AlanF

Anna said:
    
Well then, if God didn't appoint Greenlees, how can you think he appointed the others? And which ones do you think that God did appoint? And how would you know?
     
What you've just argued -- correctly, I might add -- is that JW elders are NOT appointed by holy spirit, but by imperfect men who may or may not have properly applied the scriptures.
In particular, you've explained why the JW Governing Body cannot be spirit-appointed -- that they are counterfeits because their claims are false.
But not by holy spirit.
I have: the Governing Body is not appointed by holy spirit.
     
You've completely missed the point.
True, but we are talking about a fundamental doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses: The Governing Body, is God's anointed representative, speaks for God and must be obeyed as God would.
But we've already concluded that the GB is NOT appointed by God, by holy spirit. Rather, its members are appointed by imperfect men, who were in turn appointed by other imperfect men, all the way back to Rutherford. In no case can it be shown that holy spirit acted upon the ones doing the appointing, or that the appointments were done strictly according to scriptural requirements.
     
Done: https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/forums/topic/85914-governing-body-member-albert-schroeder-denies-the-bible-applies-to-jehovahs-witnesses/
     
Yes, even Bowen created a good deal of beneficial publicity.
     
Why? I know a great deal of what has been going on behind the scenes.
     
Theoretical exercises are all well and good, but the many court cases where the sordid details of the perpetrator's actions, along with the active covering up done by JW elders, mostly at the direction of the Service Department, prove that JW policy and practice leaves much to be desired, and is often outright criminal. This was all so clearly exposed in the ARC proceedings.
An opinion backed up by ARC and multiple court cases.
     
The point is about APPOINTMENT by holy spirit. Your reading a book and trying to apply the author's instructions does not in any sense mean that the author has directed you. Following her written directions, and her actively directing you, are completely different things. It's the difference between having Julia Child's cookbook in your kitchen and having Julia Child herself supervising you. Capiche?

Arauna said:
     
As usual, your comment is nonsensical personal opinion.
It's far from claptrap. You claim that merely based on "I don't believe it!" You have yet to offer clear reasoning on anything with which you disagree.
Good for you!
Yet you view the Governing Body as speaking for God. Does God not awe you?
Sadly, true. But the JW cult offers an ideal place for such sheeple.
That is one good thing about the JW cult. But they are not unique in this.
Not really. They're extremely prone to accept whatever nonsense comes out of Watchtower headquarters. Nonsense that is likely to be changed in short order. Like the organ transplant ban of 1967, which was quietly dropped within a decade.

    
Wrong. People like you are often such fuzzy thinkers that you write things that have meanings you're not even aware of. Such as in the above exchange.
Oh? Which scholars? Let's see if you can provide source references.
Wrong. We know that elders, especially the Governing Body, are uninspired. But the GB claims "guidance from God" that is indistinguishable from "inspiration by God", which means that in practice, they cannot be wrong. I've heard elders make the same claim for themselves, based on the Society's teachings. So if they are what they claim, yes indeed, one expects that they would not be hoodwinked by pedophiles.

JW Insider said:
Perhaps, perhaps not. In my experience with online forums and simply talking with ex-JWs generally, I've seen a great seething anger on the part of many because of the Society's policy of disfellowshipping for expressing disagreement with any JW doctrine. Such authoritarianism is bound to create resentment on the part of those who can actually think. Of course, a large fraction of JWs are content to have an authority tell them what to think, and even where to put their feet on each step.
Remember the large drop in JW membership after the 1975 fiasco.
The only reason that many JWs remain in the cult, at least nominally, is to avoid disfellowshipping or informal shunning. I know many, including my own family members, who are in that boat.
The point I'm making is not so much about disfellowshipping per se, but the attitude engendered in most JWs by the policy of disfellowshipping for 'apostasy', i.e., expressing disagreement with Watchtower tradition or policy.
Most JWs are well aware that if they found themselves before a judicial committee for expressing doubt about some JW teaching, the most important question the elders would ask is: "Do you believe that Jehovah is using the Governing Body?" A 'No' answer results in immediate disfellowshipping, as many stories posted by ex-JWs prove. This creates fear in the JWs who think this through.
I think the number of people who would even want to come back is small, so great is the resentment caused by the authoritarian policies.
You're right in principle, but not, I think, in practice. If there were less of a violent reaction by Watchtower officials against disagreement, there would be less pushback by those who are punished for disagreeing. It simply wouldn't be worth their time.
About 20 years ago I managed to get an audience with a Watchtower official about such things. He was interested in hearing the viewpoint of an outspoken online critic. I told him that if the Society cleaned up its act on three issues, most opposition would dry up: blood, child molestation and disfellowshipping. He agreed.
Of necessity, sure.
Of course, because for decades the Society has condemned deviations as rebellion against God. The JW community could be rehabilitated fairly easily.
I think the fact that most JWs DO think of their leaders as governors of their faith belies all that.
That's because there IS no acceptable replacement. Why? Because it is the entire end-times scenario created by Russell and perpetuated by his successors that is wrong.
Much like slowly boiling a frog in a big pot keeps him comfortable.
Such "appreciation" ignores the fact that most of the time, JW leaders must be dragged kicking and screaming away from their traditional teachings. The experience of many JWs who tried to offer constructive criticism but were punished for their efforts proves it. Think of Carl Olof Jonsson and Jay Hess.
If these men were truly humble, they would not claim that their own words are equal to God's.
Considered by who?
Sure, if it involved an extremely clear violation of biblical norms, such as sleeping with one's stepmother. But a far better practice would be to organizationally ignore most bad forms of conduct, since individual JWs are supposed to be trained to have consciences tuned well enough to figure these things out on their own. But a century of authoritarian indoctrination has severely damaged the conscience and thinking ability of far too many JWs. "What does the Society say?" rather than "What does the Bible say?" is the operational phrase for most elders. That's understandable since the Governing Body has put itself in the place of God in the minds of JWs. Watchtower policy almost always trumps an individual JW's understanding of the Bible.

JW Insider said:
Good!
Correct. Remember that "messiah" and "christ" mean "anointed one", meaning "anointed by God". The term does not apply just to Jesus Christ, or even to someone claiming to be Jesus Christ returned, but to anyone claiming to be anointed by God.
        
You're confusing two separate ideas. There is nothing scripturally wrong with expecting and hoping for "the end" to come soon. But predicting a specific time period for "the end" is a different kettle of fish. I need not repeat the many warnings given in Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21 against trying to predict "the end"; they're clear enough on their own.
Therefore predicting a specific date or narrow window of time is grossly unscriptural. Otherwise, what do the scriptural warnings mean?
Well, there is a lot that can be said about Revelation. What did John mean by "near"? If we say, "within a couple of decades", then Revelation can be dismissed as the ravings of a lunatic. If we say, "we don't know but we believe John was inspired", then it must mean "several thousand years". But that is extremely problematic since several thousand years is not "near" in any meaningful sense. One is then forced to interpret "near" in the virtually meaningless sense of "an unknown time in the future". And the meaning of "near" in Luke 21 is obviously not that.
The Society itself explained the "I am he" one and only one time, in the Nov. 1, 1964 Watchtower (p. 645). After some commentary it said:
<< The combined testimony of these faithful witnesses pointed to danger from within the ranks of professed Christians. The peril would be not so much from the openly avowed opponents of Christ as from those who would rise up claiming to be Christ or claiming to exercise the rights and prerogatives of Christ as his empowered representatives. >>
Now, who today among Jehovah's Witnesses claims "the rights and prerogatives of Christ as his empowered representatives"? The Governing Body. Therefore, by the Society's own argumentation, the GB is saying "I am he". Case closed.
 
Posted 8 minutes ago
That meaning is consistent with the Society's argument in the 1964 Watchtower: "Christ's empowered representatives".
Which is exactly why Russell and his successors must be among the ones that Luke 21:8 says not to follow.
Further titles were "The Kingdom Is At Hand", "The Approaching Peace of a Thousand Years", "God's Kingdom of a Thousand Years Has Approached", etc.
All of this is so obvious that Albert Schroeder immediately realized its import, and almost panicked. This caused him to deny that the Bible applies to Jehovah's Witnesses. Otherwise he would have had to admit that the JW organization is fundamentally at odds with Jesus' teaching.

JW Insider said:
     
The fact that virtually no JW critics give credence to that nonsense makes everything else moot.
There are two senses of "inspired": 'God-breathed' and the metaphorical sense, as in "that painting inspires me". The two should not be confused, although Watchtower writers often dishonestly take advantage of the ambiguity of the two meanings.
The Society likes to use "direction" rather than "inspiration" because it allows them -- they think -- some wiggle room when their "spirit-directed" policies and teachings go wrong. But in the minds of average JWs, there is no difference, because the result is the same: "Obey the Governing Body's commands as you would God's."
The Society has long been talking out of both sides of its collective mouth on this.
Completely missing the point. No surprise.
What his blog post clumsily and inaccurately alluded to was, rather, the argument that if the Governing Body demands obedience as if to God himself, and disfellowships for 'apostasy' -- rebelling against God -- any who willingly disobey or dispute the GB, then they are implicitly claiming inspiration. Why? Because if they acted in accord with the fact that they themselves are well aware of -- that they are in no sense inspired -- they would have to stop pretending that their words are God's words, and stop disfellowshipping people for apostasy.
Of course, most everyone understands that, after all this time and irreparable damage to families by these disgusting teachings, if they changed their policy and quit disfellowshipping for 'apostasy', their membership roles would drop immediately and drastically. And of course, a very large number of JWs would sue the Watchtower Society for various abuses, probably forcing it out of business.

Vic Vomidog said:
I'm bored with stringing you along, TrueTomHarley, so this is the end.

Vic Vomidog said:
I'm bored with stringing you along, TrueTomHarley, so this is the end.

JW Insider said:
     
Of course. One such was in the April 1, 1986 Watchtower, which considered the question, "Why have Jehovah’s Witnesses disfellowshipped (excommunicated) for apostasy some who still profess belief in God, the Bible, and Jesus Christ?" The article never clearly defines "apostasy", but weasels around by saying that a true Christian must accept "the entire range of the true teachings of the Bible, including those Scriptural beliefs that are unique to Jehovah’s Witnesses." But this is another instance of the Society talking out of both sides of its mouth, because the Insight book, under "Apostasy", clearly states that apostasy "constitutes a rebellion against God and a rejection of his Word of truth." Combining the two concepts results in something like this: "Since the Governing Body speaks for God, rejecting its teachings is rebellion against God." And we know that this idea has been clearly enunciated or implied hundreds of times in JW literature.
Of course, in the most general sense, "apostasy" means "leaving a previous loyalty", but that is far too broad a definition because it would mean that a loyal employee who quits his job is an apostate, which is an absurd use of the word. So the Society's many rantings against "apostates" essentially equate disagreement with its teachings with rebellion against God. How convenient!
Much more accurate words to describe dissent from Watchtower teaching are "heterodoxy" and "heresy". But heresy has dire associations, such as "Inquisition" and so forth, so the Society will not use it.
Catholic scholar Jeffrey Burton Russell, writing in Dissent and Order in the Middle Ages: The Search for Legitimate Authority (Twayne Publishers, 1992), gave an excellent account of these and related words and how they have been used in the Catholic world (pp. 2-3):
<< Ideas acceptable to the bishops and to approved theologians were defined as orthodox (correct teaching) and catholic (universally held)... Dissenting ideas were considered heterodox (divergent). Heterodox ideas, when defined and condemned by the bishops, were deemed heretical. A heretic was a dissenter formally condemned by an accepted ecclesiastical authority... The term heretic is distinguished from infidel, one who is not Christian at all; apostate, one who abandons Christianity; and schismatic, one who has true doctrine but does not submit to ecclesiastical order. >>
Most of these concepts are found in the April 1, 1986 Watchtower.
Yes, as I said above.
That's right, but no administrators in their right minds would call such an expelled person an apostate.
And of course, expelling for clearly stated organizational reasons has nothing to do with equating those reasons with rebellion against God. It is this unchristian attitude, among other things, that defines Jehovah's Witnesses as a destructive cult.

TrueTomHarley said:
     
Such an infantile rejoinder! You continue confirming that you're a real dummie. But since you suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect you don't know it.
LOL! This ridiculous bit of special pleading starts off, in its very first sentence, with this bit of nonsense:
<< It is revealing to me that those who taunt JWs endlessly over just how “inspired” are the ones at the helm today seem to take for granted that there should be ones who are that way. >>
It only gets worse from this simple-minded straw man.
The fact is that no critics of the JWs expect that there ought to be inspired people at the helm. Quite the contrary. Many critics, like Raymond Franz, clearly argued that no one can be inspired today, and that is one reason JW leaders should not make that claim, or make the claim that they have been appointed by holy spirit as Jehovah's representatives.
It is JW leaders themselves who claim or have claimed direct inspiration, or 'guidance' that is indistinguishable from plenary inspiration. J. F. Rutherford claimed that angels magically 'downloaded' information into his head. And on and on.
The fact that JW leaders disfellowship for 'apostasy' anyone who contradicts their teaching or denies that they are God's representatives proves that they really do claim inspiration.
The rest of your 'argumentation' is too childish to comment on.

Anna said:
     
So you don't think that God appoints any GB members. Good for you! If God did not appoint Greenlees, then he and the rest of them were appointed by fallible men -- a position considered apostate by the Governing Body and its minions.
 
But that all depends on whether the men applying the scriptures do so perfectly. If they do not, then holy spirit could not have appointed the man.
It does not. All your rationalizations are mere special pleading.
     
Then God had nothing to do with Greenlees' appointment to the GB or anything else. By extension, neither does he have anything to do with appointing any other JW elders -- contrary to the Society's claims.
     
Not as such, but they would certainly have been inclined to ignore Greenlees' behavior if they knew about it. And things like obvious homosexuality are not things easily ignored.
And of course, according to Watchtower doctrine, anyone not fully qualified to be a proper elder would not be appointed, because holy spirit would see to it.
     
Of course. And to appropriate lawyers.
     
Ok, here's a good one.
Consider the Bible passage at Luke 21:5-8:
<< 5 Later, when some were speaking about the temple, how it was adorned with fine stones and dedicated things, 6 he said: “As for these things that you now see, the days will come when not a stone will be left upon a stone and not be thrown down.” 7 Then they questioned him, saying: “Teacher, when will these things actually be, and what will be the sign when these things are to occur?” 8 He said: “Look out that you are not misled, for many will come on the basis of my name, saying, ‘I am he,’ and, ‘The due time is near.’ Do not go after them. >>
The important part here is verse 8. According to most Bible commentaries, and the Society itself, the phrase 'I am he' means "I am someone important, someone to be listened to, someone with authority from Jesus and God to represent them". That obviously includes JW leaders since they directly claim to be Jehovah's representatives. The next part of the verse mentions such people as saying ‘The due time is near’ which obviously refers back to the time when "these things are to occur". Jesus, then, was warning his listeners that if they hear such persons claiming to represent God, and claiming that the due time for 'the end' is near, they should not go after them. Since this perfectly describes what JW leaders have done throughout their history and continue to do, it is obvious that Jesus himself said not to follow them.
In 1994 I had a phone conversation with GB member Albert Schroeder about his failure to follow up on some things he had promised to do. After he said he was reneging on his promise, I decided to challenge him with a question about Luke 21:5-8. I asked him, "What do you think that passage means?" He got out his NWT and read it out loud. After finishing verse 8, he was unable to speak. After a minute or so, I said, "Well? What does this mean with respect to applying it to JW teaching about the end?" After another two minutes or so of dead silence, he said, "It can't apply to us, because we're God's people!" Of course, you can imagine my reaction.
In 2009 I found myself living temporarily in Utah, in Mormon country. One Saturday morning a lone JW, a man of about 70, came to our door. After some pleasantries where we identified ourselves as ex-JWs, I challenged him with Luke 21:5-8 and asked him the same thing I did with Schroeder. He was silent for a bit, and then said that he understood what the passage meant, so I asked him if he intended to remain a JW, given that his Lord Jesus Christ specifically said "do not follow them". He said that he had been a JW all his life and was too old to change. Perfectly understandable, of course, but also perfectly unchristian.
Obviously there is no point in his latter years where he had "been made clean".
     
