This is one of the more stupid 'don't ask, don't tell' situations in the organization. Lots of people, including elders, have had the procedure. They just don't talk about it.
Disqualified from Cong. duties
by TR 41 Replies latest members adult
-
-
normie67
For those of you not familiar with me I am still active in the Org. I had this procedure done about a year and a half ago.Tried to be secretive about the whole process. Because really it is nobodys buisness. I told my Bro In Law(he had it done when he was a MS)because it hurt so bad, and I had questions about recovery,etc. When I had it done he was an Elder, I told him specifically not to mention it to anyone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Not like an Elder to Publisher kind of way, but a friend to a friend, ya know!! That very weekend he said something to a close friend of his and myself about getting "cut".
I honestly went thru the roof. Talked to himabout what I had said to himin private. He doulble talked and fumbled around in his response. To this day it bothers me.Not the fact he told something private about a friend, but that hes an Elder!!!Anyway about losin' priveleges, it depends on the Cong and the Elder Body!! If this person was vocal about having a vasectomy that might cause the Elders to do something. But really it falls into what Cong your in!!
Also for those sisters getting tubes tied........I don't know the pain but can only imagine!!
My vasectomy was awfully painful, not half day off work but 3 days of putting frozen Peas on my buisness!!!normie
-
waiting
Hey guys,
The doctor told me ahead of time that most likely I would go back to work the next day - no big deal.
Guess doctors exaggerate (outright lie) like everybody else, eh?
As for the frozen peas - Normie, did you refreeze them for future eating?
waiting
One woman told me about her husband having a small surgical procedure - it wasn't painful, but "leaked". Doctor told him to use a feminine hygiene pad for about a week, and change it regularily. After about a third day of walking really strange, he told his wife "I will never make fun of you again, I promise."
-
TR
Xandit,
This is one of the more stupid 'don't ask, don't tell' situations in the organization. Lots of people, including elders, have had the procedure. They just don't talk about it.
You're right, but when one wants to please Jah to the fullest extent, one needs to make sure God's org. approves.[8>]
TR
-
zev
I have 2 articles that are at least humorus to read. That article above was most recent, next recent one going backwards in time, and testicular fortitude, was this one...
*** w85 5/1 31 Questions From Readers ***
Questions From Readers
õ In view of reports that doctors may be able to reverse a voluntary sterilization, might not some Christians choose it as a form of birth control?
The Bible shows that God has high regard for reproductive powers. He purposed that humans fill the earth by reproducing their kind. (Genesis 1:28; 9:6, 7) Later, Israelites regarded large families as a blessing from Jehovah, and tampering with reproductive powers brought divine disfavor. (Psalm 127:3-5; Deuteronomy 1:11; 23:1; 25:11, 12) Such points in the Hebrew Scriptures have influenced the thinking of many of God’s servants with regard to the practice of voluntary sterilization.
What, though, do we find in the Christian Greek Scriptures bearing on the matter? For one thing, we learn that Christians are not under the Mosaic Law. (Galatians 3:24, 25) Further, Jesus urged the expansion of Christianity by preaching the good news, not by procreation. Since a great harvest of disciples would result, Jesus advised disciples who could make room for it to become eunuchs in a spiritual sense, expressing self-control as single persons. Of similar import, the apostle Paul encouraged Christians not to marry and thus to have greater freedom to preach and teach. That way they would gather in spiritual children. Even married couples were to remember that “the time left is reduced”; their goal should be ‘freedom from the anxieties’ of family life.—1 Corinthians 7:29-32, 35; Matthew 9:37, 38; 19:12.
When we last discussed voluntary sterilization in this column* most physicians considered the procedure irreversible and thus permanent. However, medical developments in the last decade have changed the situation somewhat. For example, Population Reports (November-December 1983, Johns Hopkins University) says about vasectomies: “In recent reports reversals have restored patency—that is, sperm have been found in the ejaculate—in 67 to 100 percent of men. Functional success—that is, pregnancies among the wives of men who have had reversals—has ranged from 16 to 85 percent.” New surgical procedures and methods of implanting temporary blocks are also pointed to as indicating that reversal success will yet increase.
