Sean Migos

Srecko, I just received and email from “foreigner”. This person is BANNED from this site for abusive language toward TTH, JTR, JWinsider, and Anna at the request of JWinsider according to the ADMIN TTH. Yet, JTR and TTH can be abusive in their language.
Apparently, the Admin has gone to great lengths to include those the Admin thinks are associated with foreigner. Meaning people like Allen_Smith and others have been banned for abusive language which makes it a lie!
Are you seriously going to attempt to include bible times with the strict laws imposed by modern nations in order to persuade in some cases third world nations that accept child marriage as a standard of life?
I would suggest you look at the term “child abuse” more broadly than just pedophilia as it is done in this forum.
Admin, that doesn’t mean you can ban the truth, this just means your actions will be more proof to regulate Facebook, Twitter, and Amazon when it comes to ad-driven websites that are compromised by hate speech, which includes the for-mentioned and ex-witnesses.
Since California sets precedents, I will include your actions for consideration.
If you ban me for speaking the truth, I will have no choice but to sue TTH and JW insider on your behalf.

 

Read my statement again. I couldn't care less. I don't recommend books that have received negative input by people not in good standing and have a negative view of the Watchtower. It would be like thinking JTR would be mentally sound to give sound advice about the Watchtower to use as good research and accept them as sound talking points. Therefore, I'm not harping. I'm demonstrating the difference when you attack (Rebuke) some people (Actual brother) here but not others.
That in effect makes your books of fighting a good fight in a journalist point of view, null and void. Can't have it both ways. Scripture is more specific. Kinda of reminds me of JWinsider. But then again, birds of a feather!! Admin & Librarian. 😉

Coming from a long-winded insane person that converted to accept apostasy to further his attacks and hate of the Org, it seems as waste of internet space if people are going to believe such an insane person.
But that's what this website is designed for, Apostates false, misleading, and hateful rhetoric.

The Supreme Court Rejected a Case About the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Sex Abuse
By Hemant Mehta October 8, 2019   Yesterday, the Supreme Court announced that it would not take up a wild case concerning the organization that oversees the Jehovah’s Witnesses. We can breathe a huge sigh of relief that the case won’t be overturned. (In that link, it’s case 19-40 on page 42.)
 
 
The case, which involved child molestation and religious secrecy, centered around an incident that took place on July 15, 2006.
J.W., a nine-year-old girl with Jehovah’s Witness parents, was invited to her first slumber party at the home of Gilbert Simental. He had a daughter her age, so that wasn’t too weird. Two other girls (sisters) were also at the party. These families all knew and trusted Simental because, while he was no longer a local Witness leader, he had spent more than a decade as an elder in the faith. He was a religious leader who stepped down, he said, to spend more time with his son. They believed him. They all respected him. It’s why they allowed their girls into his home.
During that party, everyone got into a pool in the backyard… including Simental. And he proceeded to molest J.W. and the sisters. He did it again later that night. The sisters eventually told their parents, who reported Simental to local Witness elders (which is what they’re taught to do in these situations).
Simental confessed to some of the allegations, and the elders basically gave him a faith-based slap on the wrist: a reprimand that had no meaning outside church circles.
Things changed only when the sisters’ school principal learned about what happened and, as required by law, reported the abuse to local law enforcement. Police soon contacted J.W.’s family asking for their story, but after consulting with the Witnesses, her father chose not to speak with the cops.
It was a year later when J.W., then 10 years old, told her parents what Simental did to her in the pool. It infuriated them, and they told the Witness elders that they wanted a restraining order against him. The elders told him not to do that since it would require informing the police about what Simental did — and they preferred to keep his actions private.
Here’s the bigger problem: There’s reason to believe the Witnesses were aware that Simental was a child molester… and they kept it from the families. Simental was allowed to be a religious leader — earning respect from the community — even though higher-ups in the religion knew that he shouldn’t be around children.
It raised an important question: How much blame did the Witnesses deserve for what happened at that pool party?
J.W.’s family eventually filed a criminal lawsuit against Simental and a separate civil suit against the Watchtower Society (the Witnesses’ governing organization). They basically said the Witnesses should have informed congregation members about Simental and stopped him from being around children. They never should have allowed him to be a religious leader.
The Watchtower Society’s argument? They didn’t know Simental was a child molester, and the pool party occurred after he was no longer a religious leader, and the slumber party wasn’t a church-sponsored event, so leave them out of this.
(To be clear, I’m simplifying the details of this case and the legal journey quite a bit.)
When this case went to trial in California, J.W.’s family demanded that the Watchtower Society produce documents relating to what they knew about child molesters within the faith. The Witnesses had already admitted to keeping lists of problematic leaders along with their specific “crimes” — similar to the Catholic Church. If Simental was on that list — from 1997, nearly a decade before the pool incident — it would essentially be a smoking gun showing the Witnesses knew he was a threat to kids but did nothing about it.
But the Witnesses refused to hand over that material. They treated it like Catholics treat confession: It’s private information, they argued, and to reveal what was said internally would violate their religious beliefs.
J.W.’s family didn’t buy that argument. The information they wanted wasn’t bound by clergy-penitent confessional privilege. It’s not like Simental told the elders what he had done in order to confess his sins. He was caught. The Witnesses were merely shielding him from legal punishment.
In the criminal trial, Witnesses elders were forced to admit their practices and that the private discussions they had about abusive clergy members were not considered confidential under the law.
Mark O’Donnell, writing at JWSurvey, explained what happened next:
 
