Jump to content

Jack Ryan

Leo K. Greenlees

Recommended Posts

Governing Body member Leo K. Greenlees was forced to resign and leave Bethel in late 1984. He entered the Toronto, Canada Bethel in 1936, eventually becoming treasurer of the Canadian branch and of the IBSA of Canada. In 1964 he went to Brooklyn Bethel, and in 1965 was elected as a director of the Society's New York corporation. As a director Greenlees automatically became a "governing body" member when that body was formally instituted in 1971. He often spoke at Gilead graduations, and was the concluding speaker for the day at the Watchtower Centennial business meeting at Three Rivers Stadium in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania on October 6, 1984. A 1982 Watchtower mentions him as being on the Teaching Committee of the Governing Body. Greenlees' last mention in Watchtower publications is in the December 1, 1984 Watchtower where he is said to have passed out diplomas at the September Gilead graduation.

In late 1984, Greenlees was allegedly convicted by the rest of the Governing Body of molesting a ten year old boy. My information is that the boy's parents had complained to the Society and it took action. Greenlees was a friend of the family and often visited them. After leaving Bethel Greenlees served as a Special Pioneer and eventually an elder in the "Downtown" congregation in New Orleans, Louisiana. He died in the late 1980s.

Interestingly, the boy who Greenlees molested applied for Bethel service a few years later, around 1991, and was rejected. Watchtower leaders apparently feared that other Bethelites would tell him the 'rumors' about Greenlees, not knowing that he was Greenlees' victim, and cause the young man to know that justice had not been done. He might then have confirmed the rumors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You told some of his story... here is more about the ending and a couple photos:

Leo Kincaid Greenlees

Birth: 06 June 1911 (It states " Other Country")

Death: 17 Feb 1988

SS# 081445620

SS Death Index states:

Last residence Brooklyn, Kings, New York USA

Burial: Modesto, Stanislaus County, California USA 

56e4cc3b6c543_ScreenShot2014-07-29at14.5

56e4cc3a9b6d6_ScreenShot2014-07-29at14.5

Leo Greenless, W. Glen How, Nathan H. Knorr, Percy Chapman

Governing Body member Leo K. Greenlees was forced to resign and leave Bethel in late 1984. He entered the Toronto, Canada Bethel in 1936, eventually becoming treasurer of the Canadian branch and of the IBSA of Canada. In 1964 he went to Brooklyn Bethel, and in 1965 was elected as a director of the Society's New York corporation. As a director Greenlees automatically became a "governing body" member when that body was formally instituted in 1971. He often spoke at 

    Hello guest!
 graduations, and was the concluding speaker for the day at the Watchtower Centennial business meeting at Three Rivers Stadium in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania on October 6, 1984. A 1982 Watchtower mentions him as being on the Teaching Committee of the Governing Body. Greenlees' last mention in 
    Hello guest!
 publications is in the December 1, 1984 Watchtower where he is said to have passed out diplomas at the September 
    Hello guest!
 graduation. In late 1984, Greenlees was allegedly convicted by the rest of the Governing Body of molesting a ten year old boy. The boy's parents had complained to the Society and it took action. Greenlees was a friend of the family and often visited them. After leaving Bethel Greenlees served as a Special Pioneer and eventually an 
    Hello guest!
 in the "Downtown" congregation in New Orleans, Louisiana. He died in the late 1980s. Interestingly, the boy who Greenlees molested applied for Bethel service a few years later, around 1991, and was rejected.


Note how Greenlees for instance, just disappeared from mention in 
    Hello guest!
 literature after 1984, and a January 1, 1986 WT article (p. 13), soon enough after that to be extremely suggestive, commented that: "Shocking as it is, even some who have been prominent in Jehovah's organization have succumbed to immoral practices, including homosexuality, wife swapping, and child molesting."


If someone calls Brooklyn Bethel and asks the Public Affairs Office about Chitty or Greenlees, it’s likely that the response will be, “We cannot comment on such personal matters.” However, if one were to make inquiry about someone who has never been accused of such bad conduct, and who is unlikely to be so tainted because of their general reputation, the PA Office’s response would be outright denial.

 


Obituary:
Note that the obituary does not include the fact that Greenlees was one of the Governing Body of JWs "at the World Headquarters" for over 20 years. 

GREENLEES, Leo Kincaid - Unexpectedly at his home in Ceres, California, died of a stroke. He was hospitalized at Modesta for only one day before passing away the 18th of February, 1988. He was born in Glasgow, Scotland 77 years ago but immigrated to Canada in 1929. In 1931 he took up the full-time Ministry as one of Jehovah's Witnesses. His ministry extended across Canada including many years at the Branch Office of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society in Toronto. For over 20 years, he served at the World Headquarters of Jehovah's Witnesses and travelled extensively around the world in an official capacity. He continued in the full-time service until his death. He leaves two sisters and two brothers and several nephews and nieces. He was well loved and appreciated by all he touched in his life. A memorial service will be held in Modesto, California on Saturday, February 20, 1988.
 



Greenlees had moved to the San Diego area after being quietly ousted from the Governing Body.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brother Greenlees and Brother Chitty are not mentioned in the Proclaimer's book. Interesting that Percy Chapman (included in the picture above) is still mentioned now and then, often in the same context with Brother Greenlees. He was more "openly homosexual" to the dismay of Brother Knorr who continued to work with him anyway. I never knew that Brother Ewart Chitty was homosexual and assumed it was a rumor although I was told it was a fact by several. People also told me that Brother Greenlees was homosexual. In his case, there was good reason to believe them. But I never heard any facts for sure about the molestation charges, although it was a well-known rumor.

I should add, however, that there may be nothing wrong with trusting a homosexual brother to handle high levels of responsibility. The predisposition of someone should not disqualify them from responsibility as long as they can handle the responsibility without bringing reproach on Jehovah, on themselves, or others, and/or scandal upon the congregation. If a brother has already proven himself faithful and morally clean for many years, even if he struggles with sinful thoughts, then he is probably not so different from anyone else who was on the Governing Body at the time, even if these particular sins seem much more unexpected. Paul spoke of struggling with sin even as an apostle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Brother Greenlees and Brother Chitty are not mentioned in the Proclaimer's book. Interesting that Percy Chapman (included in the picture above) is still mentioned now and then, often in the same context with Brother Greenlees. He was more "openly homosexual" to the dismay of Brother Knorr who continued to work with him anyway. I never knew that Brother Ewart Chitty was homosexual and assumed it was a rumor although I was told it was a fact by several. People also told me that Brother Greenlees was homosexual. In his case, there was good reason to believe them.

I should add, however, that there may be nothing wrong with trusting a homosexual brother to handle high levels of responsibility. The predisposition of someone should not disqualify them from responsibility as long as they can handle the responsibility without bringing reproach on Jehovah, on themselves, or others, and/or scandal upon the congregation. If a brother has already proven himself faithful and morally clean for many years, even if he struggles with sinful thoughts, then he is probably not so different from anyone else who was on the Governing Body at the time, even if these particular sins seem much more unexpected. Paul spoke of struggling with sin even as an apostle.

"But I never heard any facts for sure about the molestation charges, although it was a well-known rumor."

This brings to mind an interchange you and I had last year regarding information that may come out in mid 2016.  It seemed from your response that you were leaning toward the idea of some potential homosexual encounter. The person I had In mind in my statement was in fact Leo Greenlees.  I of course, knew about the "purported" charges of child molestation, but more recently a person who had been a well-known elder died, leaving an envelope stating it should not be opened until after his death.  In the letter he made the accusation that Leo had molested him when he was younger.  (Not the same individual who was involved in 1984 as far as I know since this elder was already an adult and elder by that year).  In any event, to the extent that all of this is true, Leo would have already been a practicing child molester prior to his being appointed on the GB (although of course, the GB wouldn't have appointed him if they had known).  Naturally, in the current climate of things, these types of things could prove "difficult" for current members of the GB who are aware of the details if governmental authorities get nosy.

"The predisposition of someone should not disqualify them from responsibility as long as they can handle the responsibility without bringing reproach on Jehovah, on themselves, or others, and/or scandal upon the congregation. If a brother has already proven himself faithful and morally clean for many years, even if he struggles with sinful thoughts, then he is probably not so different from anyone else who was on the Governing Body at the time, even if these particular sins seem much more unexpected."

 I agree with you on that, since I know a number of brothers who have been disciplined for child molestation in various congregations.  All of them have been faithful brothers for many years now without incident.  But a potential problem with that type of weakness is the rate of recidivism that can accompany that type of behaviour.  Naturally, there are some very thorny legal issues associated with appointing a person with such a history and whether he would even potentially offend again.  

My take on this is that even though information on certain websites (which we should avoid) may have some truth or even be completely true, my faith in and dedication to Jehovah is not dictated by the choices other humans make - regardless of what "position" they may have in "the organization."  They too are imperfect, not miraculously inspired and make mistakes and have poor judgment at times. Kinda' like all the rest of us.  But even with all of that, it's as close to pure worship and accomplishing our Christian mandate to preach the good news of the Kingdom world-wide as is possible to find today.  You won't find brothers accomplishing that, regardless of how intellectual their reasoning may appear.  Who is "walking the walk" as to the preaching work the Christian congregation was formed for?

Im still not sure however, if there was more news we might expect regarding what you had suggested last year.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. I'm pretty sure the point I was making can still come out in 2016. It's related to another member of the Governing Body, not Leo Greenlees, or Ewart Chitty. If not publicly, it still can affect WTS lawyers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anna said:

Quote

 

    21 hours ago, AlanF said:

        23 hours ago, Anna said:

        It's because they thought he was cured.

    You know that, do you?

    You're wrong. I told you earlier: Greenlees was a pedophile in 1964 when he was appointed a Director, and before that according to one of his child victims, Mark Palo, who has put his story online. Greenlees was 72 when he was forced off the GB. Pedophiles don't start up at age 72 -- they just keep doing what they've long been doing
    Read more   

I don't know it, I am being logical about it. Why would anyone knowingly want to appoint a practicing pedophile?

 

They wouldn't. And I don't think that anyone knew Greenlees was a pedophile until 1984, when the parents of the boy he molested complained to the Society.

But the holy spirit certainly would know. And the fact that Greenlees served in a responsible position in the Canadian Bethel for many years prior to 1964, all the way up through his removal from the GB in 1984, proves that holy spirit could not have had anything to do with his appointment -- contrary to Watchtower teaching. And if Greenlees was not so appointed, it must logically be that no elders are so appointed -- including GB members.

If you really think that elders are directly appointed by holy spirit, then logically explain why Greenlees was not.
     
    21 hours ago, AlanF said:

    And even back in 1984 it was well known that pedophiles are never cured.

I agree. But as you say, he was appointed director in 1964, and then as GB in 1971. So it could have been believed he was cured.

