: if you give me a way to contact you, I will supply you with the WT references. I don't have it at the tip of my fingers, but I was a JW at the time and I remember it clearly
cindeeva: Ok well I have the WT Library adn search aid here
cindeeva: I will research it as we speak
breezyone2001: shouldn't be hard to find, i believe the teaching was both started and ended in "Questions From Readers"
breezyone2001: My point is that people have died following the Society's advice, that had no foundation in scripture
breezyone2001: they are bloodguilty
cindeeva: I will prove that true or false for myself
breezyone2001: The blood issue may seem clear to you - I don't think it's as clear in the scriptures as the Society makes it appear - but they have already modified the teaching repeatedly. JW's never used to be able to accept any blood fractions - now they can
breezyone2001: what is the scriptural basis for allowing some fractions and not others?
cindeeva: Medical knowledge is advanced and now they have developed blood dirivatives not containing the one part that is making the blood sacred
breezyone2001: what is the one part? where does the Bible speak of one part of the blood making it sacred?
cindeeva: I read what you refered to and it is speaking of heart transplants and that was a time when medical knowledge was not far enough advances
breezyone2001: it wasn't a medical issue, though - they said it was cannibalism. If it was, then it still is
cindeeva: hold on I am still reading this article
breezyone2001: ok
breezyone2001: is that the 1967 one?
cindeeva: 1972
cindeeva: stating that heart replacement was causing more deaths tahn good
breezyone2001: the original one was 1967 - the search may not find it. They sometimes make it hard on the CD to find teachings that have changed
cindeeva: so yes it was a good thing that people were abstaining from the transl=plant
breezyone2001: Shouldn't that be a personal decision?
breezyone2001: Is it up to a religious organization to make those decisions for people?
cindeeva: Shouldnt the garden of eden been a personal decison
cindeeva: Wait it was and now look what happened to us all
breezyone2001: it was - but you're changing the subject
cindeeva: No I am making an analogy
cindeeva: At the time of these articles the siffoning of blood from organs was not properly in use therefor leaving a person taking blood at the same time as a transplant
breezyone2001: it doesn't fit - Adam and Eve disobeyed God - but God never told anybody to avoid organ transplants, it was just the opinion of the Watchtower leaders
cindeeva: They know what scientific advancements are made
cindeeva: they research and they know and now that medical technology has advanced so have the medical choices
breezyone2001: Who are they to decide when certain treatments are advanced enough for people to use? How presumptuous they are!
cindeeva: You are grasping at straws here arent you?
cindeeva: They research to help the followers of Jesus to stay clean in Gods eyes
cindeeva: And I also do research for myself as well because I have medical issues my self
breezyone2001: Can't you get my point? They weren't giving medical advice - they claim to speak for God! Doing so, they prohibited organ transplants as being morally and scripturally wrong. Not because of anything to do with blood, but because (they said) transplants were cannibalistic. They now admit that transplants are OK, so they were wrong about that, and people died as a result
breezyone2001: Those people died because humans presumed to speak on God's behalf, and gave messages that God did not tell them to. That is the scriptural definition of a false prophet.
breezyone2001: How do you know there won't be more "new light" next week or next year, and that blood transfusions will be OK too?
cindeeva: OK well you have your way of seeing it and I have mine... you dont seem to get the point and there is good reason in your mind to leave the truth and search for other avenues.
cindeeva: And there is even better reason now for me to stay with is because it is amazing how mislead you have been
breezyone2001: That's the usual reaction I get from JW's who can't answer anything I say to them, but can't admit to themselves that they have been misled by a false prophet
cindeeva: You focus and have it set in your mind... and its plainly stated that medical advances occur and this has allowed some to live longer because the organs dont contain blood
cindeeva: Oh thats amusing! I answered your question... maybe you havent truly answered it yourself.
breezyone2001: Well, I've said it enough times: their reasons for prohibiting transplants had nothing to do with blood - if you look up the 1967 article you'll see it was because thay claimed it was cannibalism
cindeeva: And it was at that time because the organ contained BLOOD!
breezyone2001: no, you have dodged my question. I've asked you about transplants and you keep talking about blood - that was NOT why they said transplants were wrong
breezyone2001: besides, as I've pointed out, their blood teaching has not been consistent either
cindeeva: yeah as you want to see it!
