AlanF

Anna said:

Quote

Please see my original answer to your original question:

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

César Chávez said:

Quote

 

...
    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.
    Read more   

Only a lamebrain would argue writing style.

 

Well then, you're a lamebrain.

Quote

 

You suck at yours. The only stupid one here is you, since you are the only one thinking he has a command on grammar, but then again, I can understand JWinsider. Keep your ego going, you are meaningless as JWinsider and nothing as AlanF. Maybe you should convince your pale at Bethel to steal more documents for you. Then you will actually have some kind of proof. Don't forget to doctor them, as they are done in AD1914, and any apostate site.

When spell check doesn't find a problem between "its" and "it's" what makes you think you know better?

 

The Chicago Manual of Style is a good source.

Quote

 

Maybe you can play with the word "doctored" versus "altered". Either way, who cares what you think, not me. 😉😁

Like I said, put up or shut up. Don't continue your meaningless garbage.

 

Aw, pobrecito! As usual, Allen Smith, you're reduced to insane ranting.

Anna said:
    

Quote

 

AlanF: 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?
    
Anna: Of course I don't think that.

AlanF: 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.

 

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.

Quote

It was believed, until quite recently, that every sinner can change. Even homosexual pedophiles. "This is what some of you were", says Paul at 1 Cor. 6:11.  I am assuming when Greenlees was appointed, it was believed he belonged in that category of "some of you were, but are no longer". The appointment, as all appointments are, was based on qualifications outlined in 1Timothy 3:1-7. I am assuming he met those qualifications at the time he was named. It is now understood (although I believe the society balked at first, being convinced that the scripture applies in absolutely every case, no exceptions)  that people with these problems are for the most part incurable, but can fool others, including themselves, into thinking that they are cured. I find it difficult to believe this man would be appointed, knowing he still had that problem. What would be the purpose? Surely there would be plenty of other brothers, and there were, I think 18 at that time. For JWS, the Bible is a template for practically EVERYTHING.

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.

Quote

Much to the irritation of people who wonder how can someone be directed by a book thousands of years old.

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.

Quote

Without a doubt, JWS have made mistakes in their interpretation of some Bible passages.

You have a knack for understatement.

Quote

Perhaps one of these mistakes was misunderstanding the scripture at 1 Cor 6:11. It can not mean that those who have "been made clean", will always stay clean or that they are cured. We know that from evidence. Greenlees being a case in point.

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.

Quote

The scripture is talking about those particular disciples, it does not mean it applies across the board, to every single person especially with regard to homosexuality. The apostle Paul had to pummel his body, and lead it as a slave, and he was just an ordinary sinner, no homosexual or pedophile. So no one is ever going to be faultless and yet, according to the scriptures, they have the potential to be forgiven and accepted by God if they stop.

But Greenlees never stopped.

Quote

With regard to the sickness of pedophilia, these people have got to be kept away from children, so that they are not able to molest them, and so that children are safe, because they cannot stop.Today, no one who has a history of CSA, can ever serve in any capacity in the congregation, ever.

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.

Quote

We have an old man in our cong. who has some kind of history in the distant past, and he is not allowed to do anything, except comment, and he must be accompanied by a brother in FS, without exception.

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.

Quote

Part of the changes are no doubt due to the ARC, and the recognition of the truthfulness of some of the issues raised there. But I am sure that some of it has been because it was recognized that in the past, elders had been hoodwinked into thinking that someone with pedophilic tendencies has been reformed, and will never repeat the offense again. This realisation was unfortunately at the cost of other children being molested, not just the original child.

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.

Quote

So, if it was today, Greenlees would have never been appointed not only as GB member, but he would have never become an elder or ministerial servant either.

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.

31 minutes ago, Vic Vomidog said:

I will need some time to get some files together on some of the big shots there.

In the meantime......I am very sorry to bring this up, but I do not have a lot saved up. I was exploited —you know how it is, I think. Is there any way....forgive me...but is there any way that I could be compensated for what I know?

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.

24 minutes ago, Vic Vomidog said:

I do not know who Prominent Bethelite is. Is this an individual?

I spent 15 years at Patterson before opening my eyes.I have stories on certain lying scumbags there that have never been published online. If you can get them where they will do some good, I would be glad to pass them along.

He's a multiple.

Please do pass them along.

Meantime, give me a call at 970-689-6391.

4 minutes ago, Vic Vomidog said:

Welcome, @AlanF! I am sorry that I did not notice here before. A little bird had to rattle my cage.

The JWs here (or anywhere) are all liars and disgusting apologists. It is good that you are expose the lies of Mommy. Only a reminder as regards TTH:

Yes. But you are not very thorough, I have found. No matter how many of his disgusting, vile, reprehensible, flatulent, odious, debased, toe-sucking qualities of his you highlight, there will always be a few that you forget to mention. Please consult me during those times for assistance. 

Yes again. It stands for World Trade Federation. If these JWs had more education—they are the stupidest creatures on two feet—they would know that.

Hey! I like your sense of humor!

Are you related to Prominent Bethelite?

César Chávez said:
 
 

Quote

Why should any witness waste their time to call the Watchtower on baseless accusations leveled by AlanF and JWinisder?

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.

Quote

It’s your claim, prove it. Its JWinsider’s claim, let him prove it. You don’t need to redirect your nonsense to AD1914.

I already told you several times: there is no proof, but lots of evidence collected over 25 years from many sources.

Quote

Just like you started your post as I indicated by attempting to sway your nonsensical argument to JW apologists,

Gobble-de-goop.

Quote

I asked you what the difference was for you, “personally”, couldn’t be considered an “apologist” singular not plural since I was only including your bogus assertions here.

More gobble-de-goop. Once again, try using Grammarly.

Quote

Meanwhile, try learning your own language and it's word definition.

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:
     

Quote

 

    2 minutes ago, AlanF said:

    Do you really think that God would appoint a homosexual pedophile to the Governing Body of his organization?

Of course I don't think that.

 

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.
     

Quote

 

    2 minutes ago, AlanF said:

    Do you even believe in God?

I do, but I know you don't.

 

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.

8 minutes ago, Anna said:

 Of course. So I will leave it between them and God.

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?

3 minutes ago, 4Jah2me said:

" since American lawmakers are in bed with all of the larger religions "

Well I've been wondering why America has been so slow in any form of action against JW Org. 

Australian investigation done and dusted, documents handed over etc... . 

UK Charity commission, documents handed over, done and dusted. Awaiting new investigation by I.I.C.S.A. 

USA, nothing. Only what seems to be private individuals taking the Org to court. why no big FBI or other investigation ? 

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:  

Quote

 

    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.

I don't believe in upsetting the elderly

 

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

4Jah2me said:

Quote

 

I do find it difficult to keep up with it all, But I don't remember my questions being answered about

'What is the worst outcome that can happen to the GB in these 'cases' ? What is likely to happen regarding American law and the GB ?

 

 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:
          

Quote

 

    56 minutes ago, AlanF 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?

What, taking back the dictionary bit. I see you forgot your intelligence today

 

LOL! You're again reduced to posting gobble-de-goop, because you have no rational response.

Quote

preacher.jpg

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.
     

Quote

 

    56 minutes ago, AlanF said:

    More complete gobble-de-goop.
    Do you have this trouble reading/writing Spanish? I suspect so.

I guess since your English grammar sucks! lol!

 

Not an intelligible sentence. I really do recommend Grammarly.
     

Quote

 

    56 minutes ago, AlanF said:

    You did not. I explained this twice now. Now you're exposing yourself as a liar.

The only thing being exposed is yourself, cut it out you're in public. You might get arrested for indecency 😂.

 

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:

Quote

AlanF's language is likely to turn most of us off completely. (There are ladies in the room!)

Hmm. I see "WTF" on national news channels regularly.

Quote

Also, I thought you were right on the "quire" thing immediately. It's a bit archaic, and probably never got used "naturally" within the expression "preaching to the choir." But I think the Anglican prayer-book still uses the spelling quire to mean choir. And a few poets used the spelling into the 1800's.

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.

Quote

 

    30 minutes ago, AlanF said:

    Do you not agree?

I was referring to Cesar Chaves.

 

My comments apply to him, too, since he has demonstrated himself to be a pathological liar.

Quote

I expect that if TrueTomHarley continues to debate you, it will be in his own style, and he'll remain civil no matter what you think of him or he thinks of you.

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.

Quote

But, if you remember Allen Smith who was also working under a few different names at the same time he engaged in debate with you, then you will know that he has a unique ability to turn a debate into chaos. Unfortunately the owners of the site have put him on a kind of "watch" it seems, because they have been quick to remove some of his accounts as soon as they sense any kind of initiated provocation. Perhaps this time they will see you as the initiator and he will be safe in this most recent incarnation.

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.
     

Quote

 

    30 minutes ago, AlanF said:

    As Arauna has said, I prefer to call a spade a spade.

Yeah. I was kidding with the euphemism for liar. What Arauna had said about calling a spade a spade because she was African would have come across as racist back where I'm from. I'm glad no one pointed that out.

 

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:

Quote

I forgot exactly what happened last time between you two. But I think that there must be a way to keep this a little bit more civil and still make your points.

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?

Quote

I find, for example, that replacing the word "liar" with "disingenuous person" goes a long way, and takes longer to read, too.

They mean the same thing. As Arauna has said, I prefer to call a spade a spade.

César Chávez said:
    

Quote

 

    17 minutes ago, AlanF 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!

Where's the solid proof, except from the word of a liar

 

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?

Quote

 

    17 minutes ago, AlanF said:

    Do you actually think that is an answer to what I wrote? No wonder you make no sense.

Apparently it did to you. Therefore, I don't care what you think.

 

More complete gobble-de-goop.
Do you have this trouble reading/writing Spanish? I suspect so.
     

Quote

 

    17 minutes ago, AlanF said:

    Your point?

You are ignorant with the Spanish language.

 

Duh. I already told you that.
     

Quote

 

    17 minutes ago, AlanF said:

    My grammar is excellent. You have no examples where it isn't. You're a liar.

I posted one.

 

You did not. I explained this twice now. Now you're exposing yourself as a liar.

César Chávez said:

Quote

 

Interpretation of scripture is best served with exact knowledge. If not, you’re just preaching to the choir. Then I don’t force my opinion on you and you don’t force your opinion on me.

Let me just state. In English language. The word “quire” can also be used.

 

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?

Quote

However, owns the alter-ego AlanF.

Complete gobble-de-goop. Forgot to use Grammarly?

César Chávez said:
     

Quote

 

    2 hours ago, AlanF 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.

Just as I have indicated. All talk no action. You and JWinsider can’t prove a thing, but are willing to sully the native to heighten JWinsider’s claim.

Show the proof or get a better job, you’re ego account is not too good as a ringer.

 

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!
     

Quote

 

    2 hours ago, AlanF said:

    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

In order to have an intellectual debate, it would be better not to muddy the water by you or your kind of baseless opposers. Using your term, Opposer buddies.

 

Do you actually think that is an answer to what I wrote? No wonder you make no sense.
     

Quote

 

    2 hours ago, AlanF said:

    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.

Aside from that, no! Some of your English grammar is not compatible to Spanish language.

 

Duh.

Quote

You’re assuming too much. There is a difference with Spanish dialects and the Spanish language. From Spain, Argentina, Chile, Brazil to Mexico etc. Trying learning, how to be properly, objective.

Your point?

Quote

Therefore, there is no need to debate grammar that some of you do, with your own poor grammar usage.

My grammar is excellent. You have no examples where it isn't. You're a liar.

21 minutes ago, Arauna said:

So true. I am not impressed with his so-called knowledge.  Hard to reason with anyone who ignores or spurnes other people's reasonable arguments and just grabs something egotistically he can elaborate on which  is a form of intellectual bullying. It does not get my respect.

It seems he has done a lot of research about the inner circle problems the GB had at one time - to the extent where it can be called a  tabloid with all the little titbits about the rumours about some individual's sexuality and preferences ..... real gossip column stuff..... etc. 

I do not read tabloids and neither will I bother to get the inside story on which GB member did what to whom.  As I demonstrated earlier: Jehovah himself appointed a loser in Saul.  Jesus appointed Judas iscariot...... so who are we to get it right every time?  Tests come in all forms and can be exasperating.  Some will lose faith because they put trust in men.  (I know the truth and I know where I learnt it).    Many top brothers may fall out and do bad things  but my faith in the core truths are solid.  Yes, there may still be shame in the pipeline as retro-active law suits are placed.  That is inevitable and part of life as there are Judas' and Sauls everywhere who bring shame on Jehovahs name.  

He is not interested in reason or justice, just destruction.  To win at all cost....... not the ideal kind of person to reason with...... why would he respect a human when he does not respect God?

None so blind as those who will not see.

César Chávez said:
     

Quote

 

    11 hours ago, AlanF 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?

No! No! No! Don’t try to turn the table. It’s all about you and your accusations and being absolute. I have no one to impress.

 

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.

Quote

However, I don’t know if you understand what disclosure means. Maybe you’re not bound by laws, I am.

WTF are you talking about?

Quote

Although when Barbara Anderson sued the Watchtower she lost.

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.
     

Quote

 

    11 hours ago, AlanF said:

    How do you know the allegations are false? Did God tell you?

Did he tell you?

 

He gave me the same kind of information he gives your Governing Body.
     

Quote

 

    11 hours ago, AlanF said:

    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?

Maybe you should dig deeper in your research.

 

Already done, since I know enough facts to be certain of what I've said.
We will note that you have no contrary information.
     

Quote

 

    11 hours ago, AlanF said:

    Even if Jesus himself gave you that evidence, you most likely would not believe it.

What you're saying, Jesus gave you that solid proof. Are you Joseph Smith?

 

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.
     

Quote

 

    11 hours ago, AlanF said:

    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?
    Read more   

Work on your own grammar mistakes before you criticize someone else.

 

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:

Quote

Every word emanating from my keyboard is laden with value. They positively reek with the stuff.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Quote

My favorite memory with Alan is when he was carrying on about his atheism and evolution, and I came onboard as Dr. Adhominem or someone to discuss learnedly with him the problem of persuading the rank and file about evolutionary psychology, ...

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.

Quote

Call THAT not contributing anything of value?

Absolutely!

Quote

Now watch him respond that he knew instantly that Dr Adhominem was a fraud, for it is very important to him to NEVER be in the wrong over ANYTHING.

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:
 
 

Quote

If I was to give credence to authors like James Paton, Raymond Franz, and advocates like Barbara Anderson and William Bowen, I would have to believe the author Carl Olof Jonsson.

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?

Quote

I would have to believe the false allegations drawn by questionable Bethel members against Ewart C. Chitty.

How do you know the allegations are false? Did God tell you?

Quote

If the accusation was true. He had homosexual tendencies because he preferred to bunk with lush young male bethelites

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?

Quote

No different from that of Leo K. Greenlees. AlanF makes an absolute claim he was found guilty. I would like to see the proof on that.

Even if Jesus himself gave you that evidence, you most likely would not believe it.

Quote

Then a remark is made on how witnesses will make every attempt to defend the GB when he can’t defend his own allegations with proof. That is laughable.

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.

Quote

That gives it a spin with the starting statement “The self-righteous JW apologist” on this forum (are) pitiful. How else can we see such opposition?

Quote

Grammar error with (are) to be understood better with (is) by AlanF

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:

Quote

And we know Jesus's Kingdom won't be full of hypocrites.

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.

21 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Sigh....

He’s back. Arguing with every single point, as was his wont, even the ones inconsequential to the thread—like the retort to the unreasonably chatty greeting from JWI with mention of concern of his atheism. 

Blah blah blah blah blah.

LOL! Coming from someone who NEVER contributes anything of value, that's rich!

Arauna said:
     

Quote

 

    7 hours ago, AlanF said:

    self-righteous JW apologists

Who appointed you as judge?

 

Same one who appointed your Governing Body.

Quote

As for some of the rumours you talk about - some people's sexual "inclinations" - it remains rumour or ugly gossip.

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.

Quote

Deviant people are everywhere and they can remain undetected - then one has to gather evidence to convict.

Which is what the GB did to convict Leo Greenlees of being a pedophilic, homosexual child molester.

Quote

Getting evidence is the hardest part because it is your word against mine type of situation.  Blah blah blah.

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.  

Quote

What I learnt from the piece you wrote is that there were  GB members who were removed... and some were shunned by others for  domineering behaviour. .....so no-one is too powerful to NOT  be held accountable to some degree.

Wow! You actually learned something!

Quote

There were bad things happening which really  tested the faithful brothers...... which (to me) sounds similar to the times of Israel.   Israel was used  by God but sometimes the conditions were very wicked and trying - especially for the faithful.  Think how depressed Elijah became.  Things written before for our encouragement and endurance.

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.

Quote

Look to jehovah in these times - not imperfect people.  Fortunately I come from a  family who do not look up to people yet I myself have made bad decisions by taking the wrong brothers too seriously.   BuT it has taught me resilience....  

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:
     

Quote

 

AlanF said:

    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

@AlanF Haven't seen you around these parts for a while. I see the name @scholar JW pop up in a "Who's Online" box now and it always reminds me of the fact that he seemed to love a 587 debate, wherever he could find one. I always appreciated your knowledge on that topic (although, you also scare me with your evolution/atheism arguments).

 

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.

Quote

But back to the point. I did not know that you knew this much about the Lloyd Barry and Ted Jaracz situation. I was going to start avoiding using so many names but, yes, of course you are talking about the same people.

I know a lot about all this. I have no problem using names, because exposing evildoers is proper for those who love the truth.

Quote

 

In case you are even more aware of some of these details I would like to run another situation by you, especially since it sounds like you might be aware of details that would clarify or adjust what I think I know. I had just decided earlier today NOT to share this part of the story because of how unbelievable and contrived it might sound. But I'm going to go ahead and put it out here, and I'll take a cue from you and use names this time:

And by the way I don't know if you know C.A. (still alive) but he is the WTS source for most of this particular story, either directly or indirectly.

 

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.

Quote

He is currently living in a residence just off the Bethel campus, and is not doing that well health-wise. I prefer that his name is not spelled out here, because I'm sure he would have preferred that these issues were not widely publicized in a forum such as this.

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.

Quote

I embarrassed myself in front of him on my first day at Bethel over 40 years ago, by telling him about a problem with the pay phones in the Bethel lobby. He listened and then shrugged as if he could not have cared less about it. I don't know why it still embarrasses me so much, but it doesn't matter, we got along very well from that point until even long after I left Bethel. He himself got involved in some even more embarrassing situations at Bethel, which I think you know about.

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.

Quote

He was in the Service Department under Miller and Jaracz, and shortly after I left Bethel, he was "promoted" to the Writing Department.

I met Miller several times, since he and my dad were buddies in the Correspondence Dept. in the 1940s.

Quote

But this story is primarily from back in 91 to 92. After the 91 article, brothers and sisters thought it was good to start telling their stories of sexual abuse to the elders, to the Society, and to professional therapists. The situation was very unnerving for the Society and for local elders too, especially when the accused were those they knew and wanted to defend in some way. There was a big new controversy over repressed memories and whether all these accusations could actually be false. Elders in California, and a couple other states were actually starting classes in "repressed memories" and trying to learn what they could about psychiatry. Victims were coming out of the woodwork.

All that led to various discussions in pre-Web ex-JW forums that resulted in the exposure of Greenlees as a possible molester.

Quote

So Brother Jaracz who tried to keep it "anonymous" from the rest of the Service Department, talked to several of the brothers who were known to be on the rise and who had requested or were being considered for Bethel positions in the Service Department. These were Brother Pierce, West, Lett and Beagle, possibly among others. Pierce and Beagle were sent to California to handle circuits that TJ had been in, and West and Lett were assigned to Wisconsin, at least, there might have been other areas and brothers involved too.

I think the name was Biegle. He was the District Overseer for the congregation my wife was in during the 1980s.

Quote

To give you an idea of who these people were, Beagle, Pierce and Lett were called in to work as C.O.s and D.O.s around the NYC area. (West may have been too, but I don't know what happened to him.) This is a commonly known sign that they are being watched and in close communication with the Service Department, and Bethelites "in the know" start guessing at this point that they will soon be called in to Bethel for "top jobs"

I didn't know about Lett and West.

Quote

 

CA, in fact, predicted when Beagle would come in (he was immediately assigned to the Service Department) and CA guessed in advance that Pierce would go straight to the Governing Body. I think he may have had some inside information.

The two most intimidating were Beagle (six foot six) and Pierce (short but a bulldog with a smile). The intimidation campaign actually produced letters complaining about both of these persons, which was another reason for moving them to NYC. Pierce (from the Salem OR area) had a range of complaints about his "weirdness."

An old accusation from 1991 actually ended up revealing clearly that it was TJ behind the anonymous campaign, as he sent a letter on his own letterhead (his codes) to a sister (a victim's mother) whose daughter was sexually abused by more than one elder since she was young. The mother died, and the daughter is in possession of letters between her mother and the WTS, including at least one from TJ. And based on the content of the letters, she recalled that it was West and Lett who met with her to warn her and her mother that they would be disfellowshipped if they exposed the story.

This part of the story, if true, would provide further confirmation that Lett and West were involved in the same intimidation. I already knew something of Pierce and Beagle because of relatives in California.

Brother Beagle, by the way, (young) died suddenly of a heart problem shortly after he began his assignment in the Service Dept. Brother Lett, of course, is now on the Governing Body and made himself famous to this victim (and exJWs, and probably other victims) by implying that apostate lies were behind the spread of rumors about the WTS covering up child sexual abuse.

 

Jaracz really was a monster, alright. I know that many Bethelites rejoiced when he died.

3 hours ago, Anna said:

I have the feeling this evidence could possibly be in the orgs. files that certain lawyers are trying to get their hands on.

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:

Quote

Within the ex-witness community, any insider can offer the same talking points.

Not true.

Quote

I don’t condom hearsay.

Generally wise, but not always.

Quote

The one that is laughable is, of course, the Knorr accusation.

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.

Quote

To the same extent, Rutherford was accused of homosexuality,

Never heard of that.

Quote

a drunkard, and a womanizer.

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.

Quote

None of which could be proven. Maybe it was the way he walked. 😏

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.

Quote

That hasn’t stopped ex-witnesses from bringing it up. If AlanF found such information, it could have been relayed to him by an attending witness.

Whatever that means.

César Chávez said:

Quote

 

     5 hours ago, AlanF said:

    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.

Couldn’t the term “apologist” be applied to those that criticize the Org? I don’t think there is a difference in defense with that. Please excuse my English grammar. I understand someone might seem uneducated.

 

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.
 

Quote

 

    5 hours ago, AlanF said:

    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)

Can you provide proof?

 

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.
     

Quote

 

    5 hours ago, AlanF said:

    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.

Since this accusation was never proven, do you have supporting evidence that gives us concrete evidence?

 

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.
     

Quote

 

    5 hours ago, AlanF said:

    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.
    Read more   

Again, can you provide that evidence? Have you ever been a JW, or are you submitting talking points from AD1914?

 

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.
     

Quote

 

    5 hours ago, AlanF said:

    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.

Can you provide statistics to any of the above allegations?

 

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.