Why do you keep saying "cured"? That assumes that someone knew Greenlees was a pedophile before any of his appointments. But no one ever knew -- at least, not those in responsible positions in Bethel -- until 1984.

Quote

I don't know what happened in 1984 when he was forced to resign.

I've said what happened in gory detail in earlier posts.

Quote

But whatever it was led the rest to believe he wasn't cured after all.

"Cured" had nothing to do with. The rest of the GB found out about his pedophilia when the molested boy's parents complained.
     

Quote

 

    21 hours ago, AlanF said:

    Furthermore, if holy spirit had anything to do with the Governing Body -- which formed the judicial committee that found Greenlees guilty of child molestation -- it would never have 'directed' Nathan Knorr to appoint Greenlees as Director in the first place, or it would have seen to it that Greenlees was not appointed a GB member in 1971, or that he was removed long before 1984.

I thought I had already agreed that if Greenlees was a pedophile when he was appointed director, and then later GB member, the holy spirit had nothing to do with it, that he was appointed by men who were evidently deceived.

 

Correct. But the holy spirit was not deceived.

Quote

And I thought we had already discussed the "mechanics" of how holy spirit works.

Discussed perhaps, but even now you still don't understand that holy spirit does no direct appointing of elders. Such "appointing" is only a metaphor, a manner of speaking. It's not real. Go back to my Julia Childs example. Does she direct you in the kitchen? Or do you follow directions in her cookbook? Do you understand the difference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anna said:

Quote

 

    14 hours ago, AlanF said:

    Why do you keep saying "cured"? That assumes that someone knew Greenlees was a pedophile before any of his appointments. But no one ever knew -- at least, not those in responsible positions in Bethel -- until 1984.

I did assume that someone knew he had done something in the past, but that it was believed he was changed and would never do it again in the spirit of 1 Cor 6:11.

 

I think you're very confused about this. Who would have known? Who would have thought him cured? When?

Quote

I have noticed this is one of the reasons why in the past pedophiles ended up molesting other victims besides the original victim. Elders assumed the person was "cured" and would never do it again.

True, but that again assumes that those elders knew of the pedophile. Greenlees was not known to anyone but his victims, and perhaps unknown accomplices.

Quote

 

    14 hours ago, AlanF said:

    And even back in 1984 it was well known that pedophiles are never cured.

Well known by whom?

 

The psychiatric community and pretty much everyone dealing with children. And God.

Note this: "Pedophilia was first formally recognized and named in the late 19th century." --

    Hello guest!
Apparent the holy spirit did not get the message.
     

Quote

 

    14 hours ago, AlanF said:

          Quote

        I don't know what happened in 1984 when he was forced to resign.

    I've said what happened in gory detail in earlier posts.

Missed that.

 

Ok.

Quote

 

    14 hours ago, Anna and AlanF said:

        the holy spirit had nothing to do with it, that he was appointed by men who were evidently deceived.

    Correct. But the holy spirit was not deceived.

Well, in a manner of speaking, since holy spirit is not a person but a force.

 

Come on! We all know (at least, non-trinitarians do) that the Bible's use of "holy spirit" is just a metaphor for God's power, or better, just God. So saying that "holy spirit did this and that" means "God did this and that".
So are you claiming that God did not know about pedophilia, or that Greenlees was a homosexual pedophile?
     

Quote

 

    14 hours ago, AlanF said:

    Discussed perhaps, but even now you still don't understand that holy spirit does no direct appointing of elders. Such "appointing" is only a metaphor, a manner of speaking. It's not real. Go back to my Julia Childs example. Does she direct you in the kitchen? Or do you follow directions in her cookbook? Do you understand the difference?

I do understand it is a manner of speaking, since holy spirit is not a person, as I mentioned above. You obviously meant it as a metaphor as well when you said it "was not deceived".

 

In the sense that, put plainly, "God was not deceived".

Quote

By the same token, it can be said someone is appointed by holy spirit even though it was merely written directions that were being followed.

Nope. Most Christians claim to follow the directions in the Bible, and you certainly don't accept that God directs them, metaphorically or directly.

Quote

Since God used holy spirit, his force, to inspire people to write down His directions, when appointing overseers, elders do so according to those directions. Doing so correctly is contingent on the honesty of the one being appointed, and the astuteness of those doing the appointing. If the person actually qualifies, then it can be said they were appointed by holy spirit as per Acts 20:28 "Pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit has appointed you overseers, to shepherd the congregation of God...."

Once again, by that reasoning the Pope has been appointed by God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AlanF said:

Come on! We all know (at least, non-trinitarians do) that the Bible's use of "holy spirit" is just a metaphor for God's power, or better, just God. So saying that "holy spirit did this and that" means "God did this and that".
So are you claiming that God did not know about pedophilia, or that Greenlees was a homosexual pedophile?

I thought I already gave you an answer to that, that of course God knew, and therefor Greenlees couldn't have been appointed by God using holy spirit.

 

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

Most Christians claim to follow the directions in the Bible, and you certainly don't accept that God directs them, metaphorically or directly.

Claiming one thing and actually doing it are different. And we have already established God is not deceived.

 

2 hours ago, AlanF said:
Quote

Since God used holy spirit, his force, to inspire people to write down His directions, when appointing overseers, elders do so according to those directions. Doing so correctly is contingent on the honesty of the one being appointed, and the astuteness of those doing the appointing. If the person actually qualifies, then it can be said they were appointed by holy spirit as per Acts 20:28 "Pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit has appointed you overseers, to shepherd the congregation of God...."

Once again, by that reasoning the Pope has been appointed by God.

If the Pope qualifies by doing God's will according to the Bible, seen and unseen by human eyes,  then yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/12/2016 at 9:14 PM, The Librarian said:

if one were to make inquiry about someone who has never been accused of such bad conduct, and who is unlikely to be so tainted because of their general reputation, the PA Office’s response would be outright denial.

Of course! What in the world is so controversial about that?

In Western law, it is called, “presumed innocent until proven guilty.” In common parlance, it is “refrain from gossiping.”

I sort of miss the times when outright gossip did not form the stuff of headlines

On 3/12/2016 at 9:14 PM, The Librarian said:

Note that the obituary does not include the fact that Greenlees was one of the Governing Body of JWs "at the World Headquarters" for over 20 years. 

Unless I am missing something, that is because he was not. 13 years is what it looks like from the article.

On 3/12/2016 at 9:14 PM, The Librarian said:

  member Leo K. Greenlees was forced to resign and leave Bethel in late 1984. ...As a director Greenlees automatically became a "governing body" member when that body was formally instituted in 1971.

He is removed when an apparently creditable accusation surfaces. It is shocking, perhaps, that he might do such a thing, but it appears pretty uncontroversial in the way it was handled.

And sometimes you wish that there was more differerentiation in “molestation.” At present, anything from a hand on the inner thigh or rear end to outright rape is described (and sometimes deliberately confused) as “molestation.” None of those actions are great, of course, but there is a substantial difference between them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

None of those actions are great, of course, but there is a substantial difference between them.

I know what you're saying, it's just that a hand on the inner thigh or rear end, if done deliberately, is usually just the beginning, and is like a test leading to other stages. Maybe the degree of molestation should be categorized in stages? Stage one: hand on inner thigh and buttocks, stage two: ........and so on.

The thing is, if the molester gets away with stage one (no one reports it, or the victim doesn't stop it) then you know for sure it will lead to stage two, and if that's not reported to stage three etc. So in my opinion, at least, it doesn't matter at what stage the molester gets caught or reported, because really it's about the potential, or goal of the molester, the actual "gravity" of the act is merely contingent on carrying on until he gets stopped. 

I consider my uncle (non JW) as molesting me when I was 13. I was wearing a t-shirt with some logo on it across my chest. He took his finger and begun tracing the writing and then at the end he tweeked my nipple. It all happened so unexpectedly that I didn't even think of moving. At the end of it I knew it had been deliberate because of the nipple thing. However, I nipped that one in the bud (no pun intended) by going straight to my mum  reporting what had happened. My mum went straight to my aunt, and my aunt went straight to my uncle. Needless to say, that was the last time he touched me. I hate to think what could have happened had I not said anything....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Of course! What in the world is so controversial about that?

In Western law, it is called, “presumed innocent until proven guilty.” In common parlance, it is “refrain from gossiping.”

I sort of miss the times when outright gossip did not form the stuff of headlines

Unless I am missing something, that is because he was not. 13 years is what it looks like from the article.

He is removed when an apparently creditable accusation surfaces. It is shocking, perhaps, that he might do such a thing, but it appears pretty uncontroversial in the way it was handled.

And sometimes you wish that there was more differerentiation in “molestation.” At present, anything from a hand on the inner thigh or rear end to outright rape is described (and sometimes deliberately confused) as “molestation.” None of those actions are great, of course, but there is a substantial difference between them.

It's exactly the attitude TTH displays here -- "Oh, molestation is no big deal!" -- that has gotten JW leaders in deep doo doo, and is the source of the extreme disgust about them shown by so many people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, AlanF said:

"Oh, molestation is no big deal!"

That was not the impression TTH gave me. Nor do I think that's the attitude of JW  leaders. I think it's ignorance of how child sexual molestation really works, and naivete regarding "repentance" is what has caused all the doo doo.to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Anna said:

That was not the impression TTH gave me. Nor do I think that's the attitude of JW  leaders. I think it's ignorance of how child sexual molestation really works, and naivete regarding "repentance" is what has caused all the doo doo.to happen.

Look beneath the surface, Anna.

Your last post was excellent and well describes the attitude shown by TTH and so many elders, including and especially the Governing Body. "We abhor child molestation! But not as much as we abhor public exposure of anything that makes us look bad."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@b4ucuhear  Quote " I agree with you on that, since I know a number of brothers who have been disciplined for child molestation in various congregations.  All of them have been faithful brothers for many years now without incident.  But a potential problem with that type of weakness is the rate of recidivism that can accompany that type of behaviour.  Naturally, there are some very thorny legal issues associated with appointing a person with such a history and whether he would even potentially offend again."

I wonder if those brothers are in the 20 year long DATABASE that the GB are refusing to hand over to the authorities. 

If you KNOW A NUMBER OF BROTHERS WHO HAVE BEEN DISCIPLINED FOR CHILD MOLESTATION,  then shouldn't you go to the Police or authorities with your information as @Anna likes to tell people to do. After all if they 'have been disciplined for it', then they must have done it. 

The plot thickens. And @TrueTomHarley says not many JW's do it. 

Child Sexual Abuse and Homosexuality, and still trying to pretend that the JW Org is clean. 

Remember Jesus saying 'First clean the inside of the dish, then the outside will also be clean'. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

The plot thickens.

The reason that you have been likened to Butler is that he had the same wont for overstatement, the same near hysteria on the topic, the same resilience to any mitigating factors, the same shrillness at any comparison of JWs to “the world.”