cindeeva: In the end we all will see who it is we truly are following.  Good day! You angel of darkenss!
breezyone2001: it has nothing to do with what I want to see - I was a JW at the time - please don't try to tell me that I don't know what they were teaching
cindeeva: You obviously dont
breezyone2001: actually, I do - it is you who are choosing darkness, since you want to follow men instead of God. If the teaching was right at the time, why did they change it?
cindeeva: You are well trained and I am reading the exact article you referenced
breezyone2001: And, frankly, that's only one area - there are dozens of things that demonstrate how wrong the Society is - we didn't even get into the pedophile scandals
breezyone2001: If its from 1972, its not the article I was referring to
breezyone2001: the one I'm talking about was 1967
cindeeva: Yes I am looking at the 11/15/1967 WT
cindeeva: Question from readers
breezyone2001: ok - does it not claim that transplants are cannibalism?
cindeeva: Yes it does and it states just what I said "At this time medical technology is not advanced... most people receiving transplants are dying and the ones donating taking years off their lives"
cindeeva: states nothing about disfellowshipping but sais to consider Jehovahs view in all matters
breezyone2001: If you are a person in need of, say, a heart transplant, your choice is to accept a risky procedure and maybe die, or to die for certain without the procedure - which would you choose?
breezyone2001: JW's back then would be df'ed if they took a transplant, though
cindeeva: If the heart contained no blood then I would take it but if it did then I wouldnt
cindeeva: Which I think all heart transplants contain blood
cindeeva: so that would be a transplant I would not accept
breezyone2001: but back then, you were prohibited by the Society from taking the transplant, blood or no blood, because they said it wwas cannibalism
breezyone2001: when you eat a steak it contains blood, too
cindeeva: And where do you find this informaiton
cindeeva: Its not stated where you sent me to look
breezyone2001: that it was cannibalism, in the article you just read
cindeeva: Yes because of the improper handling of the organs containing sacred blood
cindeeva: And it speaks more about donating than it does of getting a transplant
breezyone2001: so if it was right, why did they change the teaching in 1980 and say it was a matter of conscience? Obviously their saying that implies that it was not a matter of conscience before that...
cindeeva: Prove where this was stated!
breezyone2001: you have me at a bit of a disadvantage here since you have a WT CD at your fingertips and I do not. As I said, if you give me a way to contact you, I'll look up all the references and provide them to you.
breezyone2001: but they did change the teaching in a 1980 WT, I think in a "Questions From Readers" article.
cindeeva: No if you have proved to yourself these things are true you should be able to prove them
cindeeva: You have thusfar failed to prove anything accept that you left the organization for some false information.
breezyone2001: what kind of an answer is that? If I have proven these things to myself over the course of years, I should have every reference and page number at my fingertips at all times in case someone like you wants to challenge me? I can prove it - I just need time to look up the evidence
cindeeva: So look it up and prove it
cindeeva: I am looking at the 1980 questions
breezyone2001: tell me how to get the information to you
breezyone2001: ok
cindeeva: And stated once again "Yes it is a conscious matter... however if the organ contains blood then it is undeniably not acceptable to God"
breezyone2001: right - NOW it's a conscience matter, it wasn't before
cindeeva: Off the organ topic
cindeeva: Is this the reasoning that you left the organization for?
breezyone2001: no, not really, I was just trying to illustrate the Society's presumptuousness in trying to speak for God
breezyone2001: The false prophecies were a much bigger issue for me
cindeeva: well you have stated no facts to me and I see that you cannot provide a valid quotation so I do believe you sir are truly at a DISADVANTAGE.. Its very sad honestly.
cindeeva: False prophesies.... another striving for the wind!
breezyone2001: They have made many of them
cindeeva: Good day sir!  May you someday come out of your dark hole you have dug!
breezyone2001: they are a striving for the wind for those who believe them, yes
breezyone2001: I guess it's easiest for you to say that I have stated no facts, when you simply don't want to see the facts
cindeeva: There are no facts!
cindeeva: Just false accusations
breezyone2001: Fact #1: The WT in 1967 prohibited transplants for JW's on the basis that they were cannibalistic.
cindeeva: Prove yourself and send the message to this instant message
cindeeva: Fact proven false no statement of dfing
breezyone2001: So if they didn't DF for it, it was OK that they said it was not for Christians?
breezyone2001: but they did DF for it.
breezyone2001: All right - I'll get the documantation, then I'll send it to this IM - I'll leave the window open till I have it all.