Shows like those are not intended to be scholarly documentaries but to motivate people to act. And that's what they did.
Yes, and the people who helped spark all that were partly motivated by those TV presentations.
 
Your point? Complexity is irrelevant to the criminal coverups.
     
I perfectly well understand the process. God and holy spirit have nothing to do with it. JWs merely pretend they do.
But the Society makes no claims about such things.
What do you think JW leaders mean when they say that Jehovah has appointed them as his anointed representatives? Merely that their predecessors read the Bible and decided to appoint them? I could appoint myself by that process, but would it be a valid appointment? Of course not, and by the same token JW leaders appointing other JW leaders is NOT in any sense "appointment by holy spirit".

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.
 

JW Insider said:
     
Of course. One such was in the April 1, 1986 Watchtower, which considered the question, "Why have Jehovah’s Witnesses disfellowshipped (excommunicated) for apostasy some who still profess belief in God, the Bible, and Jesus Christ?" The article never clearly defines "apostasy", but weasels around by saying that a true Christian must accept "the entire range of the true teachings of the Bible, including those Scriptural beliefs that are unique to Jehovah’s Witnesses." But this is another instance of the Society talking out of both sides of its mouth, because the Insight book, under "Apostasy", clearly states that apostasy "constitutes a rebellion against God and a rejection of his Word of truth." Combining the two concepts results in something like this: "Since the Governing Body speaks for God, rejecting its teachings is rebellion against God." And we know that this idea has been clearly enunciated or implied hundreds of times in JW literature.
Of course, in the most general sense, "apostasy" means "leaving a previous loyalty", but that is far too broad a definition because it would mean that a loyal employee who quits his job is an apostate, which is an absurd use of the word. So the Society's many rantings against "apostates" essentially equate disagreement with its teachings with rebellion against God. How convenient!
Much more accurate words to describe dissent from Watchtower teaching are "heterodoxy" and "heresy". But heresy has dire associations, such as "Inquisition" and so forth, so the Society will not use it.
Catholic scholar Jeffrey Burton Russell, writing in Dissent and Order in the Middle Ages: The Search for Legitimate Authority (Twayne Publishers, 1992), gave an excellent account of these and related words and how they have been used in the Catholic world (pp. 2-3):
<< Ideas acceptable to the bishops and to approved theologians were defined as orthodox (correct teaching) and catholic (universally held)... Dissenting ideas were considered heterodox (divergent). Heterodox ideas, when defined and condemned by the bishops, were deemed heretical. A heretic was a dissenter formally condemned by an accepted ecclesiastical authority... The term heretic is distinguished from infidel, one who is not Christian at all; apostate, one who abandons Christianity; and schismatic, one who has true doctrine but does not submit to ecclesiastical order. >>
Most of these concepts are found in the April 1, 1986 Watchtower.
Yes, as I said above.
That's right, but no administrators in their right minds would call such an expelled person an apostate.
And of course, expelling for clearly stated organizational reasons has nothing to do with equating those reasons with rebellion against God. It is this unchristian attitude, among other things, that defines Jehovah's Witnesses as a destructive cult.

JW Insider said:
     
The fact that virtually no JW critics give credence to that nonsense makes everything else moot.
There are two senses of "inspired": 'God-breathed' and the metaphorical sense, as in "that painting inspires me". The two should not be confused, although Watchtower writers often dishonestly take advantage of the ambiguity of the two meanings.
The Society likes to use "direction" rather than "inspiration" because it allows them -- they think -- some wiggle room when their "spirit-directed" policies and teachings go wrong. But in the minds of average JWs, there is no difference, because the result is the same: "Obey the Governing Body's commands as you would God's."
The Society has long been talking out of both sides of its collective mouth on this.
Completely missing the point. No surprise.
What his blog post clumsily and inaccurately alluded to was, rather, the argument that if the Governing Body demands obedience as if to God himself, and disfellowships for 'apostasy' -- rebelling against God -- any who willingly disobey or dispute the GB, then they are implicitly claiming inspiration. Why? Because if they acted in accord with the fact that they themselves are well aware of -- that they are in no sense inspired -- they would have to stop pretending that their words are God's words, and stop disfellowshipping people for apostasy.
Of course, most everyone understands that, after all this time and irreparable damage to families by these disgusting teachings, if they changed their policy and quit disfellowshipping for 'apostasy', their membership roles would drop immediately and drastically. And of course, a very large number of JWs would sue the Watchtower Society for various abuses, probably forcing it out of business.

TrueTomHarley said:
Nope. You're simply too stupid to see that where the material has "... AlanF said:" it's inside a quotation of Anna. Thus my quotations of Anna's comments to me include my preceding comments to her. That's largely because this board's software is too limited to allow proper quotations within quotations without going to unreasonable lengths.
You're simply too dumb for words. If striving for stupidity were a baseball game, you've knocked the ball out of the park.

TrueTomHarley said:
     
Such an infantile rejoinder! You continue confirming that you're a real dummie. But since you suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect you don't know it.
LOL! This ridiculous bit of special pleading starts off, in its very first sentence, with this bit of nonsense:
<< It is revealing to me that those who taunt JWs endlessly over just how “inspired” are the ones at the helm today seem to take for granted that there should be ones who are that way. >>
It only gets worse from this simple-minded straw man.
The fact is that no critics of the JWs expect that there ought to be inspired people at the helm. Quite the contrary. Many critics, like Raymond Franz, clearly argued that no one can be inspired today, and that is one reason JW leaders should not make that claim, or make the claim that they have been appointed by holy spirit as Jehovah's representatives.
It is JW leaders themselves who claim or have claimed direct inspiration, or 'guidance' that is indistinguishable from plenary inspiration. J. F. Rutherford claimed that angels magically 'downloaded' information into his head. And on and on.
The fact that JW leaders disfellowship for 'apostasy' anyone who contradicts their teaching or denies that they are God's representatives proves that they really do claim inspiration.
The rest of your 'argumentation' is too childish to comment on.

Anna said:
     
So you don't think that God appoints any GB members. Good for you! If God did not appoint Greenlees, then he and the rest of them were appointed by fallible men -- a position considered apostate by the Governing Body and its minions.
 
But that all depends on whether the men applying the scriptures do so perfectly. If they do not, then holy spirit could not have appointed the man.
It does not. All your rationalizations are mere special pleading.
     
Then God had nothing to do with Greenlees' appointment to the GB or anything else. By extension, neither does he have anything to do with appointing any other JW elders -- contrary to the Society's claims.
     
Not as such, but they would certainly have been inclined to ignore Greenlees' behavior if they knew about it. And things like obvious homosexuality are not things easily ignored.
And of course, according to Watchtower doctrine, anyone not fully qualified to be a proper elder would not be appointed, because holy spirit would see to it.
     
Of course. And to appropriate lawyers.
     
Ok, here's a good one.
Consider the Bible passage at Luke 21:5-8:
<< 5 Later, when some were speaking about the temple, how it was adorned with fine stones and dedicated things, 6 he said: “As for these things that you now see, the days will come when not a stone will be left upon a stone and not be thrown down.” 7 Then they questioned him, saying: “Teacher, when will these things actually be, and what will be the sign when these things are to occur?” 8 He said: “Look out that you are not misled, for many will come on the basis of my name, saying, ‘I am he,’ and, ‘The due time is near.’ Do not go after them. >>
The important part here is verse 8. According to most Bible commentaries, and the Society itself, the phrase 'I am he' means "I am someone important, someone to be listened to, someone with authority from Jesus and God to represent them". That obviously includes JW leaders since they directly claim to be Jehovah's representatives. The next part of the verse mentions such people as saying ‘The due time is near’ which obviously refers back to the time when "these things are to occur". Jesus, then, was warning his listeners that if they hear such persons claiming to represent God, and claiming that the due time for 'the end' is near, they should not go after them. Since this perfectly describes what JW leaders have done throughout their history and continue to do, it is obvious that Jesus himself said not to follow them.
In 1994 I had a phone conversation with GB member Albert Schroeder about his failure to follow up on some things he had promised to do. After he said he was reneging on his promise, I decided to challenge him with a question about Luke 21:5-8. I asked him, "What do you think that passage means?" He got out his NWT and read it out loud. After finishing verse 8, he was unable to speak. After a minute or so, I said, "Well? What does this mean with respect to applying it to JW teaching about the end?" After another two minutes or so of dead silence, he said, "It can't apply to us, because we're God's people!" Of course, you can imagine my reaction.
In 2009 I found myself living temporarily in Utah, in Mormon country. One Saturday morning a lone JW, a man of about 70, came to our door. After some pleasantries where we identified ourselves as ex-JWs, I challenged him with Luke 21:5-8 and asked him the same thing I did with Schroeder. He was silent for a bit, and then said that he understood what the passage meant, so I asked him if he intended to remain a JW, given that his Lord Jesus Christ specifically said "do not follow them". He said that he had been a JW all his life and was too old to change. Perfectly understandable, of course, but also perfectly unchristian.
Obviously there is no point in his latter years where he had "been made clean".
     
Shows like those are not intended to be scholarly documentaries but to motivate people to act. And that's what they did.
Yes, and the people who helped spark all that were partly motivated by those TV presentations.
 
Your point? Complexity is irrelevant to the criminal coverups.
     
I perfectly well understand the process. God and holy spirit have nothing to do with it. JWs merely pretend they do.
But the Society makes no claims about such things.
What do you think JW leaders mean when they say that Jehovah has appointed them as his anointed representatives? Merely that their predecessors read the Bible and decided to appoint them? I could appoint myself by that process, but would it be a valid appointment? Of course not, and by the same token JW leaders appointing other JW leaders is NOT in any sense "appointment by holy spirit".

Vic Vomidog said:
     
He/she seems to be in-between. I really can't tell, and these days it's impolite to ask. You'll have to decide for yourself.
Well, I think that an in-between would be pretty thick skinned.
It's never too late to fix all that.

Arauna said:
    
Ah, so God's spirit-directed organization should be judged by such 'worldly' standards. Such self-serving hypocrisy!
     
Nope. That moron first wrongly criticized my grammar and twice refused to be corrected. Or can't you read? Or is your age impeding your understanding?
I've said that several times in this thread. Did you not comprehend? Or do you think you're making a point?
Wrong. I expect that others will not be gross hypocrites, and will not stupidly try to remove a non-existent splinter from my eye when they have a rafter in theirs.
Sure, and I envy them for that. But they shouldn't challenge a competent native English speaker unless they have all their ducks in a row.
     
Arauna said:
     
LOL! You, who gets most of her knowledge of the world via Watchtower publications, have the gall to say that!
The Watchtower Society has been making claims like that since its beginning. Not one claim has come true. It taught that 1914 would bring "the end". It taught that 1918, 1920 and 1925 would bring Armageddon. It taught that Armageddon would come shortly after 1942. Then 1975 was really going to be "IT". Then 2000. After that, virtually every year after 2000.
No, Arauna, just like so many now-dead JWs, just before you die you're going to realize how badly your leaders have hoodwinked you.
Arauna said:
     
As I predicted, no reasonable answer here.
You have no actual reason that "nature red in tooth and claw" has existed for half a billion years. You believe that God created all life, so he must be the author of such a thing.
How could God not be the source of a "nature red in tooth and claw"?
My argument comes not from Dawkins but from a careful consideration of the Bible and scientific facts.
Do you have any actual arguments?
Arauna said:
     
No, it comes from thinking about the situation. This is not rocket science.
  
Except that I've demonstrated that you and most of your fellow JWs really do refuse to see. The few that do see prove my point.
     
But your posts indicate that you believe the Governing Body can do no wrong because you refuse to acknowledge any of their wrongdoing. You obviously view them as infallible, and you view them as they want to be viewed -- as God's anointed spokemen.
Prove me wrong if you disagree.
Not a hater, but a realistic viewer. You seem to have absorbed the post-modernist view that criticism is hatred.
Nonsense. You cannot cite examples.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.