In his case, he was subjected to horrendous child sexual abuse by the British orphanage system. Yet he never (here) spoke a word against them—he took all of his rage out on Jehovah’s Witnesses that he joined much later, persons having nothing to do with his history.

1 hour ago, AlanF said:

It's exactly the attitude TTH displays here -- "Oh, molestation is no big deal!" 

He has said or indicated nothing of the sort. This is completely your emotional take. 

This is yet another example of the Master of Rationality completely throwing that quality out the windows in pursuit of his ends.

The trouble with critical thinking is that those who espouse it the loudest invariably assume that they have a lock on the stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Anna said:

That was not the impression TTH gave me. Nor do I think that's the attitude of JW  leaders. I think it's ignorance of how child sexual molestation really works, and naivete regarding "repentance" is what has caused all the doo doo.to happen.

Quote @Anna Nor do I think that's the attitude of JW  leaders.

So what exactly is the attitude of the GB and it's lawyers for not handing over the complete 20 plus years of Database concerning Child Sexual Abuse accusations ?  After all shouldn't they 'obey God as ruler rather than men' and wouldn't God want His name cleared ?  Wouldn't God want justice for the victims? So it would not matter about what laws of men were in place. 

What is the attitude of the Australian Bethel brothers for not apologising to victims ?  The Australian government apologised and people of different religions agreed with the apology, but not the JW Org. 

What was the attitude of the UK Bethel brothers / solicitors when they refused to hand over the information to the Charity Commission ? Even though later they had to hand the info' over.

What did Jesus say ' If you are conscripted to walk one mile, then walk two miles'.

Why can't your GB actually take note of what Jesus was teaching here ? 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Separate Comment :- 

@TrueTomHarley   Quote " The reason that you have been likened to Butler is that he had the same wont for overstatement,... "

Oh come on then, show me my overstatement word for word.  Just as John Butler did I try to write the truth as I know it. Unfortunately he got disfellowshipped for it here. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anna said:

Quote

 

    22 hours ago, AlanF said:

    Come on! We all know (at least, non-trinitarians do) that the Bible's use of "holy spirit" is just a metaphor for God's power, or better, just God. So saying that "holy spirit did this and that" means "God did this and that".
    So are you claiming that God did not know about pedophilia, or that Greenlees was a homosexual pedophile?

I thought I already gave you an answer to that, that of course God knew, and therefor Greenlees couldn't have been appointed by God using holy spirit.

 

Very good! But the Watchtower Society claims that Greenlees, other GB members and all elders are appointed by God, thus contradicting the fact that Greenlees was not. If Greenlees was not, then the rest were not either.

This is simple logic. Why do you refuse to accept it?

Quote

 

    22 hours ago, AlanF said:

    Most Christians claim to follow the directions in the Bible, and you certainly don't accept that God directs them, metaphorically or directly.

Claiming one thing and actually doing it are different. And we have already established God is not deceived.

 

The point is that the mere claim that one is following the directions in the Bible in no way means that one is actually following those directions.

The proof is in the pudding, and the JW organization's 'pudding' proves that it often does not follow the directions. Hence it is not what it claims: God's earthly representative.

Quote

 

    22 hours ago, Anna and AlanF said:

        Since God used holy spirit, his force, to inspire people to write down His directions, when appointing overseers, elders do so according to those directions. Doing so correctly is contingent on the honesty of the one being appointed, and the astuteness of those doing the appointing. If the person actually qualifies, then it can be said they were appointed by holy spirit as per Acts 20:28 "Pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit has appointed you overseers, to shepherd the congregation of God...."
        Read more   

    Once again, by that reasoning the Pope has been appointed by God.
    Read more   

If the Pope qualifies by doing God's will according to the Bible, seen and unseen by human eyes,  then yes.

 

Deliberately missing the point again.

The point is that, despite the Pope's and many other leaders of 'Christendom's' claims to be appointed to their positions by God, and to speak for God, you and all other JWs reject those claims. Why? Because according to your beliefs, despite their claims, they are not doing God's will according to the Bible.

Once again the point here is that old Tom, Dick and Harry can claim to be doing God's will, but that claim in no way means that they are actually doing God's will. Their actions prove or disprove it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, AlanF said:

Your last post was excellent and well describes the attitude shown by TTH and so many elders, including and especially the Governing Body.

The reason why I said what I did in that post was to highlight that "a little molestation" leads to "big molestation" unless the "little molestation" is stopped. What happened to me was nothing really. It did not traumatize me, and I was on good terms with my uncle. I doubt I would ever think of bringing something like that to the police, and my mum obviously didn't think it warranted it either. And to let you know, my mum was a tigress when it came to protecting me. Then in my reply to you I said:

3 hours ago, Anna said:

I think it's ignorance of how child sexual molestation really works, and naivete regarding "repentance" is what has caused all the doo doo.to happen.

I mentioned that elsewhere too. No one thinks child sexual molestation is ok. And no one thinks "a little molestation" is ok either (that is why I said something, and that is why my mum handled it). If my uncle had been a Witness, and not my uncle, my mum would have gone to the elders and told them what happened.The the perpetrator would have probably made some excuse, or shown remorse,  got a warning and a slap on the wrist. He would probably never dare to do anything like that to me again. The pertinent question is, would he do something like that to someone else? And if he did, would that someone else report it? And if they didn't report it would the "little molestation" lead to "big molestation"? That is the problem. I have no idea if my uncle molested someone else. He was my aunts second husband and had grown children. It probably didn't cross my aunts mind. I don't think it crossed anybodies mind, that other children could be in danger. Its because that's not how these things were generally perceived or understood. I am not making excuses. That's just how it was. In a similar manner, elders in those days were not aware that others could be in danger. They probably thought that a warning was enough to ensure it would not happen again. We now know the likelihood of something like that happening again is high. 

3 hours ago, AlanF said:

"We abhor child molestation! But not as much as we abhor public exposure of anything that makes us look bad."

Yes, unfortunately it does appear that way. But to be fair, I would put both on the same plane. Child molestation is abhorred as much as the accusation of being tolerant of it, or hiding it. Especially  when felt it is not justified (the accusation).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TrueTomHarley said:

Quote

 

    3 hours ago, AlanF said:

    It's exactly the attitude TTH displays here -- "Oh, molestation is no big deal!"

He has said or indicated nothing of the sort. This is completely your emotional take.

 

I think you're so blinded by your Watchtower blinders that you don't see your comments for what they are -- abhorrent to anyone with moral decency. Note this one:

<< And sometimes you wish that there was more differerentiation in “molestation.” At present, anything from a hand on the inner thigh or rear end to outright rape is described (and sometimes deliberately confused) as “molestation.” None of those actions are great, of course, but there is a substantial difference between them. >>

As Anna explained, in principle there is no difference between "a hand on the inner thigh or rear end" and outright rape. All are violations of law, and of New Testament principles for sexual misconduct, and all are forms of molestation -- despite your protests to the contrary. The 'minor' violations, if not checked, inevitably lead to major violations.

Your obvious attempt to minimize some forms of molestation is saying exactly, "Molestation is no big deal!"

That's exactly what JW leaders have always done, and continue to do, and is why they're in such trouble with the Law and molestation victims.

Quote

This is yet another example of the Master of Rationality completely throwing that quality out the windows in pursuit of his ends.

I think you need to go back to square one on what constitutes morality.

Quote

The trouble with critical thinking is that those who espouse it the loudest invariably assume that they have a lock on the stuff.

Coming from someone with a demonstrably defective moral sense and little critical thinking ability, that's rich!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

If you KNOW A NUMBER OF BROTHERS WHO HAVE BEEN DISCIPLINED FOR CHILD MOLESTATION,  then shouldn't you go to the Police or authorities with your information as @Anna likes to tell people to do. After all if they 'have been disciplined for it', then they must have done it. 

I can respond to that since you appear to be drawing assumptions without having all the facts. I completely agree that one should go to the police when dealing with such issues involving a minor. In fact, the direction we get from the society is to do just that. One of the reasons we are instructed to call Bethel is to make sure we comply with all current reporting laws regarding child molestation. Some of the problems we have had in the past (and I have personally attended in court), have been because brothers had not acted in harmony with the instructions given because they haven't paid attention or been casual about doing their homework. The examples I had cited were from many years ago when the current laws were not in place and in fact, they have been evolving over the years - and in some cases, a moving target. Those individuals affected are now adults with the freedom to choose to go to the police under the current laws if they so choose. However, if what they had done decades ago occurred now, it would be an entirely different story. Our policies have changed as well to comply with legal requirements. 

In my country years ago, both doctors and clergy were simply not allowed to go public with what was then considered private/protected/privileged information and if they did so, legal repercussions could arise. For instance, it wasn't until the '80's that the laws changed and doctors were required to report cases of AIDS for - which was then transferred to a national data-base. One of the reasons for this was that certain individuals were deliberately spreading AIDS and partners needed to be warned. Likewise as molestation cases came to the fore, the laws gradually changed. But even then, at times they applied in different ways and in different areas, or not at all. (i.e. ARC hearings...) We now have more comprehensive laws that address these injustices - requiring/allowing religious authorities to report them without legal repercussions. So to be clear, elders are REQUIRED to report these cases now and the legal department is involved to ensure they do just that. Unfortunately, we have had to learn the hard way what would have been the morally right thing in the first place. But we have made the changes. 

 If anyone in a responsible position is aware of child molestation going on, he is legally bound to report it to the authorities. But if he fails to do so and must face the legal consequences for his non-action, (which as we know can have devastating consequences for the minor) I can't say I'd feel sorry for him. 

Gen. 42:22 "Did I not say to you, 'Do not sin against the child,' but you would not listen?' Now his blood is certainly being asked back.

James 4:17 "Therefore, if someone knows how to do what is right and yet does not do it, it is a sin for him."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TrueTomHarley said:

Quote

 

    1 hour ago, AlanF said:

    ... the Watchtower Society claims that Greenlees, other GB members and all elders are appointed by God, thus contradicting the fact that Greenlees was not. If Greenlees was not, then the rest were not either. This is simple logic. Why do you refuse to accept it?

Because it’s ridiculous.

 

Yet you're unable to show that it's ridiculous. All you can manage is an unevidenced denial of what I said.

On the other hand, in earlier posts in the now-chopped-up thread, I've set forth detailed reasons why it is so. And in no case has anyone shown why the reasoning is wrong.

Quote

As I recall, by your “logic,” you have “disproved God,” also.

That's right, and again not a single JW apologist has refuted that. In fact, only one (Arauna) even tried, and her 'reasoning' was completely lame, and I proved it false.

To recap:

***********************
The Bible says God is loving; 'creation' says the Creator is not loving.

The Bible says God knows all; so God knows when parts of 'creation' are not acting lovingly toward other parts. God sees this and approves, because he created it to be so.

