TrueTomHarley

Nice as it is to see our literature cart on the scene, it would have been nicer still to have seen the terrorist leafing through a magazine, stroking his chin thoughtfully, and then snipping the wire on his bomb suit and walking home, magazine in hand.
 

Not many people do this. I like it. Micah goes up a few notches in my book. [No, not THAT book, you old hag of a Librarian...sheesh! And why don't you mind your own business about how long a thread is? Those trashy romance novels you read all day aren't exactly short, are they?]
It's how I try to operate, as well. Make the best case you can. But there comes a point where you throw it all in God's lap; he knows if he is a trinity or not.
Sometimes people disagree. I can live with that. 

Who doesn't?
Besides, you know full well that beheading is no more than an auxiliary point, nowhere presented as the main reason. These days (thankfully) it recedes even more as a factor when the subject is discussed.
(just in case you are on to something, though, I haven't taken a nap since I read your words)

The time period in which I worked for this particular GB member lasted 5 years, although it was rarely full-time. But it was a very topsy-turvy time at Bethel, and even for this GB member himself. One of the persons who worked on the Aid Book appeared somewhat effeminate in some of his mannerisms and this was sometimes used as a threat against him, not because he was homosexual --I'm sure he was not-- but because the Aid Book itself had stirred up some issues, resulting in elder arrangements, and therefore would cause a re-defined GB arrangement, and the questioning of most of our interpretations of chronology, prophecy, and so-called prophetic dramas, among many other things.
Since I considered both of these men to be nearly best friends at the time, the subject of "questionable sexuality" came up. He didn't want me associating too closely with the Aid Book researcher, who was also very good friends with Ray Franz, having both worked on the Aid Book together.
I say this because, it wasn't a matter of completely forgetting about Proverbs 11:13, because it wasn't like anyone actually revealed a confidential secret. I lived next door to Greenlees and was one of many who understood why there were rumors of his lapses. Chitty was already known from a long history of his friendship with Percy Chapman, who had been the Branch Servant for many years in Canada, and who was more openly homosexual. Rutherford didn't have a problem with him, but Knorr did. There were hushed rumors about Chitty and a "lover" that had therefore made the gossip rounds for many years. But I would agree with your sentiment about this not being a cause for accusation in Chitty's case. It was my guess, and this particular GB brother's claim, that nothing should be done unless someone acts on his proclivities, or unless the rumors themselves become damaging. He put both Chitty and the Aid Book researcher/writer in the same category (although I would disagree that they belonged in the same category). And, finally, it was only the rumors that finally got Chitty removed from Bethel and removed from the GB, according to this same GB source. Also, in the case of Fred Franz being held in high "a-steam," I went there myself once, against the advice of my roommate who said he had gone twice but it was very, very weird. I went once and I agreed with my roommate. I also agree with you, however, that times have changed. In my high school, we all took our showers together after gym, and in the Bethel factories, they did the same thing. This had a completely different "vibe" to it, however.
By the way, I also put child abuse and homosexuality in completely different categories, although I realize that there is a small area of potential overlap, just as there often is with heterosexuality.
My own reason for naming persons in such cases I can detail later. I will only name dead people, and only name names when other persons are already aware of it and have also already revealed these same things. The main point, as you can tell, is that even a little exposure can keep us from becoming too self-righteous as an organization, or keep us from thinking that hiding something for a while will keep things hidden forever. I've seen plenty of evidence that exposure actually helps in the long run, while trying to keep all dirty laundry under wraps just makes it worse for all of us, and for potential converts, too.  

In the aftermath of Manchester, if words can be called refreshing, surely "evil losers" fits the bill. As Trump says, you don't call them monsters; they will like that designation. These are not people who look at themselves in the mirror and gasp: "what have I become?"
Nor do you call them 'cowards.' To give your life in support of a cause, any cause, is the very opposite of cowardly.
Nor do you carry on about ‘senseless violence.’ If your goal is to kill people, it makes perfect sense.
Nor do you carry on ineffectually about how "we will not change our way of life because that is what they terrorists want." I suspect they do not want that at all; what they want is for people to continually prance around openly like bowling pins, easy to knock down. Surely if you say such inane things about not changing your way of life, you should acknowledge that it is at the cost of funding 100 cops in riot gear, whereas one with a baton used to suffice.
In their quest to undermine the President, I half expect journalists to turn critical of his label, describing it as 'judgmental', 'knee-jerk,' or juvenile. There's only so much you can do with rhetoric. But I'll take it over what we've had to hear in the past any day.
I like "evil losers" also because it doesn't pretend to have a handle on the problem, as some other responses have. Banal remarks about not succeeding in the fight to change a way of life implies that terrorists are merely a nuisance we all must bear, like mosquitoes.
Of course, what can never be addressed is how easy it is today to transform people into evil losers. And how, if you succeed in taking one out, there are ten in the wings waiting to take his place. Or, when mighty nations are bombing the snot out of weaker ones, how easy it is to turn on the citizens of that nation, thinking them not so innocent after all, since they vote into office the ones who order the bombing.

It's an olive branch. I'll take it. I'm not always kind to you. Thank you.

In the aftermath of Manchester, if words can be called refreshing, surely