Since the Christian Greek Scriptures give no direct guidance on such matters, Christians must make personal decisions about limiting the size of their family and about birth control. As to sterilization, they should bear in mind that even though a reversal is theoretically more possible now than it was a decade ago, physicians cannot guarantee that reproductive ability can be restored.
Above all, a couple should keep a clear conscience before Jehovah and toward their fellow Christians. If a couple is thinking of sterilization as a form of birth control, they still should consider any effect their actions may have on others. Though married couples do not usually publicize their decision about birth control, if it became widely known that a couple had resorted to voluntary sterilization, would the congregation be greatly upset and lose respect for them? (1 Timothy 3:2, 12, 13) These are factors to consider very seriously, even in this private and personal matter. In the final analysis, Paul’s statement is appropriate: “To his own master [Jehovah] he stands or falls.”—Romans 14:4, 10-12.Thought it would bring a smile
__
zev
Sitting on the Wrong Side of the Fence Class
-
zev
And then way way back...in that fatefull year of 1975 was this bit...
*** w75 3/1 158-60 Questions from Readers ***
Questions from Readers
ó Would a husband’s approving of sterilization (either for himself or for his wife) disqualify him from positions of congregational responsibility?
The Bible clearly shows God’s high regard for the powers of procreation with which he has gifted humans. (Gen. 1:28; 9:1) The “fruitage of the belly” was counted a reward and an “inheritance from Jehovah.” (Ps. 127:3) A man whose genital organs were severely damaged was disqualified under the Law covenant from ‘coming into the congregation of Jehovah.’ The fact that the context of this verse sets forth prohibitions upon those of certain races ‘coming into the congregation of Jehovah’ appears to indicate that this provision relates to defective males among foreigners who took up the worship of Jehovah. (Deut. 23:1-8) It is not stated whether the damaging of the genital organs was intentional or accidental. Additionally manifesting God’s high regard for the powers of procreation, when a woman attempted to aid her husband in a struggle by seizing the genital organs of his opponent, the Law ruled that her hand should be amputated. (Deut. 25:11, 12) Christians, of course, are not bound by the Law covenant. Nevertheless, they are concerned as to the principles embodied therein.
From this we might conclude that the only course in harmony with God’s purpose would be for persons to marry and bring forth as many children as possible. The Scriptures, however, still allow for personal decision in matters relating to the procreative powers. If this were not so, then it would be a course of disrespect for the gift of those powers if any Christian refrained from marrying and producing children. Yet Christ Jesus, who himself refrained from marrying, said: “There are eunuchs that were born such from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs that were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs that have made themselves eunuchs on account of the kingdom of the heavens. Let him that can make room for it make room for it.” Such ones making themselves “eunuchs on account of the kingdom of the heavens” did so by remaining single. (Matt. 19:10-12) By so doing they were not showing disrespect for God’s provision regarding procreation. The apostle Paul, like Jesus, also showed that singleness could have advantages.—1 Cor. 7:25-38.
At the same time, neither Jesus nor his apostles urged childlessness upon married Christians. What Jesus said at Matthew 24:19 was simply a prophetic statement of fact—not to urge first-century Christians to avoid having children, but for them not to delay flight from the doomed city when the sign of her destruction was seen. Much closer to the time of that destruction, the apostle Paul was still encouraging passionate “younger widows to marry, to bear children.”—1 Tim. 5:11-14.
In view of these Scriptural points, it should be evident that the bearing of children has divine approval. Hence, it would be wrong for one to submit to sterilization or approve of sterilization of one’s wife simply because one has no appreciation for God’s gift of the procreative powers. What, however, of the situation where one’s wife has given birth to children but has had to do so through surgical operations, such as cesarean section? She may have had as many as three such operations and her physician may warn her that a further pregnancy could place her in serious danger of experiencing womb rupture, generally fatal to both the mother and the fetus. Would sterilization in such a case necessarily show disrespect for the divine gift of procreation?