Reality cannot contradict itself. Hence, either the Bible is wrong that God is loving, or the evidence from 'creation' that says the Creator is not loving is wrong.

The half-billion-year-old fossil record of 'creation' is fully established as scientific fact. Hence the Bible's claim that its God is loving is false. Hence, either the Bible is false, or God does not exist, or both.

QED.
***********************

Look at the videos below of leopards eating live warthogs and tell me that leopards act lovingly toward warthogs:

    Hello guest!

    Hello guest!

A handful of especially stupid apologists will claim that leopard behavior is a product of "man's sin" or even that Satan created such things. But they forget that these things began occurring half a billion years before man or Satan came to exist 6,000 years ago (according to the Watchtower Society).

Note that the above reasoning in no way argues that some sort of creator does not exist -- only that such a creator is not loving.

Ok now, Einstein: show why the above logic is wrong. Put up or shut up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With regards to "being appointed by 'holy spirit,' a few things to keep in mind. A recent "Treasures From God's Word" stated: "The stars are under Jesus' full control, power, and direction." That COULD be a bit misleading depending on how literally you view that statement. Should we assume then that elders will do everything perfectly - as if Jesus by holy spirit has them on remote control - controlling every thought, decision and action within the congregations? If that was the case, the elders/GB would always act perfectly. Should we actually expect that today? Recall, that even while Jesus was letting the first century anointed elders know that they were accountable to him as to how they used the authority entrusted to them, what was actually going while he was yet speaking? Apostasy, immorality, lukewarm, half-hearted service that wanted to make Jesus vomit them out of his mouth... Why would that be the case when Jesus is in authority?

As we recall, we are often reminded not to expect perfection from our brothers and sisters - including appointed elders. The  apostle Paul candidly described his battle with good and bad inclinations. But there are other reasons too.                                    

1) Holy spirit does not give appointed men a miraculous ability to read hearts and minds. A person is spoken of as being "appointed by holy spirt," when they are seen to live up to the qualifications set out in God's Word - which is inspired by holy spirt. But humans are limited in that respect and sometimes mistakes are made. (i.e.. GB appoints an individual as an elder and later as a Circuit Overseer who turns out to be a communist spy that turns in the brothers causing some to stumble. Jesus didn't direct that to happen. After all, he would be working against his own interests - like a house divided. It was human limitation.)

2) Neither Jesus nor holy spirit take away a person's freedom of choice. (As was evidenced by what was going on even while Jesus was speaking). As we also know, in the first century, there were men in the congregations described as "rocks hidden beneath the surface." They weren't forced or directed to do that. That was their personal choice - which is important because our heart conditions are revealed by the choices we make. Anyone - including men in authority can make a wrong choice if they don't guard their heart. Freedom of choice is important for obvious reasons. 

3) If something isn't dealt with right away, does that indicate Jesus isn't in control of the congregation? No. As the comments point out, "if someone needs correction, Jesus will see to it that this is done in his own time and way." And it should come as not surprise that it's always been that way. As 1 Tim. 5:24 states: "The sins of some men are publicly known, leading directly to judgment, but those of other men become evident later." Later?!! How much later? The Bible historically answers that too. Sometimes the sins of some men like Korah and others became publicly known leading directly to judgment (when the earth swallowed up the rebels.) But other times, faithful men endured injustice for years, or decades and some would never see justice until the resurrection. So at times, things don't happen when and how we think they should. Or when we think is best. But we can have confidence that, as in the past, they will be dealt with one way or another. 

4) The operation of holy spirit can at times, be hard to "quantify." The first century Christians had strong and undeniable evidence they were anointed by holy spirit and some even had miraculous gifts. Even so, they didn't always have a complete understanding of things and some expectations were premature - although they were very interested as to where they thought the spirit was leading them. Likewise today. At times the leadings of holy spirit are easy to recognize and at other times not so much. Sometimes organizationally, we "go beyond the things written" as to dates, types and antitypes, times and seasons and even doctrinal issues. Well meaning, yes, but sometimes we forget that instead of making "predictions," (even while admitting we are not miraculously inspired prophets), our mandate is to preach and teach - not make up stuff that doesn't have a specific Biblical foundation. Historically and biblically there is nothing new to this. God's people have always had a gradual understanding of the outworking of God's purpose - and often leaning new things means we have to discard old things.

  But in all of this it's important to remember what is truly remarkable about benefitting from Jesus' authority as head of the congregation and what he has been able to accomplish using imperfect men. Miraculous some would say.

A) Jesus has been able to direct a world-wide preaching work using imperfect men, women, children and yes, imperfect elders. But it's much more than that when you think about it. We are preaching in Satan's backyard. He is the "god of this system of things" and has the support of powerful spirit creatures (henchmen) and world governments. And what is part of the message we deliver? "Satan is a malicious liar and that he and all of his spirit buddies, along with the world system he has spent thousands of years to develop, are all going to be destroyed." We preach that "right in his grill." How do you think that goes over? We would never be able to accomplish that if Jesus wasn't a powerful king in control of the congregation. So do we faithfuly follow the direction of appointed elders as to the details of accomplishing this ministry?

B) We have what everyone has wanted for thousands of years but been unable to achieve. World unity. Despite being from all nations, tribes and tongues - from different backgrounds and stations in life, we are united. But we aren't just united in a stalemate - "I won't attack you if you don't attack me." No. We are united because of the love we have for one another. The type of love that Jesus taught and demonstrated in our behalf. 

C) Many/most of Jehovah's Witnesses come from other religions. Even those born into the truth are exposed to many people from different faiths. And there is one thing we can all testify to: Spiritually, we are BY FAR, the best fed people on earth. More than that. We are the best fed group of people who have ever lived. We even know things first century Christians didn't know. Al of this is readily available. That is no accident. and Jesus continues to educate us using (imperfect) elders as teachers in the congregation. 

We benefit from a loving arrangement Jesus has by holy spirit set in place for our benefit. It's helpful to liken this arrangement to having good parents. As we grew, they fed us, cleaned us, clothes us, disciplined us, taught us, cared for and sympathized with us. When we were hurt they supported us. And even when we reach maturity, they are there for us and continue to love us. Again, this is possible by means of Jesus direction in the congregation and holy spirit.

  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AlanF said:

TTH: “At present, anything from a hand on the inner thigh or rear end to outright rape is described (and sometimes deliberately confused) as “molestation.””

You donkey, of course they are different! You are committing Event Escalation Fallacy.

Turn your mighty intellect upon murder, if you can do so without screaming ‘Straw Man.’ Consider that there is first degree murder, 2nd degree murder, even 3rd degree murder, not to mention hate crime murder. Vent your outrage over that, why don’t you? Tell the moral deviants that “murder is murder!”

Even that paragraph doesn’t adequately describe your idiocy, for the examples within all do involve murder. Better that you should insist that a shove to the body is no different than murder. That comparison is much more parallel to the CSA offenses that you think are the same.

2 hours ago, AlanF said:

I think you need to go back to square one on what constitutes morality....Coming from someone with a demonstrably defective moral sense and little critical thinking ability, that's rich!

Completely emotional outbursts. Not a shred of “logic” to them. Character assassination appears to be your specialty. Not meeting your completely arbitrary criteria is enough to be labeled a person of “demonstrably defective moral sense.”

 It is perhaps understandable from Leonard McCoy. the hothead. But not from someone who claims logic and intellect that would put even Mr. Spock to shame.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anna said:

Quote

 

    3 hours ago, AlanF said:

    Your last post was excellent and well describes the attitude shown by TTH and so many elders, including and especially the Governing Body.

The reason why I said what I did in that post was to highlight that "a little molestation" leads to "big molestation" unless the "little molestation" is stopped.

 

Exactly.

Quote

What happened to me was nothing really. It did not traumatize me, and I was on good terms with my uncle.

I guarantee you that in my extended family, an uncle who was known to have done that to one of my female cousins would have become a pariah.

Quote

I doubt I would ever think of bringing something like that to the police, and my mum obviously didn't think it warranted it either. And to let you know, my mum was a tigress when it came to protecting me.

I suspect that this was many years ago, when such things were often shrugged off by most everyone.

When my mother, a real hottie, was about 16, a prominent Watchtower official molested her in the sense that he touched her breasts, bottom and other private parts. She was horribly naive and didn't think of it as sexual molestation, but only as uncomfortable. She didn't tell anyone until she was in her late 60s. Do you think she was molested or not?

Then in my reply to you I said:

    I think it's ignorance of how child sexual molestation really works, and naivete regarding "repentance" is what has caused all the doo doo.to happen.

I mentioned that elsewhere too. No one thinks child sexual molestation is ok.

Except for molesters like Greenlees. And enablers like certain elders and GB members who make or enforce policies whose result is covering over the crimes.

Quote

And no one thinks "a little molestation" is ok either. If my uncle had been a Witness, and not my uncle, my mum would have gone to the elders and told them what happened.The the perpetrator would have probably made some excuse, or shown remorse,  got a warning and a slap on the wrist. He would probably never dare to do anything like that to me again. The pertinent question is, would he do something like that to someone else?

We know that molesters are never really cured, just stopped or slowed down. So yes, it's likely he would have gone on to bigger and better things.

Quote

And if he did, would that someone else report it? And if they didn't report it would the "little molestation" lead to "big molestation"?

Very likely.

Quote

That is the problem. I have no idea if my uncle molested someone else. He was my aunts second husband and had grown children. It probably didn't cross my aunts mind. I don't think it crossed anybodies mind, that other children could be in danger. Its because that's not how these things were generally perceived or understood.

Many years ago, yes, that's how these things were perceived by most people.

Quote

I am not making excuses. That's just how it was. In a similar manner, elders in those days were not aware that others could be in danger. They probably thought that a warning was enough to ensure it would not happen again. We now know the likelihood of something like that happening again is high.

All good points, but that have nothing to do with Leo Greenlees, because no one aside from those he molested (like Mark Palo) were aware of his perversion.
     

Quote

 

    3 hours ago, AlanF said:

    "We abhor child molestation! But not as much as we abhor public exposure of anything that makes us look bad."

Yes, unfortunately it does appear that way.

 

Not just 'appears' -- it IS that way. Through at least the late 1980s it was unofficially stated but strongly enforced Watchtower policy that "keeping Jehovah's name spotless" was above all other goals in handling judicial and other matters. "Jehovah's name" was deliberately conflated with "the Watchtower Society's reputation". Thus, elders' prime goal was usually to keep all sordid situations under wraps. Hundreds of examples of this have been reported in various public and private media.

Quote

But to be fair, I would put both on the same plane. Child molestation is abhorred as much as the accusation of being tolerant of it, or hiding it. Especially  when felt it is not justified.

