Posts by OrphanCrow

204

Candace Conti Settles

by Nitty-Gritty in

hot topic on topix seems to be candace conti settlement.

but it's all quiet here.

are you guys aware that your hero, who was not in it for the money but to change policies, settled without changing anything?

OrphanCrow

nelim: For the record, WT policy already has changed with the Oct 2012 letter. Pedophiles are not allowed to go door-to-door anymore alone; elders have to take care they are assigned to work with someone else and are to be supervised.

That is a good start and I can see that this changed policy is likely directly related to the outcome of Candace's court case.

This is where it should start - by taking a look at policies that can be changed. Eliminating the two witness rule is another, and making mandatory reporting for elders - directly to the police and not to the WTS - is another place.

I think that all elders or anyone in the congregation who works with children (and this applies to all churches) should be required to take a course given by professionals that educates them on how to deal with suspected cases of child abuse and how to monitor convicted sex offenders for possible infractions. The elders don't know what they need to know - they are ignorant about the issue. And they are not going to learn about it from the WTS. Won't happen.

The entire mindset of the JWs has to change - there is so much systemic abuse, that occurs within, that the victims are often the ones who are defending the perpetrators - so many JWs that I have encountered don't even know what abuse is. It is all they have ever known - it is normalized.

I also think that it is unrealistic to expect or demand that the elders make "an announcement to the congregation" about a sex offender in their midst. Their responsibility is to monitor behavior and report - to the proper authorities - any infractions. Requiring announcements from the platform in a KH would open a whole can of legal worms that would have repercussions across a wide swath of our society.
The responsibility to be self-informed, I am afraid, is sometimes the only recourse for safety that we have.

For example, i live in a city where there is a known sex offender who carries the "high risk to re-offend" label. The police post updates on a regular basis, both in the newspaper and online. His photo has been circulated publicly for years. He has violated his conditions several times and each time he is re-released, the police issue another public warning, letting the public know where he is living. I know a lot about this guy's movements and who he is - he works for a construction company that I am familiar with - and he is often at the house across the street from where my daughter lives. The bastard is far too close for my liking - he stepped onto the property the other day when I was outside having a smoke and I just got up from the step, and went back inside and locked the door. There isn't much else you can do - I carry a knife on me whenever I am over there and we all keep a strict watch on his movements. The neighbor lady called the cops when she recognized him and they just said that they can't do anything unless he violates his parole conditions.

Well, whatever. If he gives me trouble, he won't emerge unharmed.

204

Candace Conti Settles

by Nitty-Gritty in

hot topic on topix seems to be candace conti settlement.

but it's all quiet here.

are you guys aware that your hero, who was not in it for the money but to change policies, settled without changing anything?

OrphanCrow

Nitty-Gritty: but once they are found out to be practicing these things they are disfellowshipped and no longer JWs.

Oh my goodness. You made that post while I was typing mine. Now I have to revise what I said about "change happens".

Sigh. I should say - "Change happens with some people" Obviously, Some people still believe in what is not true, Some people refuse to change their views or beliefs about the practices of the JWs.

204

Candace Conti Settles

by Nitty-Gritty in

hot topic on topix seems to be candace conti settlement.

but it's all quiet here.

are you guys aware that your hero, who was not in it for the money but to change policies, settled without changing anything?

OrphanCrow

Finkelstein: Nitty Gritty says Remember her aim she said was not the money, but to change WT policy. WT policy was not changed.
That remains to be seen for this is still new and recent of an event.

You are right Finkelstein. We don't know what repercussions or changes yet that may happen. Each case, each tiny step, is a victory.

True story:

Over 20 years ago, I took on the court system. Family court. I did not agree with the way custody was viewed in the court system at the time (Canada). So, I took on what I was told by many lawyers, was an unwinnable stance. I dug my heels in and went to war. I spent eight years in the court system, I lost track of the number of court appearances I made - in civil court, in criminal court, and in family court. Sometimes I had a lawyer, sometimes not. I represented myself many times - the law library became my home away from home sometimes. Sometimes I lost, sometimes I won, sometimes those victories felt like the end of the world because of the price I paid - both myself and my daughter paid terribly at times.

I even had lawyers refuse to represent me - but I also had lawyers who helped me out, who would give me advice and help me file papers with no charge. They were my cheerleaders!