  Simental’s appeal got him nowhere. He’s in prison today. But there were still so many questions about what responsibility the Witnesses had in this whole matter.  
J.W.’s family wanted to know why Simental, a known pedophile, was promoted within the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Why did they allow him to be around children? Why didn’t they warn families? Why did they just give him a slap on the wrist?
In 2013, the civil trial began against the Watchtower Society, but again, the Witnesses didn’t want to provide necessary documents. They eventually lost the case. In 2015, the Riverside Superior Court of California awarded J.W. a judgment of $4,016,152.39. This past December, the Fourth District Court of Appeal in California upheld that decision.
You get the idea: The Witnesses refused to hand over internal data, presumably because it would’ve been like handing over a loaded gun. So the courts had no choice but to assume the plaintiff was telling the truth and the Watchtower Society was negligent in their handling of Simental.
Earlier this year, in a Hail Mary attempt to reverse their punishment, the Watchtower Society appealed to the Supreme Court. They wanted the justices to say that documents relating to child abuse within a religious group can be kept confidential.
Here’s how the Witnesses’ attorney introduced his case to the justices. (You don’t need a law degree to see how he just completely dismissed the molestation.)
Watchtower attorney Paul Polidoro said the Supreme Court needed to consider whether California violated the Constitution when it held the Jehovah’s Witnesses responsible for what Simental did “during non-church activity,” forced them to hand over internal communications, and punished them for protecting everyone’s “privacy rights.”
J.W.’s attorney responded to that brief asking the Court to flat-out reject this case.
Indeed, that’s what the Court decided. When the first set of orders in the new term was released yesterday, there was this case among many many others, in the list of those which would not get heard this term.
 
 
It was the right move. There’s nothing further to debate here. Finally, this case has been put to rest.
(Image via Shutterstock. Large portions of this article were published earlier)
   

I see you like sniffing through other peoples garbage.
Technical denial. Most likely the petition was entered too late for a writ. 90 days from the California Supreme Court denied.
How about learning the laws. Oral argument will decide. The higher court can descend to have it reconsidered by the appellate court after the Supreme Court returns it for review. Depending on how busy the US Supreme Court is to hear oral argument.
Until the fat lady sings. Meantime, cheering for apostates to win, is bad Christian Conduct. Why are you still a witness? You have lost favor from God long ago. Listen to witness, maybe the conversion will give you better legitimacy to hate the Org like them.

Well ... according to the DCC (Demented Criteria Council), it IS brave.
The reason people "sift through other peoples' garbage". is that they are starving for real , honest, verifiable Truth.

 

That is what your naive assessment is. There are still certain steps to go before the fat lady sings. Your apostate friends just happen to apply one.
Of course the California Supreme Court and the Appellate Courts have spoken. That doesn't mean the US supreme court can't send it back to the lower courts for further review. That doesn't mean the Org can't ask for an oral argument for the highest court.
More hot air coming from an uneducated person.


