JWs ....Transplants - Canibalism

by JW Ben 40 Replies latest watchtower medical

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia

    There was indeed a doctrinal vacillation here.

    In 1967, the above-cited Watchtower article declared that "Jehovah God did not grant permission for humans to try to perpetuate their lives by cannibalistically taking into their bodies human flesh," suggested that Christians who decide to avoid such "misuse of the body" are following the counsel of 1 Peter 3:16, and concluded by saying that Christians use "the divine principles recorded in the Scriptures" to make "personal decisions". This isn't an explicit command to not take transplants. Instead, the implication is that if you are a Christian, your decisions should be based on Bible principles, and since we (i.e. the faithful and descreet slave) think that Jehovah does not permit you to accept transplants, you should follow the Bible's counsel of keeping a clear conscience and thus not pursue transplantation.

    But this goes way beyond a 1961 Watchtower article on organ transplants, which said that despite the fact that some religious bodies frown upon transplantation, "it does not seem that any Scriptural principle or law is involved. It therefore is something that each individual must decide for himself ... and no one else should criticize him for doing do". At that time there was no Scriptural principle against transplants, because the Society had not yet spoken out against them. But in 1967, they did precisely this thing -- declaring that Jehovah does not permit transplants. If one accepts the Society as the F&DS directed by Jehovah, there is no way a Witness would be expected to have a clean conscience if he/she goes against the Society's opinion, and now suddenly there is a Scriptural principle involved -- 1 Peter 3:16. All it took was an ex cathedra declaration by the Society to render transplants unscriptural. The 1980 article reverses this position back to the original one by declaring that "sincere Christians today may feel that the Bible does not definitely rule out medical transplants," and by affirming that "there is no biblical command pointedly forbidding" transplants -- in contrast to the earlier definitive statement that God did not permit them and the stated biblical principle in 1 Peter 3:16 that taking a transplant would have previously violated.

    Finally, there is an interesting interview by Milton G. Henschel in the Detroit Free Press (July 1968) where he says directly that "Transplanting organs is really cannibalism. In transplants, you are taking something from another life to sustain your own life. ... We are confident of the resurrection and do not fear death. If a person gains another five years because of a transplant, what has been gained if he loses the future?" The clear implication here is that a person can lose a chance at everlasting life (e.g. dying at Armageddon) for accepting an organ transplant.

  • hillary_step
    hillary_step

    JWBen,

    I will read replies but it is unlikely I will have anything else to say on this matter.

    As you can tell from the replies following your post, we are not idiots just because we have stopped serving the needs of the WTS. In fact most of us stopped being idiots the moment we turned our backs on our JW past.

    If you are courageous enough to leave your WTS groomed arrogance ( we have all been there! ) at the door, you might just learn something.

    Quotes,

    As Bible scholar E. R. Thiele said about a Watchtower article on chronology, "It reminds me of the way an unscrupulous lawyer would deal with facts in order to support a case he knows not to be sound."

    Yes, and do you not think it is ironic that it his 'Chronology Of The Hebrew Kings' that another WTS apologist on this Board, Scholar, described in such glowing terms recently. Typical of WTS thinking, picking what is needed for its own use from the work of others, and discarding other parallel sections from the very same scholars that do not fit in with its own interpretation of the Bible.

    Some seekers of truth.

    Theile is humble enough to suggest in his book that though he feels he has answered some of the mysteries of dating the Hebrew Royal lineage, he could be wrong. No shunning for disagreeing with his views!

    HS

  • Rabbit
    Rabbit

    JW Ben,

    I can hardly add anything to the excellent posts above that showed you the WT's own words. I hope you will not be the typical "Hit and Run" JW poster. As has been said, this is a discussion board, I hope you came to discuss.

    I may be the one who brought up cannibalism in the other thread about blood transfusions. Remember...my Mom died...no blood transfusion?

    Now that the WT says it "might" be OK to accept transplants...here are 2 questions for you:

    Is it OK for just a little 'foreign' blood to be introduced to your body during surgery...how much exactly is too much?

    Are you aware that in all transplants there is quite a bit of blood from the donor within the cells, veins and arteries ? Especially in blood rich organs like the liver.

    Please explain how transplants are OK again, if NO amount of blood is allowed?

    Rabbit

  • AlanF
    AlanF

    JW Ben seems typical of JW defenders in trying to pretend that the Watchtower never said what it said.

    When the ban on organ transplants first came out in 1967, I was 16 years old, and it really pissed me off. I argued with my Dad about it. He thought that the ban was a great idea, but I thought it was among the most stupid things I'd ever heard. As if a kidney transplant were the same as eating one!

    Sure, the Society didn't explicitly say, "If you get a transplant, you'll be disfellowshipped." They don't have to say that. Their wording makes it plain to all tuned-in JWs. They used exactly the same arguments against transplants that they used against blood transfusions. The conclusion was a no-brainer: get a transplant, and you're out.