But I kept fighting, and at the end of eight years, I won. I set precedent in the Family Court System. I know I did - because now, twenty years later, I hear of women winning custody battles on the same grounds of what I was the first to win on.

So I guess what I am saying is never give up - when you are right, you are right. Take the victories, learn what works and what doesn't. And keep on fighting. Change happens. It really does.

Yay! for Candace! She truly has emerged from battle with a flag of victory - a bit tattered and torn, but a victory nonetheless.

11

We can no longer support "religious freedom" says the ACLU

by StarTrekAngel in

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/congress-should-amend-the-abused-religious-freedom-restoration-act/2015/06/25/ee6aaa46-19d8-11e5-ab92-c75ae6ab94b5_story.html

OrphanCrow

fiddler: I'm reading Christopher Hitchens "god is not Great" and the statement he makes repeatedly, "religion poisons everything", is so true.

Fiddler, I read an article recently in a law journal (can't find it now, sorry...) that made the case that the function of religion in our society is that it acts as the site where secular law defines itself. Secular law constantly unfolds and plays itself out against religious beliefs. Religion, in that sense, is what defines secularism,

34

Do you ever feel strangely drawn towards Conspiracy Theories?

by JW_Rogue in

after mentally awakening to the idea that jws don't have the truth i strangely found myself delving into all encompassing conspiracy theories.

not that i believed them but something about them seemed quite fascinating.

i was especially drawn to the idea of a new world order/one world government.

OrphanCrow

"Conspiracy Theories" is an interesting topic. I have a morbid fascination with insanity and so, of course, I have examined the concept of conspiracy theory for many years. And of course, I have been motivated by my curiosity by realizing at an early age that I had been deceived in a fairly large way by a nebulous organization of men in New York.

Strong Haiku brought up a good point:

A good article on the subject on how we are wired for "patternicity" and "agency" and how those things lead to strange beliefs (e.g. conspiracy theories)...
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/skeptic-agenticity/

Human beings are animals constrained by their biology, their environment, and their genetics. We cannot help but be pattern recognizing creatures - it is hard wired into us. It is how we interact with our environment - always looking for, and recognizing patterns, and then trying to make what we perceive fit into a larger picture, adjusting our awareness as we add data into our brains.

I think that there is as much "strange belief" in the total rejection of what we don't know as there is in total acceptance of everything we take in as data. On one side you have those who readily adopt whatever belief is the flavor of the month, and those who reject out of hand anything that doesn't fit their limited view of the world. I think I fall someplace in the middle of that spectrum - I am a conspiracy theorist agnostic, if you will.

The reason I say this is that I have found that what popular culture is so quick to dump into the "conspiracy" bucket, is often just a lack of information about how the world operates.

Here is an example (or two...):

Several years ago, my son had moved out to a farm that had an unlimited view of the sky. He was all agitated one day because he had saw "chemtrails" above his house - a large pattern of jet trails. He had been listening to Alex Bell and got all excited. I had never heard the term before, and had to ask him to explain. Well, he burbled out something about controlling weather, and chemicals. I was puzzled - to me, that was no conspiracy theory. It is no secret that the military has been using our skies to do chemical warfare testing ever since the end of the Second World War. And it was no secret back in the early 60s where I grew up that some of the military planes that flew overhead were "cloud seeding". It was common practice - we just didn't call it "chemtrails".

About UFOs. I have seen many. UFO sightings are common in the area I grew up. I found it humorous one day recently when I went to an "official" page that listed where the most UFOs are spotted globally. It was hilarious that my province in Canada had no sightings listed - it is so common that nobody bothers to report the sightings - many in Northern Canada, realize that those skies are ideal for military maneuvers. Pretty much all of my friends up north, myself included, have seen strange, unexplained, celestial objects - some very interesting accounts from many sources. It makes for good drinking stories around the campfire. UFOs? Of course - there is lots that happens "up there" that we don't know about. Conspiracy theory or just things we don't know yet?

I always try to look to the sources for what I encounter theoretically - how credible is the author? Who published the material? And, if it is a historical account - whose voice is saying it? What is their "political" positioning? And, this is the most critical question of - what is being left out? History is malleable. Historical accounts always come from a biased position. It is in the gaps, the untold stories, that sometimes the most significant things have disappeared, later to be resurrected and placed into the historical account..