Srecko, try learning something for a change. It's not about maneuvers, it's about the US process of the law. If you don't understand our laws, keep your opinion to yourself. Every topic you think you know, you just keep embarrassing yourself even further. Stick to up voting your apostate friend JTR post. That's a safer bet on how to support ignorance.

IT COULD be that there is a market for making edible kites from waffles or pancakes ... but until I see them successfully marketed, that is NOT the case, and your hopeful fantasy is ONLY a hopeful fantasy.
Ignorance, if present, can be corrected in the natural course of events, by mere observation.
There is NOTHING that can be done for your agenda driven faith in delusional fantasy,and Narcissistic Personality Disorder, for which there is no cure.

 

 
 
Got facts?
(... of course not ...)
 
 
 
 
 

Perhaps if you become more familiar with the Watchtower history, you will find, when Rutherford was imprisoned by the behest of the Catholic Church, Bro. Rutherford developed a pulmonary problem in prison. His doctor urged him to live in a clearer climate. Many brothers that considered Rutherford not just an insightful person but a friend as well, built Beth-Sarim for Brother Rutherford. Not the Watchtower, NOT Rutherford.
Your speculation then, becomes impractical. Now if you are suggesting how Brother Rutherford personally "felt" if one day the ancient prophets would suddenly walk on this earth once again? He would offer his house to have them feel welcomed just as those in ancient times offered their homes to weary travelers, I would offer my home for the same reason.

I would say, neither did Rutherford. Just because he wrote how he felt doesn’t mean it was made to be a doctrine.

It was meant to be inspirational. The kind of difference not taken into account by anyone here. I suspect no one here has a good grasp of the Org history. I would say, only those that taunt and display “dishonesty” usually chime in to in other words, misunderstood person. But it doesn't surprise me at all.

How can this not be applied to you or Srecko, Matthew and any other opposer? You have just answered yourself with the embodiment of bidding Satan's work.
Meaning, opposers here are their own worst nightmare.

it is subjective to turn things around by the opposition. You made a concrete statement. The Org is not, the visible organization even though the proof is with the increased proclamation of Jesus's words to preach the good news. Actions.
You have the opportunity to show that proof without conjecture and speculation that is part of the opinion. I'll ask again, show that absolute proof, the Org does not favor the Almighty.
Then, you refuse to answer how the ancient prophets were seen as well. I also made it a point for you to show just cause without being self-serving, and that is exactly what you did.
I will not continue a thoughtless debate.

Does this mean the ancient prophets were not sent by God to speak on his behalf? Does that mean Jesus rejected the temple?
Interesting concept. Does this mean you have “proof” The Watchtower is not God’s visible organization?
Please provide that proof. Does this mean that the apostles were not part of Christ’s plan because they saw physical evidence of God’s Holy Spirit even though they never personally saw God?
If the Pope believes he has the spirit of God?
If you believe you have the spirit of God?
By this conjecture, both of you would be false prophets with, speculation.
How do you counter such bible discrepancy without adding to scripture as it has been done to mislead the public. Revelation 22:18-19
I believe the actions and "works" spoke in favor of God's Holy Spirit. What works do you believe the Org is not providing without being subjective, objective, speculative, using conjecture, being biased, and self-serving?

It's good to admit your part of a team, and that team are fakers that don't speak for the Org. But instead against it. I'm hopeful people can now experience the truth about your team here. Thank you for your honesty. It was a long time coming.

I can see this comment does not conform to the "banned" post submitted earlier. I proof is on the actions that people seem to dominate. This is a good example of Hollywood drama, where the Oscar goes to?

I just figured it out. When I clicked on @Foreigner, there was no issue as his account was still there and I could click to his posts.
But when I looked at the post where I had pointed out the spamming, which is the post of mine on August 31st that immediately follows the one below, I see that clicking on the @BillyTheKid46 link, I cannot from there link to any of his posts. In fact, I quote a post of his from 8/31 in one of my own, and his post from 8/31 is is missing. (This is one reason I hate that accounts get banned, censured, or even disciplined in such a way that any of their previous posts disappear. BTK had several posts that were very good, even several that I had upvoted, too.)
 

