Posts by OrphanCrow

There will always be martyrs. It is a human complex. I think of my JW sister, so self righteously and pridefully saying, with a twinge in her pathetic voice "Oh....woe is me. The doctors here can't operate on me. They don't have bloodless surgery." Defiantly resisting any discussion on the matter. "The Watchtower says. And they have da Troof, you know. That is just the way it is."

Do or die. She thrives on it. It keeps her from taking responsibilty for making her own decisions.

7

Brownstoner: How the Jehovah’s Witnesses Acquired Some of Brooklyn’s Most Insanely Valuable Properties

by AndersonsInfo in

jw
friends

http://www.brownstoner.com/blog/2016/01/jehovahs-witnesses-history-brooklyn-properties-selling/.

how the jehovah’s witnesses acquired some of brooklyn’s most insanely valuable properties by.

suzanne spellen 1/26/16 .

OrphanCrow

I am going to chime in on the nit picking...

Wasn't it Knorr and Franz who came down on Christmas and birthdays?

My mom was raised a JW - she was born in 1933. And she has books with "Merry Xmas" and "Happy Birthday" written in them given to her by her JW parents (very strict followers). I asked her about this and she said it wasn't really 'hard doctrine' until around the war. And Rutherford had very little influence - he was of poor health, was living out in California, and died in 1942.

37

How the Internet is Destroying Mormonism

by slimboyfat in

interesting video, shame it wasn't about jws.

http://youtu.be/-1bdbkjbzzy.

what a would be your top 5 shocking things you found out about jws on the internet?.

OrphanCrow

jookbeard: Choice? the sad thing is that choice is one thing that the R&F didn't have, suicide or a death bed JC, what a choice!

Oh, but...the JWs had already demonstrated that ability during WW2 - to die for Jehovah. Loyalty or death. They still flog that one to death.

It was that attribute that endeared them to Himmler. By the end of the war, the JWs who were selected to work for Himmler's SS network, were released on a handshake. Yeah...Himmler greatly admired the "loyalty or death" principle that the JWs demonstrated. In fact, he had plans to use them as a vanguard in conquered territory following German victory.

But...I digress.

37

How the Internet is Destroying Mormonism

by slimboyfat in

interesting video, shame it wasn't about jws.

http://youtu.be/-1bdbkjbzzy.

what a would be your top 5 shocking things you found out about jws on the internet?.

OrphanCrow

Oh...and another thing...

Where the internet was vital to me at the time I was reading books, was in opening lines of communication. I corresponded with several authors of the books I read, including Douglas Starr, the author of the book I first mentioned, asking questions. And I got good feedback.

I even managed to track down and correspond with a doctor that the JWs used in their early noblood propaganda. He was great.

That kind of information access and lines of communication are invaluable.

37

How the Internet is Destroying Mormonism

by slimboyfat in

interesting video, shame it wasn't about jws.

http://youtu.be/-1bdbkjbzzy.

what a would be your top 5 shocking things you found out about jws on the internet?.

OrphanCrow

I forgot to mention this...

The ideology of rejecting the use of blood transfusions was also, at the time, reflected in the WT's alliances with the world of chiropractry and oesteopaths. 'Bloodless surgery' at the time of WW2, was a term used by chiros - a form of 'deep massage' that was practiced by - guess who? - Dr. Felix Kersten, Heinrich Himmler's doctor. Kersten was the 'hero' of the JWs during the war. There is much more I could say about how the WT's quasi-medical beliefs were the basis for implementing a full-on blood prohibition and the JWs relationship with Himmler.

When I started to examine the history of the bloodless world, there was very little on the internet to fill in what I wanted to know - where did bloodless surgery originate and how come the JWs couldn't have blood? What was the connection and was there one? So most of my early research was done with the aid of much 'hard research' - I buried my nose in hard copy. Everything from a copy of Dr. Felix Kersten's journal to loads of stuff on Heinrich Himmler, the German who was treated by a 'bloodless surgeon', the friend of the JWs. I even frequented the medical library at the university hospital, looking for where and when bloodless medicine came about. I found lots, but it was hard.

It wasn't until a few years later that the current 'history of bloodless medicine' became available online. And...guess what? One of the authors of a textbook that is used in educating blood management professionals is written by a JW doctor. From Germany. With their version of 'the history of bloodless medicine'. You now can find out where it came from and all that...from a Jehovah's Witness. Watchtower propaganda.

Funny how that went full circle.

37

How the Internet is Destroying Mormonism

by slimboyfat in

interesting video, shame it wasn't about jws.

http://youtu.be/-1bdbkjbzzy.

what a would be your top 5 shocking things you found out about jws on the internet?.