Good points! Tolerance is a form of enabling, which in some cases is even worse than the crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@AlanF 

13 hours ago, AlanF said:

Not just 'appears' -- it IS that way. Through at least the late 1980s it was unofficially stated but strongly enforced Watchtower policy that "keeping Jehovah's name spotless" was above all other goals in handling judicial and other matters. "Jehovah's name" was deliberately conflated with "the Watchtower Society's reputation". Thus, elders' prime goal was usually to keep all sordid situations under wraps. Hundreds of examples of this have been reported in various public and private media.

Good points! Tolerance is a form of enabling, which in some cases is even worse than the crime.

While I do try to defend "the organization" as much as possible as a JW, I'm not one of those who feels that mindless unquestioning obedience is a mark of "loyalty." Yes, at times we don't second guess the direction we receive and progress has been made, but it is also true to say that organizationally we haven't always been that forthcoming. The fact is, that at times what has masqueraded as "discipline from Jehovah" has been nothing more than some men in authority silencing whistleblowers who have exposed the wrongdoing of those self-same men in authority - removing or even disfellowshipping those who they perceive as a threat to their position and reputation. (While I have seen that happen, it's important not to paint with too wide a brush here.) Saying one "doesn't have all the facts" in some cases is just utter nonsense. It at times can serve to protect those who should have been on trial while vilifying/diminishing the whistleblower. Yes, I have seen that happen and that's why I don't buy into the idea that Jesus controls everything that goes on in the congregation - especially when God's Word warns us of "wicked men and imposters," "wolves in sheep's clothing," "rock hidden below the surface..." I don't understand why people after reading these clear warnings in God's Word appear to think they can't actually happen. True it doesn't characterize the organization which is full of loving people who sincerely want to do the right thing, but it does happen and to categorically dismiss these things by implying Jesus controls everything is tantamount to blaming him.  

It appears to me that hiding behind the umbrella of "not bringing reproach on Jehovah's name," - which we should totally try not to do anyway, has at times been used by imperfect and sometimes wicked men to protect themselves. I ask: When has Jehovah ever withheld needed discipline because he was afraid of what the neighbours think? Did he forgo discipline to the nation of Israel knowing full well that the nations would attribute the victory to their false gods? No. Jehovah has always been true to himself and his standards - regardless of what puny imperfect humans think, do or say. He wasn't straightjacketed into non-action. fearing "reproach" from others. Still it would be unfair, as stated, to paint with too wide a brush. There are millions of kind, loving, sincere people who are actively trying to serve Jehovah the best way they can. And it can't be denied that despite the bad actions/choices of some relatively few individuals (some of whom may be in positions of authority) this is the best place to be. We recall that all of us are accountable - from members of the Governing Body to the newest publisher. We may not always be in a position to do much about it, but we can have faith in the promises found in God's Word that there will be accountability. Our policies, like our beliefs/expectations on certain things have and are changing - more in some areas than others. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

b4ucuhear said:

Quote

    I can respond to that since you appear to be drawing assumptions without having all the facts. I completely agree that one should go to the police when dealing with such issues involving a minor. In fact, the direction we get from the society is to do just that. One of the reasons we are instructed to call Bethel is to make sure we comply with all current reporting laws regarding child molestation. Some of the problems we have had in the past (and I have personally attended in court), have been because brothers had not acted in harmony with the instructions given because they haven't paid attention or been casual about doing their homework. The examples I had cited were from many years ago when the current laws were not in place and in fact, they have been evolving over the years - and in some cases, a moving target. Those individuals affected are now adults with the freedom to choose to go to the police under the current laws if they so choose. However, if what they had done decades ago occurred now, it would be an entirely different story. Our policies have changed as well to comply with legal requirements.

You're covering over the fact that in most regions only certain religious and other public officials are required by law to report. In the U.S., in most cases and due to the influence of religious leaders on lawmakers, elders are not so required. But they ought to be. That's why elders are supposed to check with the Service and/or Legal Departments, to see if they're required by law to report. So in most cases in the U.S., since the law doesn't require them to report, they don't.

b4ucuhear said:

Quote

. . . Holy spirit does not give appointed men a miraculous ability to read hearts and minds. A person is spoken of as being "appointed by holy spirt," when they are seen to live up to the qualifications set out in God's Word - which is inspired by holy spirt. . .

The key concept here is spoken of. As I have repeatedly said, that means that such 'appointment' by God is only in a manner of speaking. It is not literal, direct appointment such as described of the Old Testament prophets. But JW leaders deliberately confuse the two concepts, hoping -- and mostly succeeding -- to convince their followers that they themselves are quasi-inspired prophets who speak in God's name. Since they are admittedly not inspired, they do not speak in God's name, and so they are false prophets. They are also false prophets in the sense that anyone who claims to speak in the name of a god is a prophet by definition. Thus, such prophets who teach falsehoods of any sort are false prophets.

The rest of your post is a standard whitewash of the JW organization. But this organization demonstrably teaches all manner of falsehoods, and so is a false teacher and false prophet.

As for the JW preaching work, hardly anyone takes notice. Ask most anyone walking down the street, "What do you think of the message JWs preach?" The answer is usually along the lines of "What message? Aren't they the loons who don't take blood transfusions?"

As for the size of the JW community and its influence on the world, its 'unity' and so forth, note that the worldwide loose group known as Pentecostals has grown from virtually zero size 120 years ago to upwards of 300 million today. They are strongly united in many ways -- just not the same way JWs are united. For the most part, both Pentecostals and JWs as individuals are highly brainwashed by their cultish leaders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Pentecostals has grown from virtually zero size 120 years ago to upwards of 300 million today. They are strongly united in many ways -- just not the same way JWs are united. 

They are so united that any jingoistic national leader can talk them into blowing each other’s head off in the latest inter-national skirmish, something that cannot be done with Jehovah’s Witnesses.

The “Truth” that Jehovah’s Witnesses cling to is the pearl of great price which the merchant, upon finding it, gladly sells all that he has to secure it. (Matthew 13:46)

If he later came to regard that pearl no more highly that a common pebble found on any dirt road, then he will naturally reverse course and holler about the price he and others paid to secure it

That’s all that is going on here with Alan. He has negated the upside, so of course all that remains is to moan about the cost. He has “disproven” even the central tenet of that “pearl.” He has “disproven” God.

For the most part, he does not outright lie. But he overstates to such a degree that nothing from him can be taken verbatim. It all has to be carefully checked. Much of it is embellished with sweeping assumptions. Minor, but typical, case in point is his recent insistence that his enemy stated the end would come specifically in 2000. Under relentless pressure, he walked it back to some generic statements about “within the century.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/2/2019 at 10:39 AM, Anna said:

consider my uncle (non JW) as molesting me when I was 13. I was wearing a t-shirt with some logo on it across my chest. He took his finger and begun tracing the writing and then at the end he tweeked my nipple.

 

On 12/2/2019 at 10:39 AM, Anna said:

I straight to my mum  reporting what had happened. My mum went straight to my aunt, and my aunt went straight to my uncle. Needless to say, that was the last time he touched me. 

Needless to say.

I like how the JW video “Protect Your Children” pushes just this course. “If anyone” touches you in a way that “makes you uncomfortable” “even if it is someone you know and trust” then “right away come tell mommy or daddy”, who respond pretty much like Anna’s mom did. 

I like the way how that solves the problem. Will reporting Uncle Hands to the police solve the problem? I have my doubts. Especially since reporting outright rape does not necessarily solve the problem—all the time we hear of CSA crimes from rapists who had already done time and were already on the Predator List. That’s not to say it’s not worth blowing these people in—of course it is. But if our goal is to solve the problem, then Anna’s mom and the WT video gets higher priority.

The WT video builds on the bedrock that only godly people will have—that Jehovah gave us a conscience. I squabbled with Ann O'Maly (one of the Three Apostates) a while back about dueling videos. Her video featured circled areas of a child’s body, as though the child of critical thinking should bring that chart to mind in order to determine whether he should feel bad about how he has been touched. Our video featured “a conscience” that God gave us.

O’Maly resisted for the longest time, but the knockout punch came when I pointed out that our video said “if ANYONE touches you” and hers specifically said that it was okay if a doctor touched children in those circled areas. “Ask the young women of the US Olympics Gymnastics Team which video they think would have protected them more,” I told her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, we have had to learn the hard way what would have been the morally right thing in the first place.

James 4:17 "Therefore, if someone knows how to do what is right and yet does not do it, it is a sin for him."

I just love the way some JWs make up all the excuses, but then admit to the faults of the GB and It's Org. @b4ucuhear 

Unfortunately IT IS THE VICTIMS THAT HAVE SUFFERED, NOT THE GB OR IT'S ORG. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TrueTomHarley said:

Quote

 

    2 hours ago, AlanF said:

    TTH: “At present, anything from a hand on the inner thigh or rear end to outright rape is described (and sometimes deliberately confused) as “molestation.””

You donkey, of course they are different!

 

I clearly said that, you moron. Can't you read? Or is your brain still dead?

Quote

You are committing Event Escalation Fallacy.

Nope. You are committing the fallacy of not understanding what you read.

Quote

Turn your mighty intellect upon murder, if you can do so without screaming ‘Straw Man.’ Consider that there is first degree murder, 2nd degree murder, even 3rd degree murder, not to mention hate crime murder. Vent your outrage over that, why don’t you? Tell the morons that “murder is murder!”

I already went through that with various degrees of child molestation.

Quote

Even that paragraph doesn’t adequately describe your idiocy, for the examples within all do involve murder. Better that you should insist that a shove to the body is no different than murder. That comparison is much more parallel to the CSA offenses that you think are the same.

Yep, a great big straw man alright -- invented because you can't understand written English.
     

Quote

 

    2 hours ago, AlanF said:

    I think you need to go back to square one on what constitutes morality....Coming from someone with a demonstrably defective moral sense and little critical thinking ability, that's rich!

Completely emotional outbursts. Not a shred of “logic” to them.

 

Any objective person reading your ridiculous responses and general lying would disagree.
 
 

Quote

Character assassination appears to be your specialty.

I unhesitatingly call spades spades and liars liars. You don't like it because you know you're a liar.

Quote

Not meeting your completely arbitrary criteria is enough to be labeled a person of “demonstrably defective moral sense.”

Arbitrary? My 'criteria' are generally part of The Law and clearly indicated by so-called Bible Morality.

Quote

It is perhaps understandable from Leonard McCoy. the hothead. But not from someone who claims logic and intellect that would put even Mr. Spock to shame.

