REPROOF FROM THE PLATFORM

[JW Insider]

2 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Now I have more questions. The Watchtower B&T Society is one 'company', whilst the, Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses is a seperate 'company'.  

I'm out for the rest of the day, but we should start another thread on this topic, anyway.

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Look Magazine....what was I smoking?

I wasn't right about it either. It was Collier's, November 2, 1946.

https://archive.org/details/1940sReportsOnJehovahsWitnesses

...

The article I was thinking about was quite negative, overall, so I started thinking it couldn't have been that one. 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

Does a person have to be first Gruntled, before they can be disgruntled?

[JW Insider]

4 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

I can say a million things, but without proof, it's simply conjectured

That's true. You can. That's the nature of social media. You could tell the truth, and no one needs to believe you. I could tell the truth, and no one needs to believe me. Someone could just as easily make something up and no one needs to believe them.

Hypothetical example that would probably never happen: I could claim that Charles Taze Russell was the first Vice President of the Watch Tower Society (which he was, and this is something I'm sure you already know) and you could get angry and claim that he was never the first Vice President, only the first President. If people believed you, I'd have less credibility. If people believed me, you'd have less credibility. But even if no one believed me now, someday they might buy a book by B. Schulz, for example, and see that a seemingly unbiased source agreed with me. You might then remember how angry you were, and begin to re-evaluate other things I claimed. But I might never know that a small trivial item like that might have made you positively re-evaluate some less trivial things that you once fought against.

This is why, I have no problem bringing up lesser known items that you treat as merely conjecture at the moment. Perhaps one day you will run across one of Covington's relatives, or a former Bethelite who knows more about it. Or perhaps it will be for another reason altogether, perhaps when/if the Society changes its stance on a certain doctrine or two. And perhaps none of these things will ever happen, and you will be suspicious of me for the rest of your life. It's not a problem as long as my own conscience is clear, between me and Jehovah. 

4 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

just proves my point about Hayden Cooper Covington that was D’fd in the end for excessive drinking by Knorr, but was reinstated before he died.

As you already admitted, nothing is "proven." How, for example, do you know that he was DF'd for excessive drinking? Did you see this, or did someone claim it, and it made sense to you? Did you know for a fact that he was officially reinstated? Perhaps you heard his funeral talk. Was something said about his "drinking" in that talk? The funeral talk (1978) mentions that he was now considered one of the anointed, which surprised many at the time. Do we take Brother Colin Quackenbush's word for it? What if Brother Quackenbush thought he needed to say this to protect the reputation of the newly defined "governing body" since it had long been associated with "the board of directors." The GB was already claiming that it was "representing" the entire 10,000 or so members of the "faithful and discreet slave" as they were still defined in 1978. Could Quackenbush have been trying to gain some extra credit for himself as a good friend of Covington, as if the one who had talked him out of doing something rash and stupid?

4 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

However, you’re correct, all your information can be found in Wikipedia. What I find interesting, how your screen name is well known in an apostate site called AD1914. Why is that?

I didn't know that a "tell-all" piece had been referenced on Wikipedia or anywhere else. Also, I'm not worried about how I'm quoted elsewhere. I'm still semi-anonymous, so what does it matter? I've been asked several times if people can quote me on their sites. I always say yes, and that they don't even have to credit me. But I have also found things I've written used in ways I didn't like, so that last part might have been a mistake.

4 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

I wasn’t going to say anything, but a VP had already been factored in by Pastor Russell himself away before 1942. I just figured it was just another mistake given by a former Bethel member

Always feel free to correct any mistakes.

4 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

The Vice-President was a liaison between the board of directors and the editorial committee that had the same provisional voting rights and election. The same fundamental process in place today.

According to A. H. MacMillan, and as substantiated by others, this was only to happen in the event of C.T. Russell's death.

4 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

It would be no different when people say, in the beginning, the Watchtower had no provisions to stipulate having someone disfellowshipped,

True. And not just from the "corporation" through its bylaws. There were organizational "harvest siftings" and the equivalent of both organizational and congregational "excommunications" well before the 1947 Awake! that condemned excommunication as a pagan practice. (Look at Olin Moyle's disfellowshipping, for example.) The only thing that changed in the early 1950s was that there were now consistent organizational procedures for both congregational and organizational disfellowshippings. Consistency can result in better justice, so this should not be a completely unwelcome development.

4 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

I guess that's why you were the only one to give him input about apostates in his last book that he now recants.

I gave him no input about apostates, and I don't know what recanting of his you are talking about. As I recall, I only skimmed some of what he had already written the way a proofreader or copy-editor might read it. I found a few minor errors like typos, mostly, and made a few suggestions about using statistics in such a way that they would NOT be vulnerable to attack by apostates. Of course, just as you said at the beginning, that you could say a million things, but without proof, it's all just conjecture.

4 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

I can say a million things, but without proof, it's simply conjectured,

 

[Srecko Sostar]

2 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Does a person have to be first Gruntled, before they can be disgruntled?

I think how in  such matter,  order or sequence not existing. It appears randomly :))) and alternately. 

