Jump to content

Jack Ryan

Leo K. Greenlees

Topic Summary

Created

Last Reply

Replies

Views

Jack Ryan -
b4ucuhear -
43
7502

Top Posters


Recommended Posts

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:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhXUrFdWeoU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4Id4OSe2to

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

  • Forum Statistics

    61,676
    Total Topics
    114,484
    Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    16,505
    Total Members
    1,592
    Most Online
    Leander H. McNelly
    Newest Member
    Leander H. McNelly
    Joined




×
×
  • 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.