Anyways, i am an agnostic - i have had far too many things that I thought were far-fetched at one time, been proven to be right later. I try to exercise open mindedness flavored with as much rationality as I can muster. I always look for the material answer for the unexplained. Those far out crazy conspiracy theories come from something, even if it is just from the fact that we are human beings who cannot help but behave the way we are - as creatures with constraints upon them. Our patterns of behavior are unavoidable. We are products of our cultures.

11

We can no longer support "religious freedom" says the ACLU

by StarTrekAngel in

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/congress-should-amend-the-abused-religious-freedom-restoration-act/2015/06/25/ee6aaa46-19d8-11e5-ab92-c75ae6ab94b5_story.html

OrphanCrow

How ironic that the ACLU got its start by representing people who were fighting for religious freedom, and now, almost 100 years later, they can see the harmful effects of allowing religions to infringe on the rights of others.

Having the freedom to believe what you want is one thing - that is a no brainer - however, the practice of those beliefs, if it harms other people, should never be allowed. Far too many people are harmed in the carrying out of religious doctrine.

Institutionalized religion is a nesting ground for human rights abuses.

8

Request For Information: 1935 trial of Paul Balzereit

by Saintbertholdt in

has anyone ever come across the court transcript of the trial of paul balzereit by the nazi state in december 1935 in halle?.

or has anyone come across the 1936 german yearbook article discussing the matter?.

the transcript incensed rutherford which resulted in balzereit being publicly disfellowshipped.. the watchtower corporation seems to have kept a transcript because they quoted out of it in the 1974 yearbook.. anyway below is what rutherford wrote in an open letter to the german witnesses in 1936 (as you probably already know):.

OrphanCrow

If you can track down Johannes Wrobel, he may have some archival material from Germany.

There is information about him on this thread from 6 years ago:

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/170499/big-news-leader-german-watchtower-history-archives-resignes-leaves-branch-office?size=20&page=1

From that thread *the link doesn't work anymore)

He has set up a small website at http://www.jwrobel.de. There he states his whole c.v. including that he resigned as the leader of the Watchtower History Archives in November 08 and that he cancelled his service for the Watchtower Society after 36 years. For the time being, he returned to private life but is available for the support of research projects by request. Finally, he thanks all friends, collegues for their support in the research projects on Bible Students/JW.

162

Lorenz Reibling gives interview about real estate

by OrphanCrow in

this interview was posted april 16, 2015 on youtube.

lorenz reibling's replies to the reporter in argentina are in english.. lorenz reibling is intimately connected to the watchtower society and, according to some sources, is a jw himself.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3ssa-9yvii.

so who is lorenz reibling?

OrphanCrow

Crazyguy: Knorr pushed the blood doctrine in 1945 I'm wondering if there's away to see if her had any connections to these men from Germany?

I have always wondered about Knorr's connections to Germany and who he would have known there.

I just found this little quote from a website. I don't know how credible the source is, but it would explain why Knorr accompanied Rutherford on his trips to Germany, and who Knorr's "in" was in Germany.

Nathan Homer Knorr in 1942 after Rutherford's death President of the WTG. Knorr had special connections to Germany. He was related to the family CH Knorr in Heilbronn. Even today, soups and seasonings Knorr a household name.

http://www.sektenausstieg.net/sekten/26-zeugen-jehovas/staat/nationalsozialismus/4031-paul-balzereit-und-die-wachtturm-gesellschaft

That doesn't link Knorr to bloodless men, but if true, would explain his ease of passage to Germany leading up to and after the war.

53

I Don't Get It!

by John Aquila in

there are literally about thirty young single very good looking sisters in this one kingdom hall under the age of 30. that is just one kingdom hall.

in the circuit there are literally hundreds of young beautiful jw girls under 30 who are single and anxious to get married.

about two years ago, this one single good looking brother who is about 30 years old and who is an elder married this plain looking sister who is 59 years old.

OrphanCrow

Uummmm...you have a religion where 12 year old boys have more authority than any woman of any age. The boys have been groomed from a very early age to feel, at the very least, equal to or better than older women.

No surprise that young JW men are marrying older women. They feel superior to ALL women - that is how they have been raised.