OrphanCrow

I apologize in advance, SlimBoyFat, for de-railing this thread...but, the questions have been asked. And it would be rude not to answer. And besides, it still pertains to the information age explosion. What I am about to say wouldn't be possible without the sources to back it up.

OC, I always thought the blood ban came into full force in the early 1950's so what was Knorrs' motivation to think this dreadful doctrine up? did he just pluck it out of thin air? was it borrowed from another belief system?did he think about the repercussions for the R&F ? did he pay any attention to the destruction, death and damage it would do? they have a Jonestown tragedy many times over! did he just make it up because he could?.

The first mention of a blood transfusion ban came in July 1945, with one little hint of it in I believe, December 1944 - both mentioned in the WT magazine. I think I have those dates right - jwfacts has those dates.

When I first found that out, because most people don't realize when it became a prohibition along with me, I wanted to know why. Why would Knorr take a radically different stance on a procedure that had been implicitly approved in earlier literature and why then? Why would he ban blood transfusions when the rest of the world was making huge advances in that field?

So I took a look at where blood technology was during WW2. Doctrine is flexible (very flexible in the JWs) and can be manipulated in response to outside events. History is less flexible - some of it just gets covered up. So I read this book:

Blood: An Epic History of Medicine and Commerce by Douglas Starr - 2000

Starr gives a detailed account of blood history and examines each country's contribution to the advancement of blood technology. WW2 was responsible for many advances in the field of the medical use of blood - the US (Cohn) developed fractionization, the Russians used blood copiously (even employing cadavar blood) and the Japanese even tried horse blood. And the Canadians - it was a Canadian, in the Spanish Civil War, who developed the system that bloomed into blood banking.

There was only one country that lagged behind in their blood research. They went the other way when it came to blood transfusions. They didn't like them - for various reasons including ideologically. During the war, while everyone else was looking for ways to increase the use of life-saving blood transfusions, Germany was researching ways to reduce and eliminate the use of blood.

The Germans conducted their research in pursuit of clotting agents, and ways to reduce blood loss. At the same time, when they did resort to giving blood, they often didn't give enough. They misused the blood typing, based on erroneous interpetation of racial blood typing, which resulted in hemolytic reactions.

Knorr's roots were in Germany - he was related to the German Knorrs - the ones who owned all those food interests. Knorr Foods. Nathan Knorr was German.

The parameters of the German blood research during WW2 can be found in the pillars of today's blood management, a field of medicine that is heavily influenced by the Jehovah's Witnesses. Blood management follows the German ideology of WW2 blood research - small amounts of blood and given rarely, the use of clotting agents and minimal blood sampling.

So, to answer the question - did Knorr make it up because he could? Yes, he did. He could control a whole group of people's choices in blood use, thereby creating a convenient sample group for testing noblood technology. He had the power to do so and he did.

36

I have too much crap!! How to declutter/dehoard.....

by Muddy Waters in

some areas of our home are very nice, tidy, clean.

and other rooms are just junk and clutter and clothes and papers.... omg.

and now that we are getting older, we realize that we face a time of transition -- and this is hard to cope with too, as we believed the lie that we would never get old, etc.

OrphanCrow

Tough calls.

Yes. I support keeping as much archival originals as possible. I still have a few VHS tapes that I made. Binders full of black and white negatives. And photos galore. I did a bit of a cull. But, those old formats are valuable. A photograph still has an "object" status - pretty special. I have started to scan my negs but it is a project. I also have scanned most of my slide collection. But, I keep the originals too.

What my daughter has done is go through all her photos and make books of them through a photo store. Much neater and easier to look at. And then she threw the old ones out. She is a neat freak and a minimalist.

And I agree about the burning versus shredding - if you can do it. I had two weeks of nightime flames in my backyard that one summer. It was great.

36

I have too much crap!! How to declutter/dehoard.....

by Muddy Waters in

some areas of our home are very nice, tidy, clean.

and other rooms are just junk and clutter and clothes and papers.... omg.

and now that we are getting older, we realize that we face a time of transition -- and this is hard to cope with too, as we believed the lie that we would never get old, etc.

OrphanCrow

Greatteacher: It's neat and orderly and I have the space for it, so is it excessive? I refer back to it enough that I feel justified in keeping it. And, knowledge is important to me, so it feels important.

No, it isn't excessive. If I had been stationary I would have kept much of my notes and such. Your collection sounds neater than mine was and probably takes up less space.

I just was faced with some tough choices at times. I have lost, through damage, some valuable things - like some of my negatives and prints. One of my weaknesses is photographs. But, I now store them all in a big suitcase - I threw out all my frames the last move.

19

Where are they now?

by Sabin in

geoffrey jackson.

terrence o'brien.

vincent toole.

OrphanCrow

It will be whitewashed.

The spin will be along the lines of "the brothers who gave a good witness".