It seems evident that the couple have not manifested a light attitude toward their procreative powers, having already brought forth children. They may view sterilization as a procedure advisable to protect the life of the mother of the children already produced. They may view it as a ‘last resort.’ Thus in making their decision they may feel that it is a question of balancing respect for God’s provision of the procreative powers with respect for the gift of life itself, in this case the life of the endangered mother. For this reason, and for additional reasons, it appears that such a decision is one that rests on the individual consciences of those involved.
It may be objected that, even under such circumstances, agreeing to sterilization would represent a lack of faith on the part of those involved. A doctor’s warning is not necessarily certain to prove correct; hence, why not wait and see what happens? The same argument, however, could be used regarding women who submit to a hysterectomy, which, through removal of the womb, is certainly destructive of the procreative powers. Hysterectomies are often performed although the woman is not actually dying. Aside from incipient cancer, there may be large fibroids (fibromyomas) that cause great pain or much bleeding. Benign tumors can become degenerate. Since the threat of fatal illness that these things present is only potential, would respect for the procreative powers require the woman to wait until massive hemorrhaging actually begins before submitting to a hysterectomy and the loss of her procreative powers? True, the woman who has had several children by cesarean section may not have large fibroids or malignant tumors, yet at the same time it can hardly be said that her womb is a “healthy” one, having been cut open a number of times. The Christian whose conscience allows for sterilization might view the condition of her womb as a threat potentially as dangerous as these other conditions described.
Some might consider sterilization as a deliberate “mutilation” of the body. However, any major surgery has a ‘mutilating’ effect on the body; a cesarean section or a hysterectomy obviously does. Nonetheless, where it is a question of maintaining health and life, a Christian may feel that he can conscientiously submit to major surgery. Again, it is a matter of weighing factors, on the one hand giving due weight to respect for one’s body and the qualities divinely implanted therein and, at the same time, giving equal weight to health and the preservation of life itself. This gives further reason why the decision regarding sterilization under such circumstances should rest with the consciences of those involved.
It is a recognized fact that only total abstinence from sexual relations gives any sure guarantee of avoiding pregnancy. But such total abstinence does not harmonize with the apostolic counsel at 1 Corinthians 7:3-5 and, if practiced, might increase the temptation to adultery on the part of one or the other of the mates. Christians who conscientiously wish to avoid sterilization may prefer to rely on self-control and contraceptive methods to avoid a potentially fatal pregnancy, accepting the risk that this involves. However, can such ones rightly condemn those whose conscience may allow for sterilization as a means of protecting an endangered life? In each case the individuals are seeking the same end: to neutralize or block the effect of their procreative powers, in one case by mechanical or chemical means of contraception, in the other case by surgical operation.
What of the man who submits to sterilization due to his wife’s endangered state? It is not his body that has a weakened womb. Still, if his conscience allows for sterilization, he might prefer to be the one to suffer the operation, rather than have his wife undergo further surgery. His conscience might or might not allow him to do so.
What is here presented is not to be taken as indicating any encouragement whatsoever toward sterilization, even as we cannot encourage the use of contraceptive methods by couples seeking to avoid having children. The responsibility for whatever consequences or adverse side effects may result, whether at the present time or in the future, must rest with those making the decision. Sterilization, like a hysterectomy, is a serious step, since human ability to reverse its effects is very slight indeed.
The qualifying for congregational responsibility on the part of a man who approves of sterilization due to his wife’s endangered state, then, is one that must be weighed in the light of Bible principles by the local body of elders. Does his life pattern as a whole show that he has deep respect for God’s Word or does he make light of its counsel? Does he show himself to be conscientious and serious in his decisions? If his motive in approving of sterilization were due to lack of respect for God’s standards, this disrespectful attitude would likely be manifest in other ways as well. On the other hand, if he measures up to the Scriptural requirements for those having congregational responsibility as set forth in 1 Timothy 3, Titus 1 and other texts, then the fact that his conscience allows for surgical sterilization as a life-protecting measure need not of itself disqualify him. Of course, the attitude of the congregation must be considered. If the matter became an issue of such proportion that it distracted measurably it could seriously limit his ability to serve with effectiveness. Weighing these factors, the elders should then make their decision.I dont know about the rest of you fellers....but if I am gonna get pruned, I ain't tell nobody nuttin. Thats my story, and I'm stickin' to it.