Many factors can be at play as to why they chose the older woman over the younger one - each case is different. But, what has been established by the JW patriarchal rule system, is that a younger man has authority over all women older than him. I can see that it would make perfect sense for many young JW men, regardless of what motivates them.

25

Will the resurrected marry/have children?

by davidmitchell in

i have just finished reading 'brock talon's' two books.

in one of them, entitled journey to god's house, pub.

he comments on how the wt's pictures of the post-armageddon world do not agree with their doctrines, namely that those who are physically resurrected will not marry/have children.

OrphanCrow

The WTS sure has a history of flip flopping on this doctrine.

Back in 1941, the stance was that marriage would occur after Armageddon - in the New World. The children were told not to marry, and that their mates would be selected for them in the New World.

A while back, I listened to Judge Rutherford's main talk on Sunday to the children at the ST. Louis summer convention in 1941 and these are the notes I made at the time. Sorry for the length.

******

The talk was heavy on parental obligation, even though the talk was directed to the children. The children, though, were treated as though they were the special ones - the ones chosen to put the new Kingdom in place, the ones 'selected' to be the children of the King.

Near the beginning of the talk, the children are told about Adam - they are told that Adam was killed by God because of disobedience. Adam was selfish. And then Rutherford slipped in a little comment that I almost missed because he pauses after the first part of the sentence, and then drops his voice and says, speaking of Adam's death punishment and selfishness (around the 8:40 mark... ) :

...he was selfish, and that unfailing rule...that applies to all who follow us in the courts.

He emphasizes that Christ Jesus the King "is present" and has been present since 1914. The paternalistic nature of the Society's Government is stressed - each time Rutherford says "paternalistic", he emphasizes the word. And when Rutherford speaks of the ransom sacrifice, it follows one of the many references to obedience. Just like God killed Adam, he also killed/ransomed his other son too. Full obedience to the Law of Jehovah is stressed - obedience is the theme of the talk.

The children are told that "if you hope to live you will willingly give yourself to Jehovah". The parents are told to "constantly keep the name of Jehovah before the children" and to "show love by instilling the children with thoughts of Theocratic government". And "teach" and "in this, Do Not Fail - keep constantly before them the Kingdom".

The children are told to "obey your parents in the Lord". This is emphasized - in the Lord - because then Rutherford asks what about "if your parents aren't 'in the Lord'?" and this is what he tells them 'then...get someone else!" here he pauses a little bit and completes his sentence in a quieter voice, while the applause mounts: "...to instruct you in the Lord."

The children are told that they have a "bounden duty" to carry the message and "you will do so willingly" because..."it is a privilege" and they will be given "safety and life" in the Theocracy.

It is in this talk that Rutherford tells the children that "marriage is a mockery" and that marriage will be "sacred under God in the New World" and that a woman/wife is "a bag of bones and a hank of hair". That last comment, by the way, was followed with thunderous applause from the 115,000 who were listening.

Rutherford speaks of the separation of goats and sheep and makes a comment about "billy goats" smelling. This is a direct reference to one of his quotes he made earlier in a another talk when he was speaking of the necessity of attacking the Catholic Church - which was another running theme of the Assembly that accused the Catholics of being a 'fifth column'. He had made this comment in a previous talk at the assembly that seems to tie the Jews and the Catholic priests together:

The attack we have got to make is just what Jesus did. You know that when Jesus was on earth the religionists wore long robes. They didn't have much of lace curtains at that time; they wore phylacteries, greased their head with goat grease, and smelled a good deal like billies. And, no doubt, that is where Jesus got the thought that it was a 'goat' class. He meant the Jews of that class of billy-goats with long whiskers, and long faces that smelled to the top of the mountain.

He had made the reference to the 'goat class' when he was speaking to the children because he was telling them about the 'selection process' that was going to occur once the Theocratic Government was established. The children were told that they wouldn't marry until "the Lord will select for marriage". In the "new world", the children would have mates "selected" for them that were suitable for them. And Rutherford said that this selection process was going to be done by the helper class - the Jonabads. They were the ones who were going to do the selection process and they would decide who would marry whom in the Theocratic Kingdom that would be governed by the Watchtower Society. And then, those children would have the perfect children who "would fill the earth". (find this on the audio recording about 33:33) And, they would be joined by "Barak and Deborah" - Rutherford reveals that Deborah is "a real woman".