Were organ transplants ever forbidden?

by stillstuckcruz 22 Replies latest watchtower beliefs


    What a great article! Anyone still wondering why the WTBTS fears the internet??

  • Separation of Powers
    Separation of Powers

    The Watchtower of November 15 1967 is replete with double speak and typical organization jargon. It is the quintessential example of the authoritarian evolution of the organization. Expressions such as "Christians who have been enlightened by God’s Word..." and "...putting their confidence in the future that he has in store for those who love him." are manipulative. Rest assured that the elders were apprised of which "decisions" were considered worthy of disfellowshipping and which were simply "personal".

    Below is my breakdown of the positions.

    Transplant from Human: NOTconscience (disfellowshipping offense at the time, essentially as the taking of blood) - "However, in allowing man to eat animal flesh Jehovah God did not grant permission for humans to try to perpetuate their lives by cannibalistically..."

    Transplant from animal (i.e. pig or baboon heart or valve): Conscience- "Nor can we decide whether a Christian should accept some animal part as a transplant; that is for personal decision..."

    Donating blood or organs after death: Conscience with repurcussions, probably no talk at the hall and the family left to fend for themselves in finding a brother that would give the outline talk for the deceased- "Would they use his organs in cannibalistic medical experiments?"

    Just some thoughts,


  • Apognophos
    Transplants are cannibalism.
    Blood and transplants are banned.
    1975 is the year to watch for.
    JW's don't petition or protest.
    Believing in young earth creationism.
    Even that bit at the end "Space travel is a waste of time."

    Hilariously, they even mention Sodom and Gomorrah's newfound "resurrectable" status. I'm almost suspicious of this article's authenticity, it seems too good to be true.

  • zound

    I'm thinking the same thing - too good to be true.

    Even the quote "The Hard Core Evil" followed by a picture of Hensel

  • ldrnomo

    Vas Milton Henschel a German?

  • 5go

    This is what turn me against the blood ban. Whe I found how the just dropped the organ ban with much of a word and no apology it made me wonder why the ban on blood was any diffrent.

  • Finkelstein

    Were organ transplants ever forbidden?

    Yes they were and it killed hundreds just as the ban on vaccinations killed many.

    Stupid ignorant men playing god usually results in producing dire consequences for people who subserviently follow them.

    Do modern day JWs know this ..... no

  • Phizzy

    I pointed out to a long time JW that a member of her JW family who had just had a transplant was very lucky the disease had not manifested itself before 1981.

    She agreed, and then told me a sad tale, a long time friend of hers had refused a kidney transplant a number of years after the ban was lifted, simply because he stuck with the old teaching in his heart.

    The GB's murderous lack of Bible knowledge, and simple common sense in understanding scripture, killed him, and countless others before and since.

    The Watchtower is an edifice drenched in blood, the blood of the innocent.

  • coffee_black

    My dad died because of this issue.


  • Apognophos

    I read your account. I think it's truly evil that the Society not only failed to apologize for this change in teaching, but they went from saying it was totally unscriptural to "There is no Biblical command pointedly forbidding the taking in of other human tissue ... It is a matter for personal decision". Which sounds to a reader like they still don't think it's right; that maybe the Bible implies it's wrong even though they can't find a scripture to explicitly say so. However, as Phizzy says, this has the effect of causing many of the most earnest JWs to continue to treat it as a ban.

    This is the same exact trick they used in 2000 when they allowed blood fractions, saying that it was a conscience matter. I naively thought at the time, "Well, there's no way my conscience would allow that, because if blood is symbolically wrong to take into my bloodstream, a fraction of a symbol is just as wrong." I didn't recognize that this was the Society's way of saying, "We wish we never banned this in the first place, but since we can't completely remove the ban without provoking a riot, we'll just sound like we're begrudgingly allowing it to be a conscience matter." The truth is that the Society is an organization with no conscience themselves. Truly a case of "man dominating man to his injury" and "the blind leading the blind".

Share this