: To my current knowledge, it never was a disfellowshipping offence but I will research it for you and post it here. 

The QFR clearly stated that an organ transplant was cannibalism.  If a dub ate a human's flesh would that dub be DF'd?  You bet he would.  Just because it didn't clearly state transplants were a DF'ing offense doesn't mean it wasn't.  It didn't say organ transplant were like cannibalism or similar to cannibalism, it said organ transplans WAS cannibalism.

If this dimbulb dub STILL doesn't get it, then have the dub write a letter to the Society saying s/he would like to eat some human flesh and would that be ok with the Society?

Shoot, they've DF'd people for just BUYING a pack of cigarettes.  Don't you think they would DF a dub who ate another human's body, even if it was washed down with a nice bottle of Chianti?

Farkel

 

Edited by - Farkel on 9 November 2002 18:16:48

and fava beans, right Farkel? Can they get df'ed for eating fava beans?

Good points, though - I'll use them on her, though I doubt at this point that anything will penetrate...

I can see your point, Neonmadman.  I might be able to find someone who has a 1967 watchtower bound volumn (I think my parents have one).  As for your friend:

   breezyone2001: what is the scriptural basis for allowing some fractions and not others?
   cindeeva: Medical knowledge is advanced and now they have developed blood dirivatives not containing the one part that is making the blood sacred

Isrealite law stated that blood be poured upon the ground.  It would not have been lawful to collect or store blood for any purpose, much less a medical one.  In order to obtain derivitives from blood, it has to be collected and stored.  Paul said to "Keep abstaining from blood", so how can she condone the storage and collecting of blood for medical purposes?

Just a passing thought.  Anyway, I'll do more research and get back to you.  If you were a JWitness during that time, maybe you know of some people that were disfellowshipped for this offence.  They might be able to testify to your claim that they were disfellowshiped for doing this.

Later.

 

Ps: Note to Farkel, Let's not use name calling please  RE: Dimbulb Dub

 

     
    
You wrote:

Technically she is right. Same with blood medical treatment, apostasy, or active military service. The JW COULD do whatever they want but she is not being honest. Could the JW do whatever they wanted without fear of displeasing their God, or repercussions or sanctions from their religion?

No!

In my opinion debate with a believing JW is like being in a pissing contest with a skunk. There is no way to win.

Facts are irrelevant. Honesty and ethics are dispensable. The facade is at stake and face must be saved at all costs.

On the other hand she is just defending her religion. Something I would expect any true believer to do.

Who started the debate? What is your interest? May I debate you on the practices and principles of your religion and post that debate to a public forum?
 
 gb
 
 

The Way I See it      http://www.freeminds.org/buss/buss.htm
 
      

Well, I can't seem to find anyone with a November 11, 1967 Watchtower.  Sorry, I tried.  One thing that is interesting though, is that in the Watchtower Publications Index for 1930 to 1985 under the heading of Transplanting (subsection 'body parts') this watchtower article is not listed.  I do know this watchtower exists, so why is it not listed?  Hmmmmm.

