I'm worried about a 'brother' recently reinstated spending too much time with my grandchildren

[TrueTomHarley]

1 hour ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

They too ... vote with their feet ... and their wallets

If he sells a lot of books for the prices he asks, it was a significant loss for the brothers. I should hire him as my business advisor. (The batsh*t crazy fellow who said he placed literature and then returned to caution against reading it said of my books: “out of your 4 books....you have given away more than you have sold, lets leave that there (how do i know that?)” 

“Possibly because the two with the most obvious appear plainly say that they are free,” I replied. 

Maybe I was too hard on him. I don’t even know him. I felt a little mean just after I posted what I did. Maybe I should regard him as a noble fellow whose conscience is just too pure to allow himself to be among people who can sully theirs working with imperfection.

I didn’t even explain what I meant by ‘he wants to see the faith become a museum piece.’ I am inventing a picture of what I think he must be like, based on the few factoids I know of him, and deciding that I do not like him at all. Maybe I should not spin him at all as just another malcontent as was a dime a dozen during Moses’ time and that of the apostles who spins his disgruntlement as ‘taking the high road.’

It’s not personal. If he doesn’t represent the type of person I mean, someone else does.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Maybe I was too hard on him. I don’t even know him. I felt a little mean just after I posted what I did. Maybe I should regard him as a noble fellow whose conscience is just too pure to allow himself to be among people who can sully theirs working with imperfection.

If I have a right to expect perfection from others ..... they have a right to expect it from me.

And I KNOW, I am a Barbarian.

 

Of course ... there ARE limits .......

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

It’s not personal. If he doesn’t represent the type of person I mean, someone else does.

I have never communicated with Greg Stafford in any way, although I did communicate several times with one of his friends and associates, Rolf Furuli. Furuli indicated that Stafford's NT Greek is excellent and that he writes meticulously on the topic of Trinity. I never had any interest in engaging Trinitarians because I think it's a "done deal." So there's really nothing left to talk about. At Bethel, someone had to do some research on Trinity, and managed to find some fairly new information that could be related to John 1:1 from Philo. It was the last time I ever showed any interest in it, because there is just so much out there, but it's all so repetitious.

*** w85 12/15 p. 25 “The Word Was With God, and the Word Was . . . ”? ***
In 1984 there appeared in English a translation from German of a commentary by scholar Ernst Haenchen (Das Johannesevangelium. Ein Kommentar). It renders John 1:1: “In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and divine [of the category divinity] was the Logos.”—John 1. A Commentary on the Gospel of John Chapters 1-6, page 108, translated by Robert W. Funk.
Philo has therefore written: the λόγος [Logos] means only θεός (‘divine’) and not ὁ θεός (‘God’) since the logos is not God in the strict sense. . . . In a similar fashion, Origen, too, interprets: the Evangelist does not say that the logos is ‘God,’ but only that the logos is ‘divine.’ In fact, for the author of the hymn [in John 1:1], as for the Evangelist, only the Father was ‘God’ (ὁ θεός; cf. 17:3); ‘the Son’ was subordinate to him (cf. 14:28). But that is only hinted at in this passage because here the emphasis is on the proximity of the one to the other.”

A German-speaking brother translated that portion in 1981, because the book was only out in German at that time. I think it's an excellent explanation of John 1:1. I'm curious now if Greg Stafford uses it in his books.

I see he has several different books in several versions on a website here: http://www.elihubooks.com/content/books_media.php

That same site also has Rolf Furuli's book about Bible Translation selling on it, right next to Stafford's book: "Jehovah's Witnesses Defended." Made me think that Stafford might still be a JW, because I'm pretty sure Rolf Furuli still is. Haven't spoken to Furuli in several years now, although he sent me his books for free. I sent money anyway, but it was a nice gesture.

