i have read countless times in this site and others that there is speculation that someone high up in the watchtower world required an organ transplant, and then because of that, their position that they had held since 1967 changed in 1980.i believe i have found a clue to who that person might have been.
i leave it to the exjw community to investigate further, but it's tantalizing!it is waay too much of a coincidence that:lee cordaway got a phone call in january 1980 that his kidneys were failing.
lee was 18 years old at the time.watchtower printed its "organ transplants are allowed now" article in march 1980.. january 1981: lee goes into the organ donor list for new kidneys.august 1981: lee receives his new kidney.september 1981: lee's new kidney is rejected, he has to have it removed.
TD: Childhood immunizations for measles, diphtheria and polio (IPV) all contained albumin and these had become mandatory to attend school.
Not in Canada.
I was born a few years before the 1961 hammer came down and my parents faithfully followed the Blood Law book - I wasn't vaccinated.
i have read countless times in this site and others that there is speculation that someone high up in the watchtower world required an organ transplant, and then because of that, their position that they had held since 1967 changed in 1980.i believe i have found a clue to who that person might have been.
i leave it to the exjw community to investigate further, but it's tantalizing!it is waay too much of a coincidence that:lee cordaway got a phone call in january 1980 that his kidneys were failing.
lee was 18 years old at the time.watchtower printed its "organ transplants are allowed now" article in march 1980.. january 1981: lee goes into the organ donor list for new kidneys.august 1981: lee receives his new kidney.september 1981: lee's new kidney is rejected, he has to have it removed.
The WT flipflopped on the use of blood components in 1961 when they published the pamphlet "Blood, Medicine and the Law of God". (Incidentally, 1961 was right about the time that Denton Cooley started doing cardiac surgery on JW patients using a heart and lung machine - a cell saver)
From the 1961 blood law book:
In view of the constant developments in the field of medical research, new treatments involving the use of blood and its component parts are constantly coming to the fore. But regardless of the method used to infuse it into the body and regardless of whether it is whole blood or a blood substance that is involved, God's law remains the same. If it is - blood and it is being used to nourish or to sustain life the divine law clearly applies.
and
Although Jehovah's witnesses will not eat blood as a food, nor in medical use consent to any kind of blood transfusion or, in place of it, an infusion of any blood fraction or blood substance, this does not rule out all medical treatment.
I think it was also in 1961 that taking a blood transfusion became a disfellowshipping offense (???).
1961 was a defining year in the blood phobia doctrine. The WT tightened up their rules on blood. Previously "allowed" fractions and serums became taboo.
i have read countless times in this site and others that there is speculation that someone high up in the watchtower world required an organ transplant, and then because of that, their position that they had held since 1967 changed in 1980.i believe i have found a clue to who that person might have been.
i leave it to the exjw community to investigate further, but it's tantalizing!it is waay too much of a coincidence that:lee cordaway got a phone call in january 1980 that his kidneys were failing.
lee was 18 years old at the time.watchtower printed its "organ transplants are allowed now" article in march 1980.. january 1981: lee goes into the organ donor list for new kidneys.august 1981: lee receives his new kidney.september 1981: lee's new kidney is rejected, he has to have it removed.
ILoveTTATT: Well, the report says that most of the witnesses rejected ALG... globulin... because they considered it to be a blood product. So either it was banned outright or we had some really stupid JW's who rejected stuff that was already allowed...
Fractions were "allowed" in WT literature as early as 1978. (the study we have been discussing started in 1979)
Watchtower June 15, 1978, Questions from readers:
What, however, about accepting serum injections to fight against disease, such as are employed for diphtheria, tetanus, viral hepatitis, rabies, hemophilia and Rh incompatibility? This seems to fall into a ‘gray area.’ Some Christians believe that accepting a small amount of a blood derivative for such a purpose would not be a manifestation of disrespect for God’s law; their conscience would permit such. (Compare Luke 6:1-5.) Others, though, feel conscientiously obliged to refuse serums because these contain blood, though only a tiny amount. Hence, we have taken the position that this question must be resolved by each individual on a personal basis. We urge each one to strive to have a clear conscience and to be responsive to God’s guidance found in His Word.—Ps. 119:105.
In 1981, Gene Smalley and the WT doctor, Dr. Dixon, published an article that was presented to the medical community (and has been quoted ad nauseum ever since...) that also claimed that acceptance of blood "fractions" was a personal decision:
...Witnesses' religious understanding does not absolutely prohibit the use of components such as albumin, immune globulins, and hemophiliac preparations; each Witness must decide individually if he can accept these.
Dio:
When did they start allowing cell salvage???