 
You obviously know nothing of logic and intellect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, b4ucuhear said:

With regards to "being appointed by 'holy spirit,' a few things to keep in mind. A recent "Treasures From God's Word" stated: "The stars are under Jesus' full control, power, and direction." That COULD be a bit misleading depending on how literally you view that statement. Should we assume then that elders will do everything perfectly - as if Jesus by holy spirit has them on remote control - controlling every thought, decision and action within the congregations? If that was the case, the elders/GB would always act perfectly. Should we actually expect that today? Recall, that even while Jesus was letting the first century anointed elders know that they were accountable to him as to how they used the authority entrusted to them, what was actually going while he was yet speaking? Apostasy, immorality, lukewarm, half-hearted service that wanted to make Jesus vomit them out of his mouth... Why would that be the case when Jesus is in authority?

As we recall, we are often reminded not to expect perfection from our brothers and sisters - including appointed elders. The  apostle Paul candidly described his battle with good and bad inclinations. But there are other reasons too.                                    

1) Holy spirit does not give appointed men a miraculous ability to read hearts and minds. A person is spoken of as being "appointed by holy spirt," when they are seen to live up to the qualifications set out in God's Word - which is inspired by holy spirt. But humans are limited in that respect and sometimes mistakes are made. (i.e.. GB appoints an individual as an elder and later as a Circuit Overseer who turns out to be a communist spy that turns in the brothers causing some to stumble. Jesus didn't direct that to happen. After all, he would be working against his own interests - like a house divided. It was human limitation.)

2) Neither Jesus nor holy spirit take away a person's freedom of choice. (As was evidenced by what was going on even while Jesus was speaking). As we also know, in the first century, there were men in the congregations described as "rocks hidden beneath the surface." They weren't forced or directed to do that. That was their personal choice - which is important because our heart conditions are revealed by the choices we make. Anyone - including men in authority can make a wrong choice if they don't guard their heart. Freedom of choice is important for obvious reasons. 

3) If something isn't dealt with right away, does that indicate Jesus isn't in control of the congregation? No. As the comments point out, "if someone needs correction, Jesus will see to it that this is done in his own time and way." And it should come as not surprise that it's always been that way. As 1 Tim. 5:24 states: "The sins of some men are publicly known, leading directly to judgment, but those of other men become evident later." Later?!! How much later? The Bible historically answers that too. Sometimes the sins of some men like Korah and others became publicly known leading directly to judgment (when the earth swallowed up the rebels.) But other times, faithful men endured injustice for years, or decades and some would never see justice until the resurrection. So at times, things don't happen when and how we think they should. Or when we think is best. But we can have confidence that, as in the past, they will be dealt with one way or another. 

4) The operation of holy spirit can at times, be hard to "quantify." The first century Christians had strong and undeniable evidence they were anointed by holy spirit and some even had miraculous gifts. Even so, they didn't always have a complete understanding of things and some expectations were premature - although they were very interested as to where they thought the spirit was leading them. Likewise today. At times the leadings of holy spirit are easy to recognize and at other times not so much. Sometimes organizationally, we "go beyond the things written" as to dates, types and antitypes, times and seasons and even doctrinal issues. Well meaning, yes, but sometimes we forget that instead of making "predictions," (even while admitting we are not miraculously inspired prophets), our mandate is to preach and teach - not make up stuff that doesn't have a specific Biblical foundation. Historically and biblically there is nothing new to this. God's people have always had a gradual understanding of the outworking of God's purpose - and often leaning new things means we have to discard old things.

  But in all of this it's important to remember what is truly remarkable about benefitting from Jesus' authority as head of the congregation and what he has been able to accomplish using imperfect men. Miraculous some would say.

A) Jesus has been able to direct a world-wide preaching work using imperfect men, women, children and yes, imperfect elders. But it's much more than that when you think about it. We are preaching in Satan's backyard. He is the "god of this system of things" and has the support of powerful spirit creatures (henchmen) and world governments. And what is part of the message we deliver? "Satan is a malicious liar and that he and all of his spirit buddies, along with the world system he has spent thousands of years to develop, are all going to be destroyed." We preach that "right in his grill." How do you think that goes over? We would never be able to accomplish that if Jesus wasn't a powerful king in control of the congregation. So do we faithfuly follow the direction of appointed elders as to the details of accomplishing this ministry?

B) We have what everyone has wanted for thousands of years but been unable to achieve. World unity. Despite being from all nations, tribes and tongues - from different backgrounds and stations in life, we are united. But we aren't just united in a stalemate - "I won't attack you if you don't attack me." No. We are united because of the love we have for one another. The type of love that Jesus taught and demonstrated in our behalf. 

C) Many/most of Jehovah's Witnesses come from other religions. Even those born into the truth are exposed to many people from different faiths. And there is one thing we can all testify to: Spiritually, we are BY FAR, the best fed people on earth. More than that. We are the best fed group of people who have ever lived. We even know things first century Christians didn't know. Al of this is readily available. That is no accident. and Jesus continues to educate us using (imperfect) elders as teachers in the congregation. 

We benefit from a loving arrangement Jesus has by holy spirit set in place for our benefit. It's helpful to liken this arrangement to having good parents. As we grew, they fed us, cleaned us, clothes us, disciplined us, taught us, cared for and sympathized with us. When we were hurt they supported us. And even when we reach maturity, they are there for us and continue to love us. Again, this is possible by means of Jesus direction in the congregation and holy spirit.

  

 

Spoken like a truly brainwashed Elder, well done. 

You point to all the faults, then say how wonderful these elders are. 

Quote "At times the leadings of holy spirit are easy to recognize and at other times not so much."

That is so funny as I think it has been proven on here that neither God or Jesus Christ approve of the GB or the JW Org right now. So it would seem that NO holy spirit is flowing into the Org. God can withhold Holy Spirit you know .

Using the old excuse of how many Witnesses there are and the world wide preaching, means nothing in numbers. There are millions of Catholics and millions of Muslims too earthwide. You would say that the devil is helping them, but i would say then prove the devil isn't helping JW's. 

After all you have admitted that the GB / Org : " Sometimes organizationally, we "go beyond the things written" as to dates, types and antitypes, times and seasons and even doctrinal issues. "

So in other word the GB and it's Org has deliberately told lies. 'Gone beyond the things written', made up dates,  and types/anti-types, and even questionable doctrine. 

So GB/JW Org is as bad as Catholics, Muslims et al, in those circumstances. But of course you are so deeply involved that you cannot see how bad the GB /Org is. 

And then, i think, one of the GB has said  that God/Christ trust them, and GB member asks if congregants trust the GB........... So funny. Can you honestly not see this as funny. You point out some of the faults of  the GB/Org, not including CSA and withholding information, homosexuals GB members, lawyers that tell lies in court, et al. And the GB want to know who trusts them :) 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

b4ucuhear said:

Quote

 

    15 hours ago, AlanF said to Anna:

    Not just 'appears' -- it IS that way. Through at least the late 1980s it was unofficially stated but strongly enforced Watchtower policy that "keeping Jehovah's name spotless" was above all other goals in handling judicial and other matters. "Jehovah's name" was deliberately conflated with "the Watchtower Society's reputation". Thus, elders' prime goal was usually to keep all sordid situations under wraps. Hundreds of examples of this have been reported in various public and private media.

    Good points! Tolerance is a form of enabling, which in some cases is even worse than the crime.

While I do try to defend "the organization" as much as possible as a JW, I'm not one of those who feels that mindless unquestioning obedience is a mark of "loyalty."

 

Then you're an apostate, because that's what your Governing Body requires.

Quote

Yes, at times we don't second guess the direction we receive and progress has been made, but it is also true to say that organizationally we haven't always been that forthcoming.

You're a master of understatement.

Quote

The fact is, that at times what has masqueraded as "discipline from Jehovah" has been nothing more than some men in authority silencing whistleblowers who have exposed the wrongdoing of those self-same men in authority - removing or even disfellowshipping those who they perceive as a threat to their position and reputation.

The cases of Carl Olof Jonsson and James Penton being prime examples.

Quote

(While I have seen that happen, it's important not to paint with too wide a brush here.) Saying one "doesn't have all the facts" in some cases is just utter nonsense. It at times can serve to protect those who should have been on trial while vilifying/diminishing the whistleblower. Yes, I have seen that happen and that's why I don't buy into the idea that Jesus controls everything that goes on in the congregation - especially when God's Word warns us of "wicked men and imposters," "wolves in sheep's clothing," "rock hidden below the surface..." I don't understand why people after reading these clear warnings in God's Word appear to think they can't actually happen.

They think that because JW leaders have made it a disfellowshipping offense to disagree.

I'm happy to meet one of the few JW apologists who straightforwardly admits to such faults, so good for you!

I met an elder nearly 30 years ago with whom I had some frank talks. He had been an especially respected elder for several decades, and had a realistic view of the JW organization reminiscent of yours. He didn't believe about 80% of JW teachings. He said he had become an elder mainly to damp down "the bears", meaning elders who he felt mistreated "the flock". Despite his being an undercover apostate, he often entertained GB members and other Watchtower officials. Go figure.

Quote

True it doesn't characterize the organization which is full of loving people who sincerely want to do the right thing,

On an individual basis JWs tend to be exactly that. But the leaders are vicious, and no different from those of the 'Christendom' they love to bash. In certain ways they're even worse, since most such leaders make no arrogant claims to be divinely directed and are often not as hypocritical. JW leaders are well known for talking out of both sides of their mouths, claiming virtual inspiration out of one side, and excusing their false teachings and predictions out of the other side.

You can see this sort of gross hypocrisy in several of the most rabid JW apologists posting on this board. I often taunt them in order expose their wicked attitudes.

Quote

but it does happen and to categorically dismiss these things by implying Jesus controls everything is tantamount to blaming him.

Indeed. Another instance of gross hypocrisy by JW leaders.

Quote

It appears to me that hiding behind the umbrella of "not bringing reproach on Jehovah's name," - which we should totally try not to do anyway, has at times been used by imperfect and sometimes wicked men to protect themselves.

Exactly. Even for an ostensibly good person, thinking that one speaks for God often emboldens one to act especially wickedly. As physicist Steven Weinberg said:

<< With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion. >>

Quote

I ask: When has Jehovah ever withheld needed discipline because he was afraid of what the neighbours think? Did he forgo discipline to the nation of Israel knowing full well that the nations would attribute the victory to their false gods? No. Jehovah has always been true to himself and his standards - regardless of what puny imperfect humans think, do or say. He wasn't straightjacketed into non-action. fearing "reproach" from others.

Would that JW leaders act accordingly.

Quote

Still it would be unfair, as stated, to paint with too wide a brush. There are millions of kind, loving, sincere people who are actively trying to serve Jehovah the best way they can.

Yet, you know that if push comes to shove, the majority of JWs would act according to the tribalism they've been ingrained with, and side with their leaders irrespective of facts or "Bible standards" of honesty and morality. Thousands of instances of this have been posted online for decades.