To the chagrin of some here, I have already told of brothers in the Writing Department, and even a few Governing Body members, who didn't fully accept 1914 (including GB members: Chitty, Swingle, Schroeder, Sydlik, R.Franz). For those who know the background discussions going on at the time --actually even since the late 1960's-- that might seem understandable. But another member of the Writing Department told me something that was less believable. He says that in the 1990's there was a brother in the Writing Department, brilliant with NT Greek, who actually came to believe, not in the Trinity, per se, but in Jesus Christ's full divinity. He evidently came to believe that John 1:1 says what traditional Trinitarians think it says. He had no problem with anything else as far as I was told, and I don't know how much longer he tried to stay and work with the Writing Department. But naturally, when it was more widely known, he was out of there.

I have a feeling this is one of the most rare things, to see a former brother who STUDIED the topic, start believing in that part of the Trinity. I would lose any last bit of respect for Stafford if he turns out to have gone back to believing in the Trinity, or parts thereof. Does anyone know?

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

If he is still alive, he might answer the phone, and tell you ... or it may go to voicemail.

[JW Insider]

2 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

If he is still alive, he might answer the phone, and tell you ... or it may go to voicemail.

Earlier today I tried the online chat, and I've sent an email. Not to ask the question, but to see if I could speak by phone. No contact yet. But perhaps someone here already has his book(s) and knows whether he uses the Philo example on John 1:1.

[JOHN BUTLER]

@TrueTomHarley On your Facebook page, do you also post the background that you have bravely posted  here, background that accounts for your extreme sensitivity on the subject:

Just two points on this one comment from Tom.

1. The FB page is not about me personally so no i don't go into details about me. It was set up to try to get feedback from others that are in the same position as me, Ex -JW's still wanting to serve God.  I put up news articles but very little personal stuff. 

2. There is nothing brave about me giving personal details, it was done more in context as it was sort of hinted at by a previous comment. This page it seems has become more personal, people throwing mud at others rather that discussing subjects. If you think i am extreme so be it, that is your thoughts. From my viewpoint it is just that I DO HAVE personal experience of this so I DO KNOW how it feels and the results that never fade. Whereas many on here and in JW Org just see it as collateral damage.

[TrueTomHarley]

8 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I never had any interest in engaging Trinitarians because I think it's a "done deal.

Even when the call has gone well, I tell Tom Pearlsandswine upon my return to the car: ‘I can’t believe that fellow could not see that Jesus and God are different!’

I watch his ears redden. I savor the moment. I know his thoughts:

‘You kept me waiting 45 MINUTES so you could blow times arguing the Trinity?!”

[JOHN BUTLER]

Ok back from travels, so continued reply to Tom's questions.

When @JW Insider reveals a matter that would otherwise remain confidential, do you rush straight to your keyboard and tell your 900 friends?

No, I mainly upload 'news articles' direct as i find them. But the reason for starting the FB page was to get opinions from others. It hasn't happened much. But I'm not in need of 'limelight' by giving information that others don't have. I just make available on the page things that are general news items. I also advertise this forum in the hope that more people will visit here. 

 Did you make it when the opportunity was ripe? Did your testimony send school and/or government perpetrators  to jail? I hope you had that opportunity and I hope you came to enjoy some sense of justice because of it. 

I contacted Reading Council (using the Data Protection Act) and obtained some personal details of my time in the Home, but much of it was 'detracted', is that the right word, scribbled out anyway with black print. One page was completely blacked out. But I was told I had to use the 'Freedom of Information Act' to obtain details about other people / staff that ran the home at that time. However to gain that info' I had to attend the office, ask for files, find sections that were relevant, and inwardly digest the words, because I would not be allowed to copy, photograph or write notes concerning that information. That would involve a 130 mile trip to Reading, a stay overnight or two, and for what, just  read the info and not record it. 

