Jehovah's Witnesses, Christians, anyone: What does this quote from the Watchtower?

Question

...of 11/15/57 mean to you:

"When there is a diseased or defective organ, the usual way health is restored is by taking in nutrients. The body uses the food eaten to repair or heal the organ, gradually replacing the cells. 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. However, in allowing man to eat animal flesh Jehovah God did not grant permission for humans to try to perpetuate their lives by cannibalistically taking into their bodies human flesh, whether chewed or in the form of whole organs or body parts taken from others."

To preempt the JWs shrieking, "You're taking it out of contex", I'm not, but would be happy to email anyone the whole article.
This is an absolute statement, whose meaning is not changed by the contex.

If you read this as a Witness, would you think Jehovah approved or disapproved of organ transplants?

It was the Watchtower of 11/15 67. Sorry, Typo.

EVERYONE BE HONEST!! Do not let your bias for or agianst the JW's influence your answer.

John Lemmon: I like the Jimi Hendix version.

From the Watchtoer 3/15/80

"Regarding the transplantation of human tissue or bone from one human to another, this is a matter for conscientious decision by each one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Some Christians might feel that"

My point is that they flipped on this issue. It's now a "matter of conscience".

I asked a similar question and have had a raging email duel with a JW that they never said transplants were wrong. I don't see how anyone can misinterpret the 1967 article.

Non JW's have got ot understand that people live their lives by what the JW leadership says. In 1967, they say no organ transplants, in 1980, it's up to your conscience. The date of the article is important becasue from 1967 until the laye 70's, JW's did not take organ transplants. I know two who died, but could have lived. Both families left the JW's immediatly when the "New" view was publised. One of the dead was a 10 year old girl. The other was a 42 year old mother of 3. I new both. The little girl was my neice.

Vot: What you say is the Witness position today. It was not ther Witness position in 1967 and during most of the 70's. I lived this. I was in the hospital when the elders ganged up on my sister and read this 1967 Waychtoer to her while her and her husband made the agonizing decision, based on their "Bible trianed conscience to reject the transplant."

You simply prove my point. It's Ok today. So, my neice would have lived if it happened in 1980.

PPPP. answer the question. Your post is just Yada Yada.

PPPP, I'm not looking for a "negative" answer. I'm looking for what people honsetly think the quotes says. Do not let my bias or your bias effect your answer. Ny addtional edits are to answer specific questions.

Just answer the original question. What does it mean? Forget about my motivations. Lets see how honest you are. It's like VOT's answer. Its sidestepping the question.

tahoe 02. Thanks for the whole post. Everyone should read it and decide.

The whole article is anti transplant. Read it yourself. Antone can see that I didn't take the above out of contex. In fact the rest of the article agrees with the above quote. Thanks for that.

TAHOE 02; Thanks for the whole article. I just read it through again for probably the 20th time. If you cannot see that the Society was anti organ transplant in 67 and flipped in 80, you have been blinded.

"There is none so blind as one who WILL not see"

TAHOE: Did you read this part?

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."

Would you say that is pro or anti transplant?

Tahoe, the whole article proves my point.

Thanks for the help!

Mommy of 1: Wow, raw honesty!

Refreshing!!

Actung: Thanks

Sugarlips: Thats Cklassic: I want to go back??

Ok, you see right thru me. They did change the rule about sex outside of marriage, right? ...and the open bar on Thursday night? I'm back!!!

I HAVE SEEN THE "NEW" LIGHT....NOT!!!!

Answer 1

It means you were right.

I am a Jehovah's Witness and up until 4 or 5 months ago when I started doing indepth research about my religion, I was totally oblivious to half the things people said about us.

I can tell you from experience that most Jehovah's Witnesses have very little knowledge of the history of our religion, except for the very "small" bits and pieces we receive from our literature.

It took me years to overcome my fear of so-called "apostate" literature but once I did what I found was that the stuff I read was NOT apostate at all, but was really a compilation of old articles and books. (like the one you have quoted).

I have been very SHOCKED at some of the things I have read that we used to believe and teach as the "truth".

I can say this---the organization is right about one thing---If you read "outside" information your faith WILL indeed be weakened, not because it is false information, but because it is real and you can read it right from the books they published and see how VERY hard it is to believe that this organization has ever had God's backing.

Answer 2

That 1967 article would leave all JWs of that era in no doubt that Watchtower Society policy was to avoid transplants, even at risk of losing one's life. Remember too that it would be studied by all JWs world-wide on a Sunday at their Kingdom Halls, during the Watchtower study hour. They would all hear the paragraph read out loud, the printed question for that paragraph would be read, and individuals would put up their hands hoping to be invited to answer what they understood the paragraph to be saying. I don't think you are going to get any JW who was present at that study in either late 1967 or early 1968 to admit they agreed with that policy. Many of them will have died or no longer be JWs. Those that remain will find their selective amnesia kicking in.

The time factor is important. Wt.Soc leaders try to wait as long as possible before changing any doctrine / policy. They hope the wave of new (unquestioning) recruits will be in place to carry the policy change through without realising a big change has taken place. They know that once JWs have been toeing the line obediently for about 20 years, they are not likely to make waves because they have invested too much negative spiritual equity to pull out. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. The Christians amongst us will be praying for JWs to be released from this deadly bondage.

Answer 3

I can't read last month's issue since I didn't answer the door when a pair of JWs were knocking on my front door, I just ignored them and watched tv, eventually they went away.