When Haemonetics developed the first salvage machine in the mid-70s. Of course, the org claimed that it was only okay if "the blood wasn't stored". How this is even possible is beyond me - storage is always involved - the patient's blood isn't returned to their body right away - of course there is a storage period. It can't be avoided. However, Smalley/Dixon said this to the medical community in 1981:
Techniques for intraoperative collection or hemodilution that involve blood storage are objectionable to them. However, many Witnesses permit the use of dialysis and heart-lung equipment (non-blood-prime) as well as intraoperative salvage where the extracorporeal circulation is uninterrupted; the physician should consult with the individual patient as to what his conscience dictates.
i have read countless times in this site and others that there is speculation that someone high up in the watchtower world required an organ transplant, and then because of that, their position that they had held since 1967 changed in 1980.i believe i have found a clue to who that person might have been.
i leave it to the exjw community to investigate further, but it's tantalizing!it is waay too much of a coincidence that:lee cordaway got a phone call in january 1980 that his kidneys were failing.
lee was 18 years old at the time.watchtower printed its "organ transplants are allowed now" article in march 1980.. january 1981: lee goes into the organ donor list for new kidneys.august 1981: lee receives his new kidney.september 1981: lee's new kidney is rejected, he has to have it removed.
ILoveTTATT, you will notice that the WT also left out this finding of the same study:
Although the outcomes after renal transplantation in Jehovah's Witnesses were similar to those of the control group, the Jehovah's Witnesses had an increased susceptibility to rejection episodes. The cumulative percentage of incidence of primary rejection episodes was 77 per cent at three months in the Jehovah's Witnesses versus 44 per cent at 21 months in the matched control group. The consequence of early allograft dysfunction from rejection was particularly detrimental to Jehovah's Witnesses who developed severe anemia (hemoglobin (Hgb)* 4.5 g per cent)-two early deaths occurred in the subgroup with this combination of problems.
i'm sure most are familiar with the greenlee's story floating around the internet.
so what if some members of the governing body have been accused of molesting a child and used the 2 witness rule to silence a accusation?
so could it be that because some high up watchtower corporation person/persons has clung to the rule because it save's his corporate ass.
Dio: Imagine the pain of believing your God wants you to stay quiet and suffer or thinking you may have played a part?
But just imagine the benefits of being rewarded for your silence with power.
Power - the ultimate reward that erases all sins. And crimes.
i have read countless times in this site and others that there is speculation that someone high up in the watchtower world required an organ transplant, and then because of that, their position that they had held since 1967 changed in 1980.i believe i have found a clue to who that person might have been.
i leave it to the exjw community to investigate further, but it's tantalizing!it is waay too much of a coincidence that:lee cordaway got a phone call in january 1980 that his kidneys were failing.
lee was 18 years old at the time.watchtower printed its "organ transplants are allowed now" article in march 1980.. january 1981: lee goes into the organ donor list for new kidneys.august 1981: lee receives his new kidney.september 1981: lee's new kidney is rejected, he has to have it removed.
Kidney transplants on Jehovah's Witness patients started in 1979, two years previous to Lee's kidney transplant and a year before the WT's shift in position on organ transplants.
A single-center experience of renal transplantation in thirteen Jehovah's Witnesses.
Abstract
The beneficial effects of pretransplant blood transfusions on the success rate of renal transplantation have been so overwhelmingly emphasized that there is virtually no information on the fate of grafts in nontransfused patients transplanted during the last decade. Since 1979, all patients who have undergone renal transplantation at the University of Minnesota have routinely received random blood transfusions except Jehovah's Witnesses. Jehovah's Witnesses refuse transfusions but will accept renal allografts. From 1979 to May 30, 1987, primary renal allografts were placed in thirteen nontransfused Jehovah's Witnesses; six patients received kidneys from mismatched living-related donors, two patients received HLA-identical sibling grafts, and five patients received cadaveric renal allografts. The range of follow-up of the thirteen patients was 3-93 months, with a mean of 45 months and a median of 50 months. The outcomes after renal transplantation in Jehovah's Witnesses were compared with those of a paired control group (n = 25) matched for age, date of transplant, donor source, and diabetic status. The overall three-year actuarial patient and graft survival rates of the Jehovah's Witnesses were 83 per cent and 66 per cent, versus 80 per cent and 77 per cent for the controls. Although the outcomes after renal transplantation in Jehovah's Witnesses were similar to those of the control group, the Jehovah's Witnesses had an increased susceptibility to rejection episodes. The cumulative percentage of incidence of primary rejection episodes was 77 per cent at three months in the Jehovah's Witnesses versus 44 per cent at 21 months in the matched control group. The consequence of early allograft dysfunction from rejection was particularly detrimental to Jehovah's Witnesses who developed severe anemia (hemoglobin (Hgb)* 4.5 g per cent)-two early deaths occurred in the subgroup with this combination of problems. The overall results suggest that renal transplantation can be safely and efficaciously applied to most Jehovah's Witnesses but those with anemia who undergo early rejection episodes are a high-risk group relative to other transplant patients.