TTH has said he has nothing to do with the running of this site. I have no proof, but I'm sure he's telling the truth. He doesn't know me, and I don't know him, and I don't know the Librarian or the admin either. What I know about them is only from what I see in the posts I get. I did get an invitation from a moderator 3 years ago inviting me to use some moderating powers to move posts to new topics, because there were a lot of topics that were started and several persons (with names like Allen Smith) were coming into these topics for no apparent reason other than to spew some vitriolic hatred, judge persons (not views) they disagreed with as apostate, Satanic and deserving of death.
I gladly accepted the moderating powers to move unrelated posts to new topics. It keeps things neater, more organized, and allows for those other ideas to grow into topics of their own. I don't use any function that allows me to delete a post, but it's a function called "Split." For anyone's post, I have a little pulldown, called Options, and in there is a function called "Split." I can start a new "empty" topic first, give it a name, and then when I click on "Split," I enter the location of the new topic, and the post ends up on that page. I have no control over the order, so they just show up by date order, the same order they showed up on the original topic. It's a bit too much effort for the value gained, and I prefer personally to just let topics go all over the place "organically." My own posts (like this one) are off-topic about as often as anyone else's (or more) so it seems like trying to exert control on a topic that is unnecessary, even if it's easier to follow.
I know that I didn't communicate with TTH or anyone else about removing anyone here. It wouldn't make any sense anyway because I'm always AGAINST removing people from any forum. No matter how badly they act, they will just continue to act that badly under another name if they are removed. We all saw that this was the case with Allen Smith, and some of his cursing and cyber-bullying became just as bad under his new names as it had been under his original name. I always spoke up for him, though, because a person can be "censured" by the others without removing his rights to speak up on the forum. Any of us can personally block someone we don't want to hear from. I don't know for sure, but I suspect I have been blocked by some who didn't want to hear what I had been saying.
So I know this is probably not about any of the original "Allen Smith" monikers. I know that I did expose the vote-spamming of @BillyTheKid46 and @Foreigner, but I just now typed their names with an @ in front of them, and they both seem to exist. (I haven't seen tweets from either of them for a couple weeks, though). Perhaps pointing out their spamming with small screen-shot snippets has resulted in a punishment of some kind, but I do not expect their removal. Besides I only pointed out a very small percentage of their spamming, as it related to my own posts. Others here pointed out that they were doing the same to their posts, too.
My own goal in pointing out their spamming was not to get either of them removed, and I hope they have not been removed. I also hate the fact that when someone is removed you can no longer see their posts, and you end up with conversations that no longer make any sense with half the conversation missing.

I can see where this statement would be given to sway the insight of others. It would certainly be beneficial to your team and JWinsider, as being portrayed by your time as such.
The worldwide Brotherhood has seen one of our own team removed after experiencing the communication between you and JWinsider. It is not a question of whom, but the legitimacy of this open forum that falls into question.

Can there be a difference with an invisible being as our sovereign lord Jehovah that we are his witnesses thereof, with that of being a witness to the many miracles made by Jesus as a man.


I can’t see the logic with this kind of thinking. Especially when someone judges another as a newbie. Perhaps it’s time to get back on track with the original post.

I would imagine Brother Russell would have appreciated your stance on consecrated ground. Does that mean we should revere all churches as the Holy of Hollies places of God?

If false religion is not speaking in accordance to Jesus instructions, what Holy does that place hold. When Matthew spoke of an incident about Jesus in 21:12-13, it is clear Jesus meant that a house of God would not be treated as a place of business. It would be used as a dedication for prayer. Had Jesus thought the ground he walked on was consecrated ground, he would have made it a point that only the line of the royal priesthood could enter such a place and those selling inside would have “defiled” the house of God and would be, deserving of death.

The same circumstances that is used for the inference of the Holy land. Millions have died to retain that land. It holds three religious beliefs in modern time. Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. If that land is so sacred, why is there still bloodshed in its footsteps?

A place dedicated for such a gathering is called a house of prayer. Any building can be christened for such a purpose.

Scripture does not reveal a brick and mortar building as the “church” of Christ. That church is the body of Christ. Its members are temples (Bricks) and the mortar is “God’s Holy spirit” keeping those bricks together.

It is unconscionable to think ex-witnesses have influenced regular witnesses to such a degree that it has a profound impact as to think otherwise with Bible Truth.

It’s disheartening to see Christian maturity set aside for an inconstant debate.