Then the worse thing happened, the Jimmy Savile scandal started. It was all over the news about how he had abused children etc. It began to involve more 'well known' people and just escalated... So I stopped my investigation into the Children's Home staff etc, as it would have looked as if I was just jumping on the bandwagon. I know I should have done it all many years earlier but I didn't, and I wanted to do as much investigating myself as I could. So I never completed that 'mission'. Since the Jimmy Savile situation the Child Abuse investigations have grown more and more, about different people in different situations, including in religions. 

Do you also make clear that your hair-trigger sensitivity on this issue has nothing to do with Jehovah’s Witnesses?

If ever I talk to people about my past situation I do make it perfectly clear that it did not involve Jehovah's Witnesses. 

However, the link is that whilst I was still in a vulnerable state mentally / emotionally, I joined the JW organisation as it 'seemed' a safe and loving environment. It turns out that at that time, late 60's / early 70's, in some places, the Org was at its worst regarding Child Sexual Abuse. Many of the cases that have come into courts and are still coming into courts around the globe,  seem to centre around that era. 

But having been on here a while now, I have read comments from people that have also known about more recent cases. So although many of those cases are 'old news' it does not mean that it has all stopped. 

Hopefully that answers your questions @TrueTomHarley

[JW Insider]

53 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

It’s usually due to the careful effort (consideration) in their part not to voice an opinion that might be misinterpreted or misconstrued by others.

Good point. This is why there are probably a dozen topics and at least 100 rumors and even well-known, documented incidents that I will never say anything about. There are even specific things that I made promises to the people involved not to talk about. If those incidents happen to make an important point, or provide a learning or teaching opportunity, there are always other ways or other available examples that can help make the same point.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

 

2 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

But since you have tainted your life just like James going before a judicial committee for inquiry, only to lie through his teeth, and pretend he was honest and flawless as a new born baby to blame the Watchtower policies instead of his apostate views, no different from being in Bethel at one point and gossip against scriptural based principles should give you another reason why your attempts of hate and criticism are ineffective and false.

Even though the above quote was addressed to John Butler (and he can defend himself from your evil if he so desires ...) CONCERNING YOUR QUOTED STATEMENT ABOUT ME, you have just convicted YOURSELF, with your own words,  of being a hateful, wicked, malicious liar and a slanderer, BTK46.

NONE of what you just stated was true ... and you made it up completely from your malignant viewpoint on life.

Your malignant, perverted agenda driven  fantasy is not based on ANYTHING factual

Because I did not lie or misrepresent myself, I was convicted, and disfellowshipped .... and NOT for my divergent theology,, or "loose cannon" philosophy, which did in fact come up as I presented a defense for my actions.

I rescued someone from death using means and methods not understood, or sanctioned.

It is YOU that are the liar, BTK.

Under the unwritten "three year rule", I had to wait three years and more to be reinstated, because I would not lie, or fake it, or plead for mercy for myself. ( of which mercy is never shown, anyway, so it would have been a useless request ...). In my letter requesting reinstatement, I only promised I would not do what I did, again ... I did not renounce what I had to do, as I could not, and would not.

YOU ARE THE HABITUAL, WICKED, HATEFUL, LIAR, BTK46 ... AND YOU HAVE JUST CONVICTED YOURSELF.

You lie about EVERYTHING ... even the details about your .50 caliber sniper rifle, and your impossible fantasy of  me standing in front of a Tank with you in Tienanmen Square, China,  with a .22 caliber rifle, you unarmed being so brave, and bowing to no man.

You are a real piece of work!

... with a lot of pieces missing.

YOUR PUNISHMENT .....  IS TO BE YOU.

 

 

[Srecko Sostar]

2 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

I believe, you and Srecko spoke of “LOVE”.

Don't believe everything you hear, read and see :)))) 

[JOHN BUTLER]

I no longer read Billy the Kid's comments as I know he is a sick man and probably cannot help himself. 

God's word through Christ says we should forgive 77 times (continuously).  I've forgiven BTK for the way he has insulted me and therefore do not need to read any further comments of his. I do honestly believe that he is unwell and is best ignored as we cannot help him.