    By its wording, the March 15, 1980 Watchtower clearly acknowledged that getting a transplant had been a disfellowshipping offense. All JWs at the time knew that this was so.

    The Society is very clever in its wording of certain stupid doctrines. Somehow the writers must know that eventually the idiotic idea will be reversed, so they couch it in as ambiguous terms as they can. This means that ignorant JWs like JW Ben here will not know what the real doctrines were, since the literature of the time was ambiguous, and hardly any old-timers will admit to them. This is exactly what we see with the 1975 fiasco.

    AlanF

  • HappyDad
    HappyDad

    Great comments Blondie and everyone......

    But JWBen will not reply to them. He will pretend that he never read them because he is blind and has no rational response.

    Isn't freedom of thought and action based on intellegence beautiful?

    HappyDad

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia

    Of course, a blood transfusion is also transplantation ... it is not like eating blood, but never mind...

  • hillary_step
    hillary_step

    AlanF,

    The WTS defence and that of its apologists that 'we did not actually say that", clearly shows the Pharasaical view that they have of their own doctrines, which as you say are carefully and legalistically worded to imply a theological direction while avoiding having to pay out law-suits when these doctrines are followed and cause injury and death.

    Only a Jehovah's Witness would understand that when the Governing Body instruct their adherents that a certain course is frowned upon by God, they do not have to spell out the repurcussions to them Organizationally for them to get the point. This way the WTS manages to avoid any legal back-lash, while still maintianing a firm grip on their adherents.

    When the United States Supreme Court recognizes that the First Amendment is being used as a foil by numerous religions and other parties to damage its citizens without fear of legal address and attend to this disparity, then the WTS is finished as a high control group. Long live that day!

    HS

  • coffee_black
    coffee_black

    My dad died because of this policy in 1978. My parents did all the research and concluded that it was forbidden by the society. My dad was an elder of many years. I'm not going to argue as to what the society said about it. This was a real life situation and the result speaks for itself.

    Coffee

  • coffee_black
    coffee_black

    and....How do you think I felt when the article came out making it a matter of conscience? I was still dealing with the loss of my dad....and realizing that it had not been necessary.

    Coffee

  • BluesBrother
    BluesBrother

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

    When men of science conclude that this normal process will no longer work and they suggest removing the organ and replacing it directly with an organ from another human, this is simply a shortcut. Those who submit to such operations are thus living off the flesh of another human. That is cannibalistic.

    Cannibalism ! The word is clear enough Transplants were forbidden and that is a fact. Can you imagine the congs response if someone had actually commited cannibalism . The response would be clearcut. As Blondie said, those of us who were there in the time knew full well that transplants were morally wrong according to the Society. Incidentally, a lot of other people in those days thought they were wrong too.

    I learned something though from this thread. The article also said that one should not release ones body for medical research.

    ***

    w67 11/15 p. 703 Questions from Readers ***

    When it comes to deciding what to do with one?s own body or with the body of a deceased loved one, for which a Christian is responsible, the apostle Paul?s words at Romans 12:1 should not be overlooked: "I entreat you by the compassions of God, brothers, to present your bodies a sacrifice living, holy, acceptable to God, a sacred service with your power of reason." Baptized Christians have dedicated their lives, bodies included, to do the will of Jehovah their Creator. In view of this, can such a person donate his body or part of it for unrestricted use by doctors or others? Does a human have a God-given right to dedicate his body organs to scientific experimentation? Is it proper for him to allow such to be done with the body of a loved one? These are questions worthy of serious consideration.

    Not to be overlooked is the use to which a dead body might be put. Would a Christian who, while living, refused to give his blood to be used as a transfusion for some other person, allow his body to be turned over to a group or to a person and possibly at that time have the blood removed and used for transfusion, as has been done with some cadavers? (See, for example, Awake! of October 22, 1962, page 30.) A person might feel that he could stipulate that his body not be used in that way; but if many persons in authority refuse to abide by a Christian?s wishes about blood when he is alive, what reason is there to believe they will show more respect for his wishes after his death? Would they use his organs in cannibalistic medical experiments?

    Our bodies are the creation of Jehovah God. (Ps. 100:3; 95:6; Job 10:8) Christians might allow apparently necessary surgery to be performed, such as to remove a diseased limb, but they do not needlessly mutilate their bodies created by Jehovah. Would allowing a body to be mutilated after death be showing respect for and appreciation of God?s creation?"

    I was not aware of that . Some years later I actually contacted the medical authorities and obtained the forms to consent that my body be donated after death . I simply have a dislike of undertakers and the costs of it all and their expoitation of bereaved people's feelings at a vulnerable time (at least, that has been my experience).. I had no idea that the Society had spoken against it. Their argument is pretty poor in my opinion. When a person dies, the body is no longer required and has no sanctity IMHO

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit