AlanF

Anna said: But in my response I carefully explained that you did not actually answer my question, but sidestepped it. Read it again.

César Chávez said: Well then, you're a lamebrain. The Chicago Manual of Style is a good source. Aw, pobrecito! As usual, Allen Smith, you're reduced to insane ranting.

Anna said: Anna, you're sidestepping my question. I asked you if you think that God would appoint a man such as Greenlees. Not whether fallible men would appoint him. Nothing about God appointing Greenlees here. Quite the opposite, in fact. You've argued that, even though the Society claims "appointment by holy spirit", that's not actually what happens. Rather, imperfect men make appointments, and then JWs pretend that holy spirit did it. But there are plenty of other examples that disprove this claim. And most JWs know it, even if they refuse to admit it to themselves or others. First, JWs only pretend that the Bible is such a template. When push comes to shove, most JWs will push the Bible aside when Watchtower tradition or practice gets in the way. Do you want examples from my personal dealings with them? Besides, reading a book and claiming that the book directs their actions is an exercise in self-deception. A claim of "direction" implies active direction on the part of the one said to be directing. Passive direction is a nonsensical idea. Someone might say that Chef Emil directed her to make a pot of stew in his cookbook, but that's only a manner of speaking, since Chef Emil actually did no directing. Someone who claimed active direction by Chef Emil would be viewed as a nutcase by her listeners. You have a knack for understatement. It appears that you know that Greenlees was a homosexual child molester for many years, including when he was appointed a Watchtower Society Director in 1964, which in turn implies that he was such for many years before that. Just when in the years between his youth and his appointment to the GB in 1971 had he "been made clean"? And what about God's viewing his heart? Was God ever fooled by an outward appearance of repentance? The bottom line is that God has never had anything to do with the appointment of GB members or any other JW elders -- no more so than with appointing the Pope or any other religious leader. But Greenlees never stopped. Not true. There are many instances where a molester known to some elders has been put back into some position of responsibility in some congregation. Barbara Anderson has a list of those known to her. Good! Note that whatever happens along those lines is far more affected by the way local elders -- not Watchtower officials in Warwick -- view child molesters. This is a Pollyanna view and only sometimes represents reality. Since this issue became publicly known in 2002 with the NBC Dateline and Panorama programs, plenty of cases of elders covering up child molestation have occurred. Some of those are the subject of the Zalkin lawsuits. In most coverup cases that I'm aware of, the elders took it upon themselves to cover up, or were directed to cover up by the Service Department. The overriding principle is "protect the JW organization's name at all costs." That's true even if the JWs involved personally abhor molestation, as attested by court cases and the far more numerous cases that never went to court. You're far too naive. There are things afoot that will publicly expose a lot more corruption on the part of Watchtower officials and some local elders. And of course, you've clearly admitted that the Society's claim that elders are appointed by holy spirit is a lie.

Sure. Call the number I gave you, and leave your PayPal contact with my secretary. Once that's done I'll request a payment from you for whatever you tell my secretary your information is worth.

He's a multiple. Please do pass them along. Meantime, give me a call at 970-689-6391.

Hey! I like your sense of humor! Are you related to Prominent Bethelite?

César Chávez said: How can you prove they're baseless? Do you have complete knowledge of all these things? You only call the accusations baseless based on your virtual worship of the Governing Body, namely, putting them in place of God. And of course, as I implied, your rationalization makes you a coward: you're afraid that a Watchtower official will confirm what I said. I already told you several times: there is no proof, but lots of evidence collected over 25 years from many sources. Gobble-de-goop. More gobble-de-goop. Once again, try using Grammarly. LOL! You are trying to instruct me in proper English usage? We note that you made two grammar errors in the above sentence: (1) You should have used "its" not "it's"; (2) you should have used "definitions" not "definition" since there is more than one word in the English language. Rather, let me instruct you: English words, like Spanish words, often have subtly different meanings. "Apologist" is one. The definition you posted is one, but there are others. The one you posted is not the most common usage. The most common usage is: << One who speaks or writes in defense of a faith, a cause, or an institution. >> That's the sense in which I used it. Related meanings are: << one who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something a person who makes a defense in speech or writing of a belief, idea, etc. a person who writes or speaks in defense or justification of a doctrine, faith, action, etc. A person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution. a person who supports a particular belief or political system, especially an unpopular one, and speaks or writes in defence of it >> Note that the "something" does not have to be controversial or unpopular. People like you, who offer defenses of the JW religion, are apologists. People like me, who offer criticisms of the JW religion, are critics, not apologists. You're still confusing "apologist" with "critic". Perhaps looking up the equivalents in Spanish will let you get your head on straight. And of course, you're so dishonest that you still refuse to admit that you messed up when you copy/pasted "apologists" wrongly, thus causing you to double down on a ridiculously stupid argument.

Anna said: Then how did that homosexual pedophile get to be on the Governing Body? Remember that such men don't start their pedophile activities at age 72, but much younger. Then you should have no problem explaining why your Bible God exists, in view of my argument posted above.

One thing that JW apologists and their leaders never do is go back to square one of their religious beliefs. Rather, they merely assume a handful of basics, plus a wagonload of Watchtower tradition, and keep going from there. The most fundamental assumption they make is that the God of the Bible exists. But he does not, which is easily proved by the following argument: *======*======*======*======*======*======* The argument that “design requires a Supreme Designer” and that that Designer is the God of the Bible has a major flaw: According to 1 John 4:8, 16 “God is love”. As the Creator and Parent of all living things, and as one so lovingly cognizant of every creature that, according to Matthew 10:29: Two sparrows sell for a coin of small value, do they not? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground without your Father’s knowledge. The history of the last 550 million years of life, with the constant conflict between predators and prey and all the pain and suffering that history entails, proves unarguably that any postulated Creator is far from loving. A loving Creator, by definition, could not create a world in which the daily lot of so many life forms is to suffer a nature “red in tooth and claw”. Thus, either the God of the Bible is not loving, or he does not exist. Since the Bible says that "God is love", the only logical conclusion is that he does not exist. An alternative is that there are one or more other sorts of Creators, but it is obvious that none of these are the Bible’s God, and that they are not loving. There might be any number of these sorts of ‘creators’ or ‘gods’, such as a Deistic god who created the universe and then went off to tend to other business, or some entity altogether different. Some Christians assign the word “God” to these; creation by them can be called forms of theistic evolution. *======*======*======*======*======*======* It will be entertaining to watch JW apologists try to rationalize their way around this argument.

And in the meantime you'll obey them as you would God, right? Do you really think that God would appoint a homosexual pedophile to the Governing Body of his organization? Do you really think that God is so hypocritical? Do you even believe in God?

You have to understand how powerful religions are in America. They're on the decline, but it will be another couple of generations before they reach the status of of religions in Australia, the UK, and most of Europe.

Anna said: Isaiah 65:20: "And the sinner will be cursed, even though he is a hundred years of age."

4Jah2me said: Probably not much with regard to American law, since American lawmakers are in bed with all of the larger religions. But the GB could lose much credibility with the JW community, which would result in loss of members.

In my first post on this thread I said: << Let's watch as some JW apologists try to excuse their leaders for the conduct described below. >> I must now be viewed as a prophet since that came true. By the way, JW Insider and I have given you JW apologists a perfect opportunity to knock down my accusations against Leo Greenlees: Call Ciro Aulicino at the Watchtower headquarters in Warwick, New York, then read him what I wrote and see if he agrees that it's correct. You can also do this with senior members of the Service Department, such as Bob Johnson. If no apologist is willing to call WTS headquarters, ya'll will have proved my point.

César Chávez said: LOL! You're again reduced to posting gobble-de-goop, because you have no rational response. Ah, well, that explains it. Here is one dictionary entry: Merriam-Webster << a collection of 24 or sometimes 25 sheets of paper of the same size and quality : one twentieth of a ream >> Doesn't fit your usage. << quire: archaic spelling of choir >> Most dictionaries don't even refer to the archaic spelling. All of which proves what I said: Most English speakers don't know the word. It's not in the vocabularies of most UK or American English speakers. Not an intelligible sentence. I really do recommend Grammarly. You keep getting yourself deeper and deeper in lies. Here's what I said that you claimed was grammatically wrong: << The self-righteous JW apologists on this forum are pitiful. >> There is nothing grammatically wrong with that sentence. Check it with Grammarly. You somehow copied and pasted the sentence improperly, leaving the "s" off the end of "apologists": << The self-righteous JW apologist on this forum are pitiful. >> Even though I pointed out your error two times, you continue to double down on it. Your first mistake is excusable. Your doubling down even after being twice corrected proves that you're a pathological liar. JW Insider said: Hmm. I see "WTF" on national news channels regularly. It's still completely archaic and not used in normal conversation by normal English speakers. That specialized, archaic works like the Anglican prayer-book have it is like arguing that "sod pottage" is proper modern English because it appears in the original King James Bible. My comments apply to him, too, since he has demonstrated himself to be a pathological liar. His ad hominem attacks and lies can in no way be considered civil. And I will continue to deal with him as an uncivil pathological liar as long as he keeps it up. Except that I have initiated no ad hominem attacks nor told lies. Remember that criticism of Mommy Watchtower is not an attack on any poster here. No one would dare. I had the same thought. Funny story: my old boss was from the south, and he once counseled me on my pronunciation of "gigahertz". "Not with the 'j' sound; we could be liable for racism." I just laughed.

JW Insider said: TrueTomHarley's posts to or regarding me are almost nothing but personal attacks and lies. It's not possible to have a civil discussion with a pathological liar. Do you not agree? They mean the same thing. As Arauna has said, I prefer to call a spade a spade.

César Chávez said: See? You can't read. I said "solid evidence", but you substitute "solid proof". So you've misrepresented what I said. Is that due to stupidity, or are you deliberately lying? More complete gobble-de-goop. Do you have this trouble reading/writing Spanish? I suspect so. Duh. I already told you that. You did not. I explained this twice now. Now you're exposing yourself as a liar.

César Chávez said: HAHAHAHAHA!!! Forgot to check a dictionary, eh? Do you even know what "quire" means? Or that it's so little used that most English speakers don't know? Complete gobble-de-goop. Forgot to use Grammarly?

César Chávez said: You object to solid evidence as not being absolute proof, yet you believe all manner of falsehoods when the Watchtower Society has no proof for its claims, nor even evidence aside from its bald, unsupported proclamations. Hypocrite! Do you actually think that is an answer to what I wrote? No wonder you make no sense. Duh. Your point? My grammar is excellent. You have no examples where it isn't. You're a liar. None so blind as those who will not see.

César Chávez said: I've said several times now: I do not have proof of these things; I have evidence. If I had proof, a number of Watchtower officials would be in jail. WTF are you talking about? She lost because the Tennessee judges were too cowardly to make a ruling that would adversely impact the power of their own religions in the Bible Belt. The Watchtower Society directed the local elders to disfellowship her, contrary to the Society's stated policy, and that's why she sued the WTS. He gave me the same kind of information he gives your Governing Body. Already done, since I know enough facts to be certain of what I've said. We will note that you have no contrary information. No, what I'm saying is that you and your JW buddies are so twisted by your cult that you'll believe your cult leaders over even the one you claim to follow. And here I thought that you had a measure of intelligence. I made no mistakes. You copy/pasted wrong and somehow dropped the 's' on the end of "apologists". You can't even read now. TrueTomHarley said: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Except that I told you quite clearly that I don't hold with evolutionary psychology, so that all your dumbly critical nonsense was for naught. You refused to accept that. Absolutely! What you continue confirming is what I've told you before: you're among the dumbest posters I've run across, having little intelligence or reading comprehension. Your responses are usually for the straw men that inhabit your brain, as with your above invention.

César Chávez said: Quite so. And since they are all truthful (except for Bowen), as opposed to JW leaders and their Writing Department, not believing them is not believing facts. Do you have any factual, logical reasons not to believe these people? They set forth all manner of indisputable facts. What can you offer? How do you know the allegations are false? Did God tell you? No, that's just one piece of evidence. The most solid piece is that the GB saw fit to remove him from the GB and reassign him to duty in the UK. Or do you have information that is more believable than what the GB based their actions on? Even if Jesus himself gave you that evidence, you most likely would not believe it. Two completely different situations. JW apologists, especially on this forum, routinely defend the GB only with emotionally based arguments, not facts and logical reasoning. As for proof, describe what sort of proof you would accept. When you try to nitpick you'd better be sure your nitpicks are on the money. Yours are not. What I said was (note the 's' on the end of 'apologists'): << The self-righteous JW apologists on this forum are pitiful. >> A lesson in English (I think this applies in Spanish, too): A word like "apologists" is plural. Plural words are normally accompanied by "are" not "is". Comprende? Anna said: Well then, it won't have any GB members in it, past or present, who demand virtual worship from JWs. Or the many JW apologists who lie through their teeth to defend Mommy Watchtower. Back in 1994, in a conversation with GB member Albert Schroeder, I challenged him with a text from Luke that obviously condemned JW end-times teaching. He was blindsided. His defense? "That scripture can't apply to us, because we're Jehovah's people!" Wow! Defending Watchtower teaching by denying that the Bible applies to JWs. That hypocrisy is endemic to the JW religion. LOL! Coming from someone who NEVER contributes anything of value, that's rich!

Arauna said: Same one who appointed your Governing Body. Only to you. Not to me, because I have definite knowledge of the events I've described. On the other hand you have nothing to dispute any of it. Which is what the GB did to convict Leo Greenlees of being a pedophilic, homosexual child molester. Your worship of the GB is so strong that even if Jesus himself told you that they are not what they claim, you wouldn't believe him. You're one those I had in mind when I mentioned self-righteous JW apologists. Wow! You actually learned something! Except that the Old Testament relates that many miraculous events proved that Elijah and others were really appointed by God to do his bidding. What does the GB offer? Their word. And how valuable is that? The history of Watchtower leaders from before it even existed proves that not a single prediction they made came true, and that their false teachings make a pretty big pile of trash. So are you claiming you don't worship the Governing Body? Don't let your fellows know, or you'll be disfellowshipped for apostasy.

JW Insider said: Why? If they're correct, you shouldn't be afraid of the truth. Tell me what you think of the one I posted earlier today as a new topic. I know a lot about all this. I have no problem using names, because exposing evildoers is proper for those who love the truth. Since I already used his name in my previous post, I'll use it here. I met Ciro back in 1992 on a private Bethel tour hosted by Barbara Anderson. He was enthusiastic about some new information they had dug up about some Bible expositors mentioning 1914 well before Russell did. But Ciro is only one source for this, and he either doesn't know, or never told Barbara Anderson about the most damning details that I related in my previous posts. Again I have no problem with using his name, partly because he was the point man for the Society's involvement with the U.N. He's quite dishonest and deserves to be exposed. Yes, he wrote those thoroughly disingenuous 1993 Awake! articles pretending that the Society supported U.N. goals in order to qualify to be an Associated NGO for the U.N. I met Miller several times, since he and my dad were buddies in the Correspondence Dept. in the 1940s. All that led to various discussions in pre-Web ex-JW forums that resulted in the exposure of Greenlees as a possible molester. I think the name was Biegle. He was the District Overseer for the congregation my wife was in during the 1980s. I didn't know about Lett and West. Jaracz really was a monster, alright. I know that many Bethelites rejoiced when he died. Of course it is. I have no doubt that most of the current GB and the GB helpers, as well as many senior Service and Writing Dept. officials know all about it. César Chávez said: Not true. Generally wise, but not always. Knorr's wife Audrey would disagree. This was all brought out in bits and pieces on various public forums and in private conversations with ex-Bethelites, including an ex-District Overseer who was one of Knorr's proteges in the 1950s. Look up 'Maximus' on the JWD forum. Never heard of that. Those he was. Firsthand testimony came from some of the Bible Students who broke off from the Society around 1928 after Rutherford ditched most of Russell's cherished teachings. Watchtower officials today do not deny these accusations. There is the sort of proof that would hold up in criminal court, and the weight of evidence sort that holds up in civil court. That Rutherford was a drunk would certainly hold up in any court, since the 1940s Moyle case proved it. Whatever that means.

César Chávez said: No, "apologist" means someone who defends a position or organization. You're thinking of "critic". Your English is not a problem as long as you don't get self-righteous about it. I can read a bit of Spanish but would not do well writing in it. The information about Jaracz comes from several ex-Bethelites who were in a position to know. You can read Franz's Crisis of Conscience for the information about Knorr's appointment of Jaracz. Supporting evidence that would not hold up in court is what I have. It wouldn't hold up in court for the simple reason that all the GB members involved are dead, and so far, the molested boy has not come forward. But there is much circumstantial evidence. According to several ex-Bethelites writing on various JW related forums since the mid-1990s, shortly after Greenlees was booted out of Bethel there were a lot of rumors ciculating. One morning at breakfast GB member Martin Poetzinger mounted the dais and announced something like, "The affair of Leo Greenlees is closed!" From Jan. 1, 1986 Watchtower, p. 13: << 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. >> That's an obvious reference to Greenlees, and probably Chitty. During the 1990s I participated in several ex-JW forums. About 1994 the Society published some information about molestation victims that triggered much discussion over the next few years. Several people related stories of being inappropriately touched by Greenlees when they were 10-15 years old. Others related their personal stories of molestation at the hands of various JWs. When I reconnected personally with Barbara Anderson in 1997, I mentioned the ongoing discussions about Greenlees. Her response was, "I'm glad you've been publicizing what that monster did!" Then she told me what Writing Staff member Ciro Aulicino had told her in 1991-1992. Aulicino was the Bethel gossip accumulator, and for whatever reason, various Bethelites including GB members would tell him things that would ordinarily be called gossip. He relayed these things on to others. Around 1991 Aulicino learned that the Bethel Personnel director and GB member Daniel Sydlik had rejected an application for Bethel service by a young man. Why? Because he was the boy that Greenlees had molested, and Sydlik was afraid that the boy might tell of his molestation by Greenlees 7-8 years earlier. Aulicino was very bothered by the fact that the boy was being mistreated yet again by a GB member. In 1998-1999 I participated in the now-defunct H2O ex-JW forum. There appeared a Bethel official who called himself 'Friend', and was assiduously anonymous. His main concern was to turn the Society around on the blood issue. I had many private email conversations with him, and in one I asked him how he could in good conscience remain a Watchtower official, considering that Greenlees was a GB-convicted child molester and all that implied. He became angry and asked, "Why are you bringing up that old stuff?" In 2000 I had several conversations in person with another Watchtower official. At one point I asked him the same question I had posed to 'Friend'. He proceeded to excuse what had happened as the result of human imperfection, so I asked him about the question of "appointment by holy spirit". He opened up about various details of the Greenlees affair that I had not known about. This official was very much in a position to have certain knowledge of GB actions.In 2002 my JW parents learned of my involvement with Silentlambs. They disinherited me and in effect, disfellowshipped me from their 'family', which they informed me of by letter. I called them and spoke to my elder stepdad, finally asking him how he could in good conscience be an elder when the Greenlees affair proved that JW elders certainly are not appointed by holy spirit. He had no knowledge of Greenlees, so I explained. He didn't know what to say. Now, my parents had often entertained GB members, including Albert Schroeder and Daniel Sydlik. So I called them a couple of weeks later, and again challenged my stepdad about the Greenlees affair. This time he was knowledgeable, and did not dispute anything I said about Greenlees, which told me that he had consulted his GB friends and confirmed it all. The information on Chitty came from several ex-Bethelites. I doubt they would want to come forward publicly at this time. I was raised a JW, but gradually quit after the 1975 fiasco.I have submitted many talking points to AD1914. You have only to look at the last 20 years' worth of accusations against the Society, and of course, the many court cases they've either lost outright, or settled out of court on.