I've sometimes tested JWs who came to my door: "What if your organization began teaching that the moon is made of cheddar cheese? Would you reject such obvious nonsense?" Most have answered that they would go along with their organization. Tribalism at its best.

Quote

And it can't be denied that despite the bad actions/choices of some relatively few individuals (some of whom may be in positions of authority) this is the best place to be.

Yes it can.

And there is no reason to think that there must be a "best place to be". How about just quietly living a reasonably moral life free from as many bad influences -- like religion -- as possible?

Quote

We recall that all of us are accountable - from members of the Governing Body to the newest publisher. We may not always be in a position to do much about it, but we can have faith in the promises found in God's Word that there will be accountability. Our policies, like our beliefs/expectations on certain things have and are changing - more in some areas than others.  

I see no change for the better. Rather, I see the opposite, as JW leaders circle the wagons and demonize critics more than ever.

More than forty years ago when I was still a practicing JW, I understood quite well that to raise questions without a demeaning level of obsequiousness would get one disfellowshipped. After the April 1, 1986 Watchtower and other communications clearly indicated that even expressing contrary opinions privately -- not trying to teach them to others -- was grounds for disfellowshipping for apostasy, I realized that the JW leadership was unrepairably corrupt. Who in his right mind would want to be part of such an organization?

As for "the promises found in God's Word", you first have to prove that this God exists, and that the Bible is His Word. But the Bible contains, as I'm sure you're aware, many contradictions with facts, such as in the Genesis account. In this area the Society has been especially remiss, publishing all manner of lies and misrepresentations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, AlanF said:

I've sometimes tested JWs who came to my door: "What if your organization began teaching that the moon is made of cheddar cheese? Would you reject such obvious nonsense?" Most have answered that they would go along with their organization. 

Come, come. Tell the truth. Shame the devil. 

What are you hiding? What are you misrepresenting? What are you sifting through with your mighty “logic,” and in so doing, dropping everything of value, making yourself look ridiculous, and qualifying anything else you say?

They are NOT going to say: “If the GB says the moon is cheddar cheese, than IT IS!”

Most likely they demur because the question is so stupid, and then you crow your typical “victory!”

42 minutes ago, AlanF said:
Quote

“which is full of loving people who sincerely want to do the right thing”,....On an individual basis JWs tend to be exactly that. But the leaders are vicious, and no different from those of the Christendom they love to bash

 

I thought you said that you knew how to think. 

It will not fly with those who truly understand logic. Vicious leaders will produce vicious people. If, instead, the rank and file JW “tend to be exactly that”—“loving people who sincerely want to do the right thing,” then the leadership cannot be TOO vicious. 

No. Anyone of sense will tell you what ones of sense here do tell you. The leaders also are loving and try to do the right thing. They are imperfect, they can err, they are not scared of applying the discipline that any decent parent must. They are NOT “vicious”—otherwise those who look to them for headship would also be that way.

Now THAT is logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TrueTomHarley said:

Quote

 

    2 hours ago, AlanF said:

    Pentecostals has grown from virtually zero size 120 years ago to upwards of 300 million today. They are strongly united in many ways -- just not the same way JWs are united.

They are so united that any jingoistic national leader can talk them into blowing each other’s head off in the latest inter-national skirmish, something that cannot be done with Jehovah’s Witnesses.

 

Pentecostals generally don't do that.

Apparently you just make up "news" out of thin air -- just like your idol Trump.

Quote

 

The “Truth” that Jehovah’s Witnesses cling to is the pearl of great price which the merchant, upon finding it, gladly sells all that he has to secure it. (Matthew 13:46)

If he later came to regard that pearl no more highly that a common pebble found on any dirt road, then he will naturally reverse course and holler about the price he and others paid to secure it

That’s all that is going on here with Alan. He has negated the upside, so of course all that remains is to moan about the cost. He has “disproven” even the central tenet of that “pearl.” He has “disproven” God.

 

Correct. And obviously you have no answer against my proof.

Quote

For the most part, he does not outright lie.

I never lie. You're doing what ever-Trumpers do very well -- project their own faults onto their opponents.

Quote

But he overstates to such a degree that nothing from him can be taken verbatim. It all has to be carefully checked. Much of it is embellished with sweeping assumptions. Minor, but typical, case in point is his recent insistence that his enemy stated the end would come specifically in 2000. Under relentless pressure, he walked it back to some generic statements about “within the century.”

LOL! Such a transparent liar. I explained all that in excruciating detail, and of course, accompanied all of my claims with quotes from Watchtower publications. And of course, "within the 20th century" obviously means "in or by 2000". More grasping at straws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AlanF said:

You're covering over the fact that in most regions only certain religious and other public officials are required by law to report. In the U.S...

I am not in the U.S. and so cannot confirm or deny your comments. I can say that reporting is mandatory in my country.

3 hours ago, AlanF said:

such 'appointment' by God is only in a manner of speaking. It is not literal, direct appointment such as described of the Old Testament prophets.

I agree with that. After all the GB themselves have appointed men who were not whom they appeared to be (as have other levels of authority within the organization.) As for the rest, I assume you are referring to Deut. 18:20 which JW haters are so fond of parroting. You are going beyond the scope of your reference in your suggestion especially as to how JWs use the term as applying to themselves. The GB put out a video explanation of that for clarification as it seems some JWs needed to be clear on that issue as well. 

I was willing and planning to write a point-by-point response to the things you have written - including those I may agree with. But frankly, now I think it's just a waste of time. You clearly have an agenda that won't be swayed by what I consider "facts" and your hateful diatribe (from someone who apparently doesn't even believe in God in the first place) is to me, counterproductive. I am happy having a purpose in life, a wonderful hope for the future and a warm loving relationship with my creator and many friends. I wish the same for you, but of course, you may already be happy and content with what you have. We will have to agree to disagree - on some points at least. 

2 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

I just love the way some JWs make up all the excuses, but then admit to the faults of the GB and It's Org.

Umm...it's called being honest in case you don't recognize it. You noted correctly that I was willing to acknowledge negative things that may happen, but when I wrote what I considered to be reasonable explanations/positive points, you dismissively wrote it off as "excuses." Truly, there is no pleasing people who appear to have a hateful agenda and only see the bad. You are of course welcome to your opinion. It's just that on some points I don't share your opinion. Is that OK? 

I have been willing to honestly acknowledge both positive and negative things about us, but I've only heard negative, hateful diatribe from the naysayers here with not one positive thing to say in all these missives. There are millions of JWs who are good people by any standard, but if anyone bought into your nonsense they would all be viewed as bad or negatively. I may not agree with Muslims, Catholics, Pentecostals... but I can always find points of agreement when engaging them in conversation and things I like about them - even when it isn't a religious discussion.

So as far as I am concerned, you are not only unfair in your blanket characterizations, I simply don't find your association either enlightening, helpful or even fair-minded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TrueTomHarley said:

Quote

 

    37 minutes ago, AlanF said:

    I've sometimes tested JWs who came to my door: "What if your organization began teaching that the moon is made of cheddar cheese? Would you reject such obvious nonsense?" Most have answered that they would go along with their organization.

Come, come. Tell the truth. Shame the devil.

What are you hiding? What are you misrepresenting? What are you sifting through with your mighty “logic,” and in so doing, dropping everything of value, making yourself look ridiculous, and qualifying anything else you say?

They are NOT going to say: “If the GB says the moon is cheddar cheese, than IT IS!”

Most likely they demur because the question is so stupid, and then you crow your typical “victory.”

 

You're abysmally dishonest, TTH. I did not say they demur -- I said they directly answered the question.

Quote

 

    37 minutes ago, AlanF said:

          Quote

        which is full of loving people who sincerely want to do the right thing,

    On an individual basis JWs tend to be exactly that. But the leaders are vicious, and no different from those of the Christendom they love to bash
    Read more   

I thought you said that you knew how to think.

 

Obviously you don't, as will be immediately shown.

Quote

It will not fly with those who truly understand logic. Vicious leaders will produce vicious people.

Not necessarily. Watchtower leaders are well known for saying different things out of both sides of their mouths, and acting quite differently from their moral pronouncements.

Quote

If, instead, the rank and file JW “tend to be exactly that”—“loving people who sincerely want to do the right thing,” The leadership cannot be TOO vicious.

The two-facedness of JW leaders is much like that of the Pharisees: "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you resemble whitewashed graves, which outwardly indeed appear beautiful but inside are full of dead men’s bones and of every sort of uncleanness. 28 In the same way, on the outside you appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness."

Simple, eh?

Quote

No. Anyone of sense will tell you what ones of sense here do tell you. The leaders also are loving and try to do the right thing. They are imperfect, they can err, they are not scared of applying the discipline that any decent parent must. They are NOT “viscious”—otherwise those who look to them for headship would also be.

They're vicious in that they tolerate no dissent, not even from sincere dissenters. They declare such ones "wicked apostates" worthy of eternal death at God's hands.

Quote

Now THAT is logic.

Nope. Argue with Jesus, not me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, b4ucuhear said:

I am not in the U.S. and so cannot confirm or deny your comments. I can say that reporting is mandatory in my country.

I agree with that. After all the GB themselves have appointed men who were not whom they appeared to be (as have other levels of authority within the organization.) As for the rest, I assume you are referring to Deut. 18:20 which JW haters are so fond of parroting. You are going beyond the scope of your reference in your suggestion especially as to how JWs use the term as applying to themselves. The GB put out a video explanation of that for clarification as it seems some JWs needed to be clear on that issue as well. 

I was willing and planning to write a point-by-point response to the things you have written - including those I may agree with. But frankly, now I think it's just a waste of time. You clearly have an agenda that won't be swayed by what I consider "facts" and your hateful diatribe (from someone who apparently doesn't even believe in God in the first place) is to me, counterproductive. I am happy having a purpose in life, a wonderful hope for the future and a warm loving relationship with my creator and many friends. I wish the same for you, but of course, you may already be happy and content with what you have. We will have to agree to disagree - on some points at least. 

Umm...it's called being honest in case you don't recognize it. You noted correctly that I was willing to acknowledge negative things that may happen, but when I wrote what I considered to be reasonable explanations/positive points, you dismissively wrote it off as "excuses." Truly, there is no pleasing people who appear to have a hateful agenda and only see the bad. You are of course welcome to your opinion. It's just that on some points I don't share your opinion. Is that OK? 

I have been willing to honestly acknowledge both positive and negative things about us, but I've only heard negative, hateful diatribe from the naysayers here with not one positive thing to say in all these missives. There are millions of JWs who are good people by any standard, but if anyone bought into your nonsense they would all be viewed as bad or negatively. I may not agree with Muslims, Catholics, Pentecostals... but I can always find points of agreement when engaging them in conversation and things I like about them - even when it isn't a religious discussion.

So as far as I am concerned, you are not only unfair in your blanket characterizations, I simply don't find your association either enlightening, helpful or even fair-minded.

@b4ucuhear  OK, I'll agree to step back slightly as I may appear aggressive, whereas I just try to be assertive. 

I remember a scripture which say to 'keep oneself without spot from the world'. And reading through many comments on this forum I can see that the GB and the Org's line of management, do not keep themselves without spot from the world. 

You seem in line with Mr Harley when you say people have 'a hateful agenda', and this does truly show how the Organisation really does brainwash the congregants. It appears so often on here that anyone that finds faults with the GB and the JW Org seem to have a 'hateful agenda'.  When in fact all of us are just humans, trying to live our daily lives. 

IMO, anyone that leaves the JW Org should just be treated as Jesus treated the tax collectors. Jesus would converse with them, eat meals with them, and wasn't Matthew a tax collector. But because the GB changed the way that the announcement was made from the platform, no one knows if a person has left or were d/fed. If a person leaves the Org, they are no longer 'calling themselves a brother/ sister' so that scripture would not apply, about not even eating with such ones. So why so much shunning?

Quote "There are millions of JWs who are good people by any standard,  " 

There is only one standard that is worthy of consideration, God's standard.......... And if JW congregants follow the GB / Elders / JW org without question, then they are not adhering to God's standard but man's. 

You are once again in line with @TrueTomHarley and @Arauna here with your idea of 'any standards', because it means you are comparing JW's with the standards of this wicked world. 

The cars I drive are cheap and nasty, but if, when the weather is wet and cold, I compare my cars to a bicycle, then my cars are wonderful, near perfect in fact. :)  Do you get t he picture now ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

because it means you are comparing JW's with the standards of this wicked world. 

The wicked world will not answer to God? So it is ok if they do bad things? Same with christendom..... they teach many untruths BUT you expect us to be perfect IN EVERY way.  Christ died for us too you know! We are very imperfect but at least we try to live lives that honour God..... and try to stick to His principles.  There are always a few Judas' wherever you go.... even Jesus did not stop Judas.  So there are a few JWs who bring dishonor on gods name and when they are dealt with - we get critisized for that too.  We cannot please everyone - only God. In comparison to others - we are trying.... but nothing is good enough for you.  So let God be the judge. We are only too aware that God will judge us first.... e ven the 144000 will be judged before they are sealed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

You seem in line with Mr Harley when you say people have 'a hateful agenda', and this does truly show how the Organisation really does brainwash the congregants. It appears so often on here that anyone that finds faults with the GB and the JW Org seem to have a 'hateful agenda'.  When in fact all of us are just humans, trying to live our daily lives. 

Simply stating an opinion that some people have a hateful agenda doesn't mean they are "brainwashed." It's simply an observation/opinion borne out by what we see and experience. I could just as well say that you are "brainwashed" because you disagree with me. You can either agree or disagree according to your observations - you are entitled to your opinion. Brainwashed has become a derogatory term used too loosely these days and especially apparently, by you when someone disagrees with you. 

9 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

There is only one standard that is worthy of consideration, God's standard.......... And if JW congregants follow the GB / Elders / JW org without question, then they are not adhering to God's standard but man's. 

Once again, you are welcome to your opinion. And while I agree that mindless unquestioning obedience to whatever is said by imperfect, uninspired men won't always reach God's standards, by the same token, you too are an imperfect, uninspired individual - as is every other human alive. But I'd put far more weight toward what I have learned through JW's than I would with you. So feel free to believe what you want. 

9 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

You are once again in line with @TrueTomHarley and @Arauna here with your idea of 'any standards', because it means you are comparing JW's with the standards of this wicked world. 

Thank-you for the compliment of being "in line" with TTH and Arauna and thank-you for noticing. Once again, you are going beyond the scope of your reference after that. While it may be true that we compare JW's standards with those of this wicked world (a fair thing to do by the way, as long as you don't leave it at that), we also try to align our standards with what we read in God's Word. That is why JW's are known for being honest, truthful, law-abiding, loving, loyal, peaceful... But you already know that. It seems that for you, it's like coughing up a fur ball for you to acknowledge anything good about JW's.

9 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

The cars I drive are cheap and nasty, but if, when the weather is wet and cold, I compare my cars to a bicycle, then my cars are wonderful, near perfect in fact. :)  Do you get t he picture now ? 

Yes, I get the picture...that you don't know what you are talking about and that the cute comparison in the context of our discussion only shows you drive cheap and nasty cars. Nothing more. There is nothing cheap and nasty about JWs as a whole (even though there are some bad apples). And JWs for the most part have already made the appropriate comparisons by either being raised in one of thousands of different religions or exposed to the different ideas of those same ideas in the field ministry. 

One thing should be obvious to you by now. Most JWs have heard your negative rants and character assassinations before. In fact, they may have even entertained those same views prior to becoming JW's. So they aren't going to change because some anonymous loudmouth spews vitriolic diatribe over the internet. (I'm not specifically accusing you of that)

9 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

all of us are just humans, trying to live our daily lives. 

Yes, that's all. "Just humans, trying to live our daily lives." So why are you spending your daily life on websites such as this singling out Jehovah's Witnesses? Aren't there bigger fish to fry out there? What about all those religions that go to war killing millions of their fellow worshipers; celebrating pagan holidays; teaching people they will burn for all eternity in hell for some imagined infractions; terrorism and suicide bombers and a myriad other greater infractions? I could go on and on but apparently you seem conspicuously silent on the big issues and big fish.

I wasn't planning on wasting more of my time with people who have an agenda. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/4/2019 at 8:55 PM, b4ucuhear said:

Simply stating an opinion that some people have a hateful agenda doesn't mean they are "brainwashed." It's simply an observation/opinion borne out by what we see and experience. I could just as well say that you are "brainwashed" because you disagree with me. You can either agree or disagree according to your observations - you are entitled to your opinion. Brainwashed has become a derogatory term used too loosely these days and especially apparently, by you when someone disagrees with you. 

Once again, you are welcome to your opinion. And while I agree that mindless unquestioning obedience to whatever is said by imperfect, uninspired men won't always reach God's standards, by the same token, you too are an imperfect, uninspired individual - as is every other human alive. But I'd put far more weight toward what I have learned through JW's than I would with you. So feel free to believe what you want. 

Thank-you for the compliment of being "in line" with TTH and Arauna and thank-you for noticing. Once again, you are going beyond the scope of your reference after that. While it may be true that we compare JW's standards with those of this wicked world (a fair thing to do by the way, as long as you don't leave it at that), we also try to align our standards with what we read in God's Word. That is why JW's are known for being honest, truthful, law-abiding, loving, loyal, peaceful... But you already know that. It seems that for you, it's like coughing up a fur ball for you to acknowledge anything good about JW's.

Yes, I get the picture...that you don't know what you are talking about and that the cute comparison in the context of our discussion only shows you drive cheap and nasty cars. Nothing more. There is nothing cheap and nasty about JWs as a whole (even though there are some bad apples). And JWs for the most part have already made the appropriate comparisons by either being raised in one of thousands of different religions or exposed to the different ideas of those same ideas in the field ministry. 

One thing should be obvious to you by now. Most JWs have heard your negative rants and character assassinations before. In fact, they may have even entertained those same views prior to becoming JW's. So they aren't going to change because some anonymous loudmouth spews vitriolic diatribe over the internet. (I'm not specifically accusing you of that)

Yes, that's all. "Just humans, trying to live our daily lives." So why are you spending your daily life on websites such as this singling out Jehovah's Witnesses? Aren't there bigger fish to fry out there? What about all those religions that go to war killing millions of their fellow worshipers; celebrating pagan holidays; teaching people they will burn for all eternity in hell for some imagined infractions; terrorism and suicide bombers and a myriad other greater infractions? I could go on and on but apparently you seem conspicuously silent on the big issues and big fish.

I wasn't planning on wasting more of my time with people who have an agenda. 

Quote " So why are you spending your daily life on websites such as this singling out Jehovah's Witnesses? "

BECAUSE THIS IS A JW WEBSITE and therefore I talk about JWs.

As for spending my daily life on here, wrong. It's Saturday and i haven't been on here since, Wednesday I think it was. My life is far too busy to spend too much time on here, Hence when i log on I find between ten and twenty comments that I've missed. 

And when three or more JWs on here say that, so and so has a 'hateful agenda', then it certainly looks like they are being parrots, so I call it brainwashed.  

Quote " And while I agree that mindless unquestioning obedience to whatever is said by imperfect, uninspired men won't always reach God's standards "   Wow, we can actually agree on this. 

Quote "That is why JW's are known for being honest, truthful, law-abiding, loving, loyal, peaceful... "

NO, that is what is shown on the outside of the dish. But Jesus said first wash the inside of the dish so that it will be completely clean.... Right now the 'world' is seeing inside the dish of JW Org. 

The GB's lawyers are being seen to tell LIES in courts. The truth is out about Child Sexual Abuse Earthwide, and about victims being disfellowshipped to get them out of the congregations and to stop other congregants talking to them. What is being seen is the lack of love, mercy, justice, truth, honesty and law abiding  behaviour.

I do wonder, when JWs are standing by the 'carts' with the literature, do they think it is because people are not interested in God that people walk straight past ? 

Well maybe people know of all the wickedness inside the JW Org, so people do not want to get involved. That maybe why they walk straight past. Because the JW Org brings shame on Almighty God. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/4/2019 at 3:55 PM, b4ucuhear said:

I wasn't planning on wasting more of my time with people who have an agenda. 

Oh brother! I should have taken my own advice instead of wasting my time on a pointless back-and-forth with people who think "getting the last word in" somehow indicates they have the upper hand in a post.

I respect you right to disagree with whatever I or anyone else says, but this droning on and on is pointless. I just saw topic that went on for over 50 pages, with no end in sight. I'm not at all interested in investing that much of my time arguing points for which both sides seem intractable. So why bother? I am honest enough to admit that I have seen things that shouldn't be happening within the organization, but I am also honest enough to admit that much of what you infer is utter nonsense. 

2 Tim. 2:... "But reject empty speeches that violate what is holy for they will lead to more and more ungodliness...these men (or women) have deviated from the truth,...and they are subverting the faith of some. despite that, the solid foundation of God remains standing, having this seal, 'Jehovah knows those who belong to him,'...Now in a large house there are utensils not only of gold and silver but also of wood and earthenware, and some for an honourable use but others for a use lacking donor. So if anyone keeps clear of the latter ones, he will be an instrument for an honourable use, sanctified, useful to his owner, prepared for every good work...Further, reject foolish and ignorant debates, knowing that they produce fights. For a slave of the Lord does not need to fight..."

I won't be surprised if you or any of your ilk continues ranting on-and-on here, so "if I'm not there, start without me."

That's all I have to say to conclude by involvement in this thread. It is counterproductive and I've got better things to do. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites





×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.