Nit-Picking

by Vitameatavegamin 5 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Vitameatavegamin

  Hello friends;

  This is your vitameatavegmin girl. Anyway, a topic that has been on my mind for a while is that of sterilization(vasectomies, tubal ligations), There was a questions from readers in a WT about 2 years ago on whether or not it was proper to get these surgeries. I was amazed at the answers the Society had. They mentioned that sterilization was " interfering with our reproductive powers ", and that Jehovah may not approve of this. And then, they went on to say that if it became public knowledge that a Brother or Sister had this procedure done, that they would not qualify for any " special " privileges in the congregation, unless it was determined that the brother or sister had this done for health reasons.

  Can you believe this?? This has bothered me for so long. If the society is going to go to the length of saying sterilization is " probably" wrong, then why not ban all birth control use?? It ALL interferes with reproductive powers.

  I can't believe that a brother or sister could not be used in the cong. for this!! How in the heck does this interfere with you're spirituality anyway???? Another case in point: A friend of mine here, who is a brother, was considering getting a vasectomy as his wife had a great deal of trouble having their child. Heavy bleeding, etc. And, they also did not want anymore children, Well, the elders got wind of it and went to his home and informed him that if this was done, he may not be able to be used in the cong. He was furious. Told them basically to mind they're own business. It never ceases to amaze me what they don't think of next.

  Talk about being nit-picky!!!

  Thanks,

  Vita
• 

  SnareMaster

  If the Brethern would only pay close attention to direction of Jehovah's Faithful Slave, they would realize that such provisions are a result of divine guidance from a loving Father whose universal sovereignty has been challenged by Satan the Devil.

  Unlike the foul and treacherous Catholic Church, which forbids birth control to its adherents.

  Sisters are also counselled to remove all, repeat *all* bobby pins before climbing into the sack with me, lest their boby pin become a stumbling block to others. A sister who would stumble another member of Christ's congregation in such a way is fit only for the fiery torments of Gehenna, and if it happens again I will kick her sorry ass to the curb!
• 

  AlanF

  This nonsense is quite in line with the braindeadness of Watchtower ideas on sex in general.

  Do you realize that according to the Society, in vitro fertilization is a form of sexual relations? So that if a woman receives sperm from a man not her husband she's guilty of fornication or adultery? And if a man donates sperm to a sperm bank, he's guilty of an unknown number of possible illicit sexual liasons? Can you imagine anything more ridiculous? Can you imagine the workings of minds capable of publishing such lunatic ideas?

  To think that such complete morons are running a major American religion is disheartening!

  AlanF
• 

  Vitameatavegamin

  Good points. Why should the society spend time worrying about not appointing brothers who have had vasectomies but they can allow a complete jackass to have privliges............Just doesn't make sense anymore.
• 

  RedhorseWoman

  At one point in time, vasectomies were no problem. I honestly think that the WTBTS is now banning permanent birth control so that they can boost the number of new JWs. They know that converts are few and far between, so I guess they figure it's better to grow their own.
• 

  cyberguy

  I wonder if this policy change was the result of what might appear at first as totally unrelated issue. If I remember correctly, the "Question From Readers" you're referring to connected the semi/permanent approach to birth control with disobedience to the directives given to Noah after the flood. In Gen. 9:1, God commands Noah and sons to "be fruitful and become many and fill the earth." Now here's the problem. Previously, this verse was discounted because there was a big push to get people to not get married, or if married, not to have children, so they could "pioneer." However, just a few verses later, God gives a directive about blood, and as we all know, is used to prohibit blood transfusions (Gen. 9:5). I suspect that they had to change the view on Gen. 9:1, with the idea that all these directives given to Noah are binding on Christians.