The self-righteous JW apologists on this forum are pitiful. They're more than willing to condemn individuals in "the world" for wicked conduct, but just as willing to excuse similar conduct among themselves, and especially by their leaders the Governing Body. Mostly they simply deny that these charlatans did anything wrong at all. Much like Donald Trump's Republican defenders are doing in the current House impeachment hearings. Let's watch as some JW apologists try to excuse their leaders for the conduct described below. JW Insider mentioned a circuit servant in Australia who was removed and reassigned in the early 1950s. This was Theodore Jaracz, who later became a GB member (according to Raymond Franz he was appointed by Nathan Knorr as a slap in the face to the other GB members who had ousted Knorr from power; he was known for being unreasonably harsh). Jaracz eventually worked his way into the de facto position of 'supreme GB member' by force of personality, essentially replacing Fred Franz and becoming head of the Service Department. As such, and because of his temperament, he was feared and hated by many lower-order Bethelites. There is very good evidence that Knorr had removed Jaracz as a circuit servant in Australia for some sort of sexual misconduct with a minor(s), which is a smoking gun for his attempts to hide all mention of child sexual abuse from the JW rank and file, both in print and in dealings that appointed officials such as Circuit and District Overseers had with elders and the rank and file. If Jaracz was a child molestor 40 years earlier, it was a good bet that he retained a tendency to excuse them in the 1990s. Jaracz was at odds with GB member Lloyd Barry, who by all accounts was a decent man. As for other GB members, by far the worst I know of was Leo Greenlees, who was removed from the GB in late 1984 for sexually molesting a 10-year-old boy. The parents reported the molestation to the Society, and eventually the GB met as a judicial committee to deal with the accusation. They found Greenlees guilty, but judged him repentant, and assigned him to be a special pioneer, which entitled him to the usual SP stipend. This was obviously self-serving, since to expose Greenlees' misconduct to the public would have been fatal to the JW organization. After all, a homosexual pedophile does not develop those proclivities at age 72, but has been practicing such things since he was a young man, and Jehovah God would not anoint a homosexual pedophile as an elder, much less as a GB member. Furthermore, the Ray Franz incident was fresh in the GB's minds, and Franz had recently published "Crisis of Concience", and likely the GB wanted to take no chances of a repeat with Leo Greenlees. So they avoided disfellowshipping him and sent him off with a stipend. This situation with Leo Greenlees is positive proof that "Jehovah God" has nothing to do with the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses. Another GB member wicked by JW standards was Ewart Chitty, who in the early 1980s was removed from the GB and reassigned to a lower level position in the UK Bethel. Chitty was, in modern parlance, very "flaming" (i.e., exhibited strongly stereotyped homosexual behavior). He seemed to prefer young men as roomates. Apparently there were accusations of inappropriate behavior by several young Bethelites, which caused his demise. Once again we see behavior by a GB member entirely inconsistent with the Society's doctrine that elders and GB members are "appointed by holy spirit". There is even evidence that Nathan Knorr was a closet homosexual. He did not marry until he was 48 years old, and his wife is reported to have told close friends that their marriage was never consummated. Knorr was obsessed with telling young men, especially new Bethelites, to avoid masturbation, which invokes clear shades of "methinks thou dost protest too much". And of course, his failure to remove Theodore Jaracz in the early 1950s as a Watchtower official but reassigning him to a lower position in the WTS organization strongly indicates that Knorr was soft on child sexual abuse. Many Watchtower officials have traditionally been soft on child molestation. In the mid-1940s my own mother, in her mid-teens, was hit on by at least one prominent WTS official much her senior.