Jump to content

  • Recent Status Updates

    No Recent Status Updates

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Today
  2. Yesterday
  3. I would think that would have been obvious with the unclean actions and behavior you harbor in your heart to discredit an institution solely based on Bible principle. Therefore, cynicism lies with wording that has a profound effect. If you respond to it, it must be true. Therefore, if you think the girl bit is outrages, then you should be able to conclude your behavior toward the Watchtower is outrages. But, as James mentions, there are certain things that should be well preserved for prosperity. Too bad James just can’t think that far ahead to get the parallel, seeing how he has to defend your outrages actions to justify his. But, it’s good that truth can be seen by those that are intelligent enough when they are being played.
  4. It would do well to remember this quote: "Don't believe everything you read on the Internet!" - Abraham Lincoln
  5. Perhaps that was the reason I didn't suggest his book was proof. I think I purposely worded it something like this: 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. There you go again! 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? 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. I would never believe that, much less say it. You evidently haven't read what I say very carefully. 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.
  6. Please remember that before accusing others of foggery and mopery, with mirrors. ... could be worse ... we could both be proctologists for the grossly obese.
    • Hello guest!
      Hello guest!
    When Rutherford died in January 1942, Covington maintained his aggressive litigation policy. Covington was elected vice-president of the Watch Tower Society, succeeding the newly elected president, Nathan H. Knorr, despite having been a Jehovah's Witness for only five years. Until 2001, appointment to the board of directors of the Watch Tower Society was almost exclusively limited to those professing to be of the "anointed class" who would "rule as Kings" in heaven with Christ, Covington being the only exception.[4] A subsequent policy change resulted in Covington's resignation from the Vice Presidency and departure from the board in 1945; however, he remained on staff as legal counsel.[5][6] In 1950, he wrote the Watch Tower tract, Defending and Legally Establishing the Good News to advise Witnesses of their constitutional rights in the United States.[7] Covington was subsequently recognized as one of the greatest civil liberties attorneys in American history. During his tenure as the head of the Watch Tower Society's legal department, he presented 111 petitions and appeals to the Supreme Court. He won more than 80% of the 44 cases he brought before the Court, involving issues including compulsory flag-salute statutes, public preaching and door-to-door literature distribution. He later resigned as head of the Watch Tower Society's legal department, and was eventually disfellowshipped after clashes with the Society's then-President Nathan Knorr and revelations of a drinking problem. He was reinstated prior to his death in 1978 The same thing you claim as an JWinsider. Now if you say, not everything in Wiki can be held as truth, I will agree, that 99% of things written on the internet is propaganda and an exaggeration about the Watchtower. If you don’t. Then everything written in Wiki is the truth.
  7. 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.
  8. Bro. Quackenduck .... DUCK Bill... ( eyes glaze over, with big smile ...) I get it! Hahahahahaaa!
  9. 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?
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. I remember my Scoutmaster, Mr Riley, speaking of John, when I was in my teens, during a Scout Troop campfire. Someone who appeared quite dead had asked him if he was going to be here when John got there? He replied, yes he would be there when John got there. Then an apparition appeared, dragging chains while floating above the ground, and asked the same question. "You gonna be here when John gets here?" He again replied he would be here, when John got there. Them a huge two ton scaly monster appeared with bloodied fangs and claws and glowing red eyes, covered in stinking gore appeared in the campsite, and asked "You gonna be here when John gets here? Mr. Riley replied " If you ain't John ... I'M GONE!".
  13. That would depend if your truth is talking about Russell being the Vice-President of the Zion Watchtower and the first President and part thereof, the board of directors of present-day Watchtower. Then the truth would be accurate, while your example wouldn’t. Therefore suggesting Shultz book as proof cannot be your proof since Shultz himself teamed up with an unbeliever and critic of the Watchtower. You need a better authority. However, it’s your assumption that can’t comprehend when seeking facts, personal authority is sought. Could this be your the only one? 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? Were you there to know Christ was laid to rest in a tomb? This cynicism is far beneath an informed witness. 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. Therefore, the deception lies in your autonomy of trying to persuade others to think your part of an organization that you truly don’t care for. A (JWinsider) to give false reports. Why don’t you leave? Therefore, read Russell’s own words to distinguish how wrong you are to post incorrect facts. The example I gave goes far. Therefore, don't be dismissive to think what you say is the truth, and no other citations aren't. Stop thinking about girls and concentrate. As for Tom’s book. Take it up with Tom. If you believe Tom to be a liar for suggesting it, then he is a liar for saying it. That I will accept. However, carry on. As I said, John and now Comfortmypeople aka Anna is loving your deceptive information. And to be honest, I'm having fun with it myself. As James said, we need a good laugh now and again.
  14. You know, it IS a remarkable coincidence. I can see why you might think it. However Billy takes digs at everyone—even me, sometimes, though at the moment there is an tenuous truce between us.
  15. 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.
  16. Basically Tom, because it's me they you and Billy have a dig at. But I'm fine with it. No probs.
  17. There is more than one person named John. Why would you think that I am speaking of you?
  18. Of course not. The condemnation of those referred to at Romans 1:20 is not because of their ignorance or rejection of the Bible. This is just a non-argument. Lots of the Bible was written specifically for groups, even individuals. That is not a basis for concluding that no one else is allowed to read from or will not benefit from it. This is ABC stuff. 2Tim.3:16.
  19. I think how in such matter, order or sequence not existing. It appears randomly :))) and alternately.
  20. 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. 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? 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. Always feel free to correct any mistakes. According to A. H. MacMillan, and as substantiated by others, this was only to happen in the event of C.T. Russell's death. 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. 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.
  21. Yes, that JAMES THOMAS ROOK JR sure does love that Llyod Evans propaganda! 🤗 However, the narrative was, the Watchtower bought the awards themselves. Posted it on JW.org, people found out the deception, Watchtower took down their self-praise. Old News James. 😏 Soon apostates will have Morris marrying the POPE for gay rights, and make believe it’s true. 😁 A re-post by James from the librarian
      Hello guest!
    So be careful outta with the word idiots! Fact-finding by a journalist is not high on research, here. 🙄 Have any more recent apostate propaganda, James? This one has been worked to death on the internet, already. 😂
  22. If we accept ...... OK ..... and if we do not accept or we are unable to read, to get Bible, etc ..... then what? ... does god have problem how to make communication with such person ??? Obviously Not, because you stated that Bible is Prime Method. If it is Prime than it is Not Only Method. :))) This is also interesting and almost contradict idea in WTJWORG. As first, they teaching people how Bible is God's Letter for All People. In second step, in WTJWORG exists explanation that Bible (or some parts as you explained) is written for, primarily for, or only for special Class aka 144000 aka FDS aka GB (because last interpretation is, that FDS is GB and GB is FDS) By that only GB need to read Bible because God was send to them his word, not to some second class people. :))))
  23. TTH seems to be the one that wants to make me famous. He mentions me in a lot of his comments. Examples : ' John will pop a vein over this ' and ' John carries on that if something is not perfect, then it is filthy '. Well TTH, John uses his own name so as to show that John in genuine with his thoughts and words. Quote TTH : He apparently wants a person or persons whose credentials and calling are as uncontested as they were with Moses. 23 “This is what Jehovah of armies says, ‘In those days ten men out of all the languages of the nations will take hold, yes, they will take firm hold of the robe of a Jew, saying: “We want to go with you, for we have heard that God is with you people.”’” So TTH, how can a person 'take hold of the robe of a (spiritual) JEW' and how will a person know that ' God is with those people' ? Guesswork is it ? Catholics think they have the truth, Muslims think they have the truth, so how is a person supposed to know ? If it's by works then the GB and Board of Directors and Watchtower Soc and CCJW and all their legal departments have fallen down badly and brought God's name into disrepute. And they have silenced the Anointed, the ones that are the true spiritual Jew.
  24. (Referring to the JW.ORG screen shot posted above ...) I would like to get on the phone with Bro. Anthony Morris III (AKA "Tight Pants Tony"), and ask him if that JW Broadcasting photo of the Telly Awards is a front or rear view? Melinda has a good point .... ..... Perhaps the discussion group could include 20 or 30 of the WT lawyers, along with the GB. You could call the program "The Big Bang Theory, View from The Far Side".
  1. Load more activity

  • 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.