 

derrick,

: Ps: Note to Farkel, Let's not use name calling please  RE: Dimbulb Dub

I wasn't name calling.  I was saying it like it is.  After a staggering 12 posts, you might not yet know that.  I always get a kick out of newbies freely handing out advice.

Farkel

 

Technically she is right. Same with blood medical treatment, apostasy, or active military service. The JW COULD do whatever they want but she is not being honest. Could the JW do whatever they wanted without fear of displeasing their God, or repercussions or sanctions from their religion?

No!

In my opinion debate with a believing JW is like being in a pissing contest with a skunk. There is no way to win.

Facts are irrelevant. Honesty and ethics are dispensable. The facade is at stake and face must be saved at all costs.

&&&&&&&&&&

 

EXCELLENT POINT ---EXCELLENT

Although I don't quote WT literature, my recall of such instructions is clear. In our locality/congregation we were told "in deep discussions" of the written material, that all though it might save a life if we donated an organ, or saved our life, if we accepted a donated organ, it would be filled with the blood of the owner, and therefore, that blood would be transferred with the organ when transplanted.  That is a no no.  Remember, "the life is in the blood".

It gave me great pleasure just last year, when I renewed my driver's license, to fill out the paperwork to be an organ donor.  I have also notified family members. 

The QFR clearly stated that an organ transplant was cannibalism.  If a dub ate a human's flesh would that dub be DF'd?  You bet he would.  Just because it didn't clearly state transplants were a DF'ing offense doesn't mean it wasn't.  It didn't say organ transplant were like cannibalism or similar to cannibalism, it said organ transplans WAS cannibalism.

If this dimbulb dub STILL doesn't get it, then have the dub write a letter to the Society saying s/he would like to eat some human flesh and would that be ok with the Society?

#########

 

THE QFR is just another example of the writing style of the Boys in Writing- for the article removes any action that the body should take- so what action would the body have taken 2 months before the article

 

the jw would have been dfed  the article is written like so many other articles

 

College, 1975, alternative serivce, ONLY JW WILL BE SAVED, etc

we have all seen it so many times before- the QFR is written in that style of  DOUBLE MEANING

Couldn't agree with you more, the articles can sometimes be very hazey or filled with back peddling over things they have done or said.  It will be interesting to see how they weasle out of this UN membership scandle.

1968 ".. Christian Witnesses of Jehovah .. consider all transplants between humans as cannibalism." {AWAK Jun 8 1968 21} [Amazingly this 1968 item got left out of the CD-ROM versions of AWAKE. It contradicted "The question of placing one's body or parts of one's body at the disposal of men of science or doctors at one's death for purposes of scientific experimentation or replacement in others is frowned upon by certain religious bodies. However, it does not seem that any scriptural principle or law is involved. It is therefore something that each individual must decide for himself." {WT Aug 1 1961 480]. it was later reversed in "There is no Biblical command pointedly forbidding the taking in of other human tissue .. It is a matter for personal decision. The congregation judicial committee would not take disciplinary action if someone accepted an organ transplant." {WT Mar 15 1980 31}. So the Society's position changed at least twice, 1961 -> 1968 -> 1980. And further "Accepting a bone marrow transplant is up to your conscience." {WT May 15 1984 31}. As a history of reversals, the blood transfusion saga - see 1956 - is even more amazing]

http://www.freeminds.org/history/part3.htm  

 

 

excellent research job garybuss!

 

If I understood correctly, Gary, you seemed to say that the word "cannabilism" was left out of the 1968 Awake on the WT-CD.  Actually, the 1968 Awake is not on the WT-CD at all.  No Awakes before 1970 are on the WT-CD unless they have been added to the WT-CD 2001 version.  The June 1968 Awake is referred to in the index on the CD though.  I will have to admit that it takes a determined researcher to locate all the info the WT has printed on transplants.

Blondie (transplants was one of my defining points about the WTS and its flip-flops)

 

 Just because someone is a newb,doesn't mean they don't know the facts.