[JW Insider]

5 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Now I have more questions. The Watchtower B&T Society is one 'company', whilst the, Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses is a seperate 'company'.      When exactly did they seperate and why ? 

We got to a few other issues on this thread, so I suppose it's only fair to try to address your questions here.

I think it's obvious that a few things still work a little differently in practice than in theory, because there is such a considerable overlap in the way policy/procedure is followed and changed -- and potential consideration of any scriptural principles involved, which would then go back to the governing body for that reason if changes are being considered.

But in theory, it's possible to distinguish the major purposes and utilization of each of the various corporations. Even here there have been several legal issues raised by the way that the corporations were set up in various countries. For example, Australia branches are still under the direction of the Pennsylvania Watch Tower corporation. Most others are under their own local corporation with some functions reporting to their own zone, and some to Pennsylvania, and some even to New York. The CCJW was specifically set up NOT to be under the direction of the Watchtower of New York or the Watch Tower of Pennsylvania.

I will quote from the appeal that the Watchtower just filed in a CSA case in Montana which makes some clear statements about how it works in theory. (Someone just sent it to me.) But I can't do this just yet because I don't know if the appeal has been publicized yet, and I will never be the first to put something like that out into the public.

 

[TrueTomHarley]

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Do we take Brother Colin Quackenbush's word for it?

Brother Quackenbush spent the weekend in the area and gave a talk at our Kingdom Hall. His visit was billed ahead of time. I played it up to my kids, calling him, for my three-year-old daughter’s sake, “Brother Quackenduck.” (Surprisingly, she tired of it. She is more mature than me.)

Before closing prayer, he mentioned that he had received a love letter. It was in crayon from my daughter and had “i love you” and hearts & flowers & so forth. Everyone let out a collective sentimental “Awwwwww.”

”And my wife wasn’t even jealous, because she got one, too” he added.

[JW Insider]

3 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

His visit was BILLed ahead of time.

I get it! Like a duck's bill.

As in: A duck goes into a bar and tells the bartender: "Put in on my BILL!"

I should add that, considering the circumstances, I think Brother Quackenbush was sweet and brave at the same time for the funeral talk he gave for Covington. Brother Quackenbush was a very just and loving brother, in my opinion.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

14 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

That why it’s interesting you have no problem being posted on an apostate website. I would think an honest witness would find that offensive and demand its removal. Your words are just another true example where your true intentions are toward the Watchtower.

Do your handlers know YOU are visiting "Apostate Websites", and reading everything, in order to find such things?

Have you told YOUR Elders you are doing this?

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

25 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

His visit was billed ahead of time. I played it up to my kids, calling him, for my three-year-old daughter’s sake, “Brother Quackenduck.”

22 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

get it! Like a duck's bill.

As in: A duck goes into a bar and tells the bartender: "Put in on my BILL!"

Bro. Quackenduck ....

DUCK Bill... ( eyes glaze over, with big smile ...)

I get it!

Hahahahahaaa!

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

7 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Unfortunately. When one is researching, the truth leads you to certain disgusting sites. Therefore, I have no control when I'm redirected to certain sites. No difference, really from being here.

Please remember that before accusing others of foggery and mopery, with mirrors.

... could be worse ... we could both be proctologists for the grossly obese.

[JW Insider]

4 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Therefore suggesting Shultz book as proof cannot be your proof

Perhaps that was the reason I didn't suggest his book was proof. I think I purposely worded it something like this:

6 hours ago, JW Insider said:

someday they might buy a book by B. Schulz, for example, and see that a seemingly unbiased source agreed with me.

Why would I be speaking of "proof" if my whole point was based on how we nearly always lack proof? As I said a little later in the same post, that I agree with you that nothing is "proven" here. These topics live in a world of conjecture, opinion and sometimes, hopefully: evidence. Even with evidence, there is the hurdle of interpretation to get over. This isn't mathematics, geometry, etc.

4 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Therefore your characterization of events seems to imply you are the only authority for having been there to witness a certain event. Once again, where is your proof?

There you go again!

4 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Were you there to know Christ was laid to rest in a tomb?

Quite an uneven comparison. Should I suppose that's really your answer to how you know for sure Covington had a drinking problem? Because I would be a faithless cynic if I didn't believe he was DF'd for a drinking problem? Faith in who? You? Because your word is as sure as that of the Bible when it speaks about Jesus?

4 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

That why it’s interesting you have no problem being posted on an apostate website.

You seem to have no problem being posted here, and you have repeatedly called this an apostate website, too. As long as we are speaking truth to the best of our knowledge, truth shouldn't hurt anyone in the long run. Truth can hurt in the short run. But at least it's always better than falsehood, which is what most of those sites are known for.

4 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Therefore, don't be dismissive to think what you say is truth, and no other citations aren't.

I would never believe that, much less say it. You evidently haven't read what I say very carefully.

4 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Stop thinking about girls and concentrate.

For someone who has been known here for blatant examples of "projection," did you perhaps just provide an explanation of your lack of care? Not claiming you did, but your imputed motives are often fairly disgusting, and you may have just been hoisted by your own petard! Can't think of another reason at the moment why you have seemed to obsess on unclean thoughts.