JW Church do not believe in organ transplants or blood transfusions among many other things because they think its a gross sin to accept a blood transfusion or any blood components, since the JW's Bible called the 'New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures' states in Acts 15:29 - to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication. If YOU carefully keep yourselves from these things, YOU will prosper. Good health to YOU!” There are probably some Jehovah Witnesses that will go against the Church and accept a organ transplant but there are some who won't even if it costs them their life. I guess its the same as with any religion, just cuz you are a believer doesn't mean that you won't do something that is not forbidden. If a JW went and got an organ transplant, I wouldn't be surprised if he/she gets penalized by the JW Church. Just take a close look at their website and you will see how they treat JW members who fail to meet their standards. The reason for the flipflopping on the transplant issue is cuz its a cult and are probably losing members like mad and having a harder time recruiting new members.


(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")-(")
Sweetie

Answer 4

We live in times hard to deal with as stated in the Bible.

I am not surprised that an advancement in science and medicine can have ethical questions.

At the early stages of “organ transplants” other people,even in medical fields, can call that as “medical cannibalism”.

Even now, some people still call “organ transplant” as a form of cannibalism.

Example:
Japanese sociologist T Awaya describes the trend more bluntly: 'We are now eyeing each others' bodies greedily, as a potential source of detachable spare parts with which to extend our lives.' And he calls it a form of 'social or "friendly" cannibalism'.
So the point is, as understanding of these medical advances become clearer, then ethical understanding becomes clearer and corrected if necessary.

Answer 5

Jehovah's Witnesses are Christians.

It would seem that more than 50 years ago, there were erroneous ideas about organ transplants. Incidentally, many other sincere Christians were similarly apprehensive about the godliness of such transplants in the 1950's.

Ironically, Jehovah's Witnesses are unique in that they later formally recognized that the bible does not actually forbid cannibalism. Thus, even by this unique measure, there seems no biblical basis for rejecting organ transplants. The early publications of Jehovah's Witnesses were wrong to suggest that transplants were wrong, and of course Jehovah's Witnesses admitted as such as soon as they recognized their error.

Learn more:
http://jw-media.org/beliefs/medical.htm
http://watchtower.org/e/20000108/article_01.htm

Answer 6

W 80 3/15 p31

Regarding the transplantation of human tissue or bone from one human to another, this is a matter for conscientious decision by each one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Some Christians might feel that taking into their bodies any tissue or body part from another human is cannibalistic. They might hold that the transplanted human material is intended to become part of the recipient’s body to keep him alive and functioning. They might not see it as fundamentally different from consuming flesh through the mouth. Such feelings may arise from considering that God did not make specific provision for man to eat the flesh of his fellowman when he made provision for humans to eat the flesh of animals that had been drained of their life-sustaining blood. They may give consideration also to the way people in Bible times viewed sustaining themselves by taking in human flesh. For example, see the account at 2 Kings 6:24-30; Deuteronomy 28:53-57; Lamentations 2:20 and 4:10. At John 6:48-66, Jesus spoke figuratively of eating his flesh and drinking his blood. On hearing this discussion and not perceiving the spiritual significance of his words, some of his Jewish disciples were shocked and turned from following him. These accounts illustrate how some humans felt about eating human flesh.

Other sincere Christians today may feel that the Bible does not definitely rule out medical transplants of human organs. They may reason that in some cases the human material is not expected to become a permanent part of the recipient’s body. Body cells are said to be replaced about every seven years, and this would be true of any human body parts that would be transplanted. It may be argued, too, that organ transplants are different from cannibalism since the “donor” is not killed to supply food. In some cases persons nearing death actually have willed body parts to be used for transplants. Of course, if a transplant should require taking in another person’s blood, undeniably that would be contrary to God’s command.—Acts 15:19, 20.

Clearly, personal views and conscientious feelings vary on this issue of transplantation. It is well known that the use of human materials for human consumption varies all the way from minor items, such as hormones and corneas, to major organs, such as kidneys and hearts. While the Bible specifically forbids consuming blood, there is no Biblical command pointedly forbidding the taking in of other human tissue. For this reason, each individual faced with making a decision on this matter should carefully and prayerfully weigh matters and then decide conscientiously what he or she could or could not do before God. It is a matter for personal decision. (Gal. 6:5) The congregation judicial committee would not take disciplinary action if someone accepted an organ transplant.

Answer 7

it really is an interesting way to look at things- is it cannibalism in Gods eyes? We won't know till we meet Him. but I am not saying I would not donate a kidney to a person whom I loved to heal them. It is just a new way to view the subject, and don't let other people get you angry or upset with their beliefs- just let them be.

Answer 8

Unfortunately, no matter how much proof we have in black and white about the constant flip-flopping of JW doctrine's you will always get your basic "you're lying" or "leave the JW alone" or my personal favorite the ever popular "cut and paste from Watchtower or Awake!". There are none so blind as those that cannot see!

Answer 9

I think that JWs are certainly entitled to their beliefs, but this is a bit extreme. I suppose that if the patient refused the transplant, that's one thing, but I'd really have to take a long, hard look at a kid who wanted to live who needed a new liver and Mom and Dad wouldn't let him get it because they were Jehovah's Witnesses. That's borderline murder in my book.

Answer 10

It means like always the organization are playing with the lives of their followers. What I'm pained about is this What about all the ones who lost their lives because of the Watchtower rules will they have been exonerated for doing so, Will a apology be given to the dead. what a waste for flip flopping on life and death issues. I research also and found out they are being sued! That has a way of changing policy. God and I say God because I refuse to call him by a catholic name given to him does not flip flop. I would like to ask you if you know if the JW's have a book on what to believe because tracing their beliefs back to Russell one would have to know what are the rules now. I like jimi's Hendrix version also and did you know that a watchtower is to keep people in and not let them out. Peace be with you brother in Christ and thank you for the flash of new light! I love it. Flash more new light to me.