Calling All Who Were JWs Between 1967 and 1980

by -Crossroads- 29 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  -Crossroads-

  Hello JWN,

  To introduce myself, I am still in the JWs but learned TTATT some months ago. I now ask this question to get more info on a past teaching.

  Between 1967 and 1980 was when the 'current understanding' of the WTS was that organ transplants were cannibalism, and thus abhorrent. However, available WT publications from this time do not specify what penalty there was for noncompliance. So, I ask you to recall, honestly and without bias, just what the view of JW culture (i.e the people in the congregations in general) was of organ transplants during that time.

  I'm not asking so much about if you knew of any specific instances, rather what would have been the reaction. Or to put it another way, would you have felt comfortable accepting a transplant during that time? And if not, because you truly felt it was wrong (because of WTS influence), or because of fear of what others would think?

  And especially, what of the following choices was the penalty?

  A. A disfellowshipping offense or cause for disassociation

  B. Cause for loss of privileges for not being exemplary

  C. No sanctions, but cause for negative view/judgment from fellow JWs

  D. No sanctions, and only some considered it bad, others didn't care

  E. Don't ask, don't tell

  F. Personal decision

  Any pertinent explanation you feel is helpful is also appreciated. Thank you!
• 

  Finkelstein

  Just out memory, I think by 1980 organ transplants was deemed a personal decision, frowned upon perhaps by not punished, so I would go with ......

  C. No sanctions, but cause for negative view/judgment from fellow JWs
  
• 

  smiddy

  Hi Crossroads , welcome to the board ,

  If i remember correctly it was in the" Kingdom Ministry" that stated organ transplants were likened to cannibalism and seeing the donated organ was still functioning it would have the donors blood within it .

  So , by their reckoning on two counts you would be DF .( eating blood and eating flesh) WT view not mine .

  At the time I thought it was big stretch of the imagination to call it cannibalism , however I was still a firm believer back then and went along with it.

  smiddy
• 

  joe134cd

  I was born in the early 70's, and the only vague recollection I have of it, was a very elderly sister bringing it up in the course of a book study. So you could at least say by the time of the late 70's early 80's the idea of canabilistic transplants was history.
• 

  Gargamel

  I was in from '62 until '73.

  I do remember it being referred to as cannibalism. I've no idea what the punishment would have been though. It always struck me as odd that the JWs confused their orifices; blood by transfusion was "eating" it and organ transplant was referred to by a word more commonly associated with humans eating other humans (though I do note that cannibalising has other meaning too).
  

  It probably had more publicity in the late 60s or thereabouts due to the first heart transplant taking place.
  
• 

  badcompany

  Baptized '71. DF'd '80. You'd be out on your ear in a heartbeat on 2 counts (blood and cannibalism). I think Garg is on to something there with the orifice confusion. That goes on to this day.
• 

  Crazyguy

  I remember how if you got a transplant you would take on the personality of the donor. Crazy stuff, but don't remember what would happen to those that got a transplant.
• 

  freddo

  I was going to meetings as a kid during the 60's and baptised in the 70's - UK.

  In 1967 there was the world's first heart transplant (Christiaan Barnard South Africa) which brought into focus the witness view. But of course kidney transplants were becoming more common too.

  As mentioned above it was generally viewed as cannibalism and linked to blood transfusion (as in back then you would "obviously" need a blood transfusion if you had a major organ transplant) and QFR in 1967 was weighted heavily against it as were small references between then and the QFR of 1980. I cannot say if it would have been a DF offence as I was a baptised teen with no appointment in 1980. (I always thought it was but can find nothing in the WT CD library.)

  But my understanding was that it was definitely "wrong" because the articles were disapproving but I can go no further than that in what if any the sanctions might have been.

  The way it was "fed" to me by elders at the time was that it was a "no-no".
• 

  joe134cd

  Just adding further to my above comments. It wasn't until I come on here that I knew about it.
• 

  St George of England

  I remember these times well and the following QFR from the WT explains the view at that time. (Quote in part only)

  I never knew anyone who had a transplant as the 'cannibal' label probably put them off. I did know a brother who had a blood transfusion and nothing was done, though he was not a 'servant' at the time.

  George

  *** w67 11/15 p. 702 Questions From Readers ***

  ● Is there any Scriptural objection to donating one’s body for use in medical research or to accepting organs for transplant from such a source?—W. L., U.S.A.
  

  A number of issues are involved in this matter, including the propriety of organ transplants and autopsies. Quite often human emotion is the only factor considered when individuals decide these matters. It would be good, though, for Christians to consider the Scriptural principles that apply, and then make decisions in harmony with these principles so as to be pleasing to Jehovah.—Acts 24:16.

  First, it would be well to have in mind that organ transplant operations, such as are now being performed in an attempt to repair the body or extend a life-span, were not the custom thousands of years ago, so we cannot expect to find legislation in the Bible on transplanting human organs. Yet, this does not mean that we have no indication of God’s view of such matters.

  When Jehovah for the first time allowed humans to eat animal flesh, he explained matters this way to Noah: “A fear of you and a terror of you will continue upon every living creature of the earth and upon every flying creature of the heavens, upon everything that goes moving on the ground, and upon all the fishes of the sea. Into your hand they are now given. Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you. As in the case of green vegetation, I do give it all to you. Only flesh with its soul—its blood—you must not eat.” (Gen. 9:2-4) That allowance was made to Noah, from whom every person now alive descended. Hence, it applies to all of us.

  Humans were allowed by God to eat animal flesh and to sustain their human lives by taking the lives of animals, though they were not permitted to eat blood. Did this include eating human flesh, sustaining one’s life by means of the body or part of the body of another human, alive or dead? No! That would be cannibalism, a practice abhorrent to all civilized people. Jehovah clearly made a distinction between the lives of animals and the lives of humans, mankind being created in God’s image, with his qualities. (Gen. 1:27) This distinction is evident in His next words. God proceeded to show that man’s life is sacred and is not to be taken at will, as may be done with the animals to be used for food. To show disrespect for the sanctity of human life would make one liable to have his own life taken.—Gen. 9:5, 6.

  Continues on and on and on.....