__
zev
Sitting on the Wrong Side of the Fence Class
-
somebody
hi zev,
What, though, do we find in the Christian Greek Scriptures bearing on the matter? For one thing, we learn that Christians are not under the Mosaic Law.
A man whose genital organs were severely damaged was disqualified under the Law covenant from ‘coming into the congregation of Jehovah.’ The fact that the context of this verse sets forth prohibitions upon those of certain races ‘coming into the congregation of Jehovah’ appears to indicate that this provision relates to defective males among foreigners who took up the worship of Jehovah. (Deut. 23:1-8) It is not stated whether the damaging of the genital organs was intentional or accidental. Additionally manifesting God’s high regard for the powers of procreation, when a woman attempted to aid her husband in a struggle by seizing the genital organs of his opponent, the Law ruled that her hand should be amputated. (Deut. 25:11, 12) Christians, of course, are not bound by the Law covenant.
The two articles were a great laugh. What I find ridiculous is that the writer states the fact that Christians aren't under mosiac law, but then go onto tell bible instances of people who WERE under mosiac law. And the examples they give have NOTHING to do with vasectomies! If a woman's husband gets into a fight, and she grabs her husband's opponent by the balls ( who would really do that anyway? ) the law rules that her hand should be chopped off. What does that have to do with one having a vasectomy because they consider their family complete, or for other reasons? I'll be damned if I can connect the two in any way. neither can I connect the example of the man whose genital organs were severely damaged was disqualified under the Law covenant from ‘coming into the congregation of Jehovah.’ That was under the mosiac law. They state the examples AFTER they just said that chrsitains are not under the mosiac law, or bound to it! It's all completely pointless.
Of course, the attitude of the congregation must be considered. If the matter became an issue of such proportion that it distracted measurably it could seriously limit his ability to serve with effectiveness.
ha! The attitude of the congregation MUST be considered? It's none of the congregations business! if the congregation has and attitude over finding out someone had a vasectomy or tubaligation,and it became an issue of such proprtion that it "distracted measurably", then I'd get the hell out of that congregation really quick.
If a couple is thinking of sterilization as a form of birth control, they still should consider any effect their actions may have on others. Though married couples do not usually publicize their decision about birth control, if it became widely known that a couple had resorted to voluntary sterilization, would the congregation be greatly upset and lose respect for them?
again, what kind of "loving happy people" are in congregations, that they would become "greatly upset and lose respect" for someone who has had a vasectomy? makes me wonder what their definition of the word "respect" is.
what is that scripture that says something like ...mind your own business? I wonder why that scripture isn't mentioned in the articles.
If Christians aren't under the mosiac law, and it's certainly not the law of Christ that one could lose "privileges" if the congregation finds out some had a vasectomy, then whos law is it?
peace,
somebody -
happytobefree
Somebody,
The scripture you were referring to is:
1 Thessalonian 4:11 - that you also aspire to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you,
This is one scripture that I had the opportunity to use frequently.
Happy to be Free (Me)
-
anglise
Ha surely its obvious that the real reason they dont approve of vasectomies is that it enables couples to ENJOY sex without fear of any little comebacks, and we cant have people enjoying themselves and possible even being too tired the following day for meetings/book peddling LOL LOL
-
somebody
thank you for that scripture happytobefree. I couldn't remember what book it was in and it was driving me nuts. ( no pun intened) :-)
another point..... here are some of the reasons why one would consider a vasectomy:
You want to enjoy having sex without causing pregnancy. (as anglise said)
You don't want to have a child in the future.
Your partner agrees that your family is complete, and no more children are wanted.
You and your partner have concerns about the side effects of other methods.
Other methods are unacceptable.
Your partner's health would be threatened by a future pregnancy.
You don't want to pass on a hereditary illness or disability.
You want to spare your partner the surgery and expense of tubal sterilization — sterilization for women is more complicated and costly.
I've NEVER heard of anyone choosing to have a vasectomy because they wanted to choose to "blithely disregarded God's evaluations".
when will I ever stopped being surprized at the nonsense the society publishes?
peace,
somebodyEdited by - somebody on 8 March 2001 20:3:48