The organ transplant reversal was only published in the Watchtower after it was already taking place in the medical world.
This is the common theme when comparing timelines between medical journals and the developments in the blood industry - the procedures that the WT has approved over the years always follow after the procedure has already been done on JWs.
Other examples are hemodilution and cell salvage - both were being done on JWs for years before the WT announced any kind of "official" approval.
And another comment about the significance of the year 1979 - that was the year that the current Hospital Liaison Committees were being formed. The WT was well aware that JW patients were getting kidney transplants - the WT was involved in arranging those transplants.
*edit to add: Lee wasn't the first JW to get a kidney transplant - he was just one of those medical subjects used in the above study. I don't think it was any JW in particular that needed a kidney that made the WT shift their stance - it was the financial benefits that the org would have received for directing and organizing the experimental group for that study that was the impetus.
i'm sure most are familiar with the greenlee's story floating around the internet.
so what if some members of the governing body have been accused of molesting a child and used the 2 witness rule to silence a accusation?
so could it be that because some high up watchtower corporation person/persons has clung to the rule because it save's his corporate ass.
I think it is quite natural to speculate...as long as people know that it is just a speculation. Speculation arises when a person doesn't know something and some speculations are sound. Some aren't.
Slim, you said "...abusers are much more common than spies" and I would like to expand on that thought and say this:
Victims are much, much more common that abusers.
So, if we are talking in speculative terms, I would say that there is a higher probability that there are victims in that group of 8 holy men, than there are abusers.
Why does org protect the child abuse documents? Who usually does the protecting in an abuser-victim relationship? Victims do.
And I will leave it to the reader to speculate who that abuser was, that these men are protecting...an abuser so high up that they have to protect him. Pure speculation, of course.
posted here:.
https://docs.zoho.com/sheet/published.do?rid=740aq85115d1a04174c4d867e056351ad6836.
biggest changes:.
berryjerry:
It is possible - however, those declines started 8 years ago. The only real legal threat in Canada was within the past year.
It could be the org is doing asset control in preparation for upcoming legal battles.
8 years ago? Yeah...that would be about right. The Royal Commission in Australia was announced in 2012, not to mention the child abuse cases that were just getting rolling then. The org could hear the footsteps. They knew what was coming.
Just because "there was no real legal threat" to the Canadian branch at the time, doesn't have much bearing when the org was well aware that the abuse problem is global and that Canada is a cousin to Australia.
Footsteps...and astute financial planning/handling...stash the cash, boys
posted here:.
https://docs.zoho.com/sheet/published.do?rid=740aq85115d1a04174c4d867e056351ad6836.
biggest changes:.
JeffT: The only financial statement that would actually tell us what's going on is a consolidated statement for ALL of the Watchtower's related entities. A thin slice of the pie (which is what these numbers represent) don't tell us anything about the pie as a whole. Transferring money from one operation to another may look like money disappeared if you're only looking at the outgoing transaction. We need to know where the money WENT.
Agree
Just examining each branch separately doesn't tell us much. And, I think it is important to take into account the different tax laws for each country to get a clearer picture of how the org moves money around.
For example, the Canadian branch tax returns had an anomaly show up a few years back that would affect an analysis if it wasn't taken into consideration. It was in 2014(3?) when the org forgave all those KH loans. And why? It was because the Canadian Revenue Agency made them do it. Charities could no longer act as banks so the org had to forgive those loans. Which skewed their asset/liability figures dramatically.
A shell game, indeed
i can’t speak for everyone, but in my experience my whole life as a witness, people, mainly woman , were speaken of very poorly for “commiting fornication”.
and everyone was so repulsed by women who wore “revealing” clothes, always saying, “women wear things like that, or let their daughters go out like that, and then wonder why their raped.” which makes me want to throw up.
if you even got in trouble for a groping session, you were the talk of gossip for weeks, maybe for years if some had it in for you.
addison: If only they had the same attitude towards sex offenders...
I also am somewhat puzzled by the org's attitude towards child sex offenders.
What leaves me scratching my head is how someone can be seen just going into somebody else's house, and if they don't emerge by morning or were "unchaperoned" or something equally silly, that person can be disfellowshipped for adultery (or fornication or porneia or something like that - improper sexual behavior).
And yet...child sex abuse doesn't happen unless two other people saw it actually take place.
Why the different standard?
And here is another thing. Why aren't the married men who commit sexual crimes against children accused of adultery? Have they not had sex outside of the marriage arrangement? Does a JW wife have scriptural grounds for divorce if her husband has been having sex with children?