I hope you understand the difference when holding a business in the temple. Were those money boxes circulated as a business? What would donations be in your eyes?
Does the Org use donated money to receive luxury items like planes, trains, boats? Do those donations support priest income and a home for that priest?
Some witnesses consider the Org headquarter as lavish. Should volunteers be housed in the field? Should the Org spend more in room and board paid to other benefactors because “bad” witnesses want to decide how the Org should, run?
Does the GB live in lavish mansions? Do those donations go to a 10 million dollar home like “Joel Olsteen” received, and have children sent to a good college with that donated money.
There are many ways those in opposition look at things to enhance a fruitless debate.
Joel Olsteens car
Featured snippet from the web
Joel Osteen - is an American televangelist based in Houston. He likes luxury car and has in his car collection this cars: Ferrari 458 Italia, Porsche 911, Mercedes G-class
 
It is clear what you are willing to accept is not the truth.
 

“The only reason to oppose such building and organization is to break up, ideally even eliminate, the coordinated preaching work that it facilitates. It is no more complicated than that. Say it plainly, and you will win some respect for frankness. But to mischaracterize operational expense as “abuse” is just too devious.”

This objection is all too silly, in my view.
They are dormitories where the Bethelites are housed. They are nice dormitories, to be sure, but they are still dormitories. They facilitate the spread of the united good news throughout “all the inhabited earth.” They are a logical extension of the “works greater than these” that Jesus told his followers they would perform. 
The “abuses” you site are no more than basic human needs—done “on the cheap” to the degree possible. (Certainly there is no arrangement to “clothe) anyone) It is true even of the solar energy and green roofs. They make for lower operating costs, thereby reducing the burden of those who will be asked to support the facility. Do you rail against extravagant waste when anyone else puts up solar panals?
The only reason to oppose such building and organization is to break up, ideally even eliminate, the coordinated preaching work that it facilitates. It is no more complicated than that. Say it plainly, and you will win some respect for frankness. But to mischaracterize operational expense as “abuse” is just too devious.
 

We can discuss judgment if you want. I can state how you have judged Christendom to say religion is false. I can add, how you believe the Org. is false. I could then apply your own words and scripture, about judgment. I would imagine this insight did not fail your motivation to make it a debate. The prospect of judgment falls upon your shoulder not mine. In other words, you have placed judgment upon yourself.
Perhaps by reviewing your written words, it will give you that insight.
Once again, heed your own words to refresh your memory. You claim the Org, to be false. Those churches that follow Christ, to  the letter and in his footsteps receive the same Holy Spirit as the church of Christ. Can you give me an example of which other church runs parallel to the first century church?
The church belongs to everyone who obeys God. I don't consider the church to be mine, but I am part of the church by obedience to God. There is no such thing as a Jesus Witness. Jesus however was a witness to his heavenly father to submit himself with obedience to him. I am, however, a witness of Jehovah. The creator of us all. I am proud to have Jehovah as my friend and creator.
The terminology is different. When we seek the fault of others, we will find them. Imperfection cannot be removed by man, or human condition (absolution). Testing the spirit is an action, which can be applied when we decide to make scripture convince ourselves that we are correct when indeed we are not. This would be the purpose in difference when receiving God's Holy Spirit.
Then why speak about love. You made the point, it has to be a specific human condition in order to follow Christ. How can love and hate run in sync, if not by loving the human soul and hating all that is evil within, humanity.

Like I said, you’re the boss. You and JWinsider can communicate to have anyone erased. The only thing you can’t do, is compel others to use your instant messaging service to spy on what is personally being discussed. The same safeguards you as owners have.
 When you mock, it’s a reflection of an individual’s lifestyle. I don’t particularly find that to be good Christian behavior. This is why I’m not sold on the idea that anyone here can be a genuine Jehovah’s Witness. That’s very telling, thank you. But to suggest, one person is all people, well, I’ll leave it to your imagination. A pattern of dissent can also be, telling when it comes to motives of repression, and suppression. Remember the phrase, “worldwide brotherhood” as a clue.
 The same can be said about writing style. Professional writing style that you as, TrueTomHarley, JWinsider, Anna, James Thomas Rook Jr, Witness, and many others have in common. Should I wonder too?
 You seem to have a funny bone with an itch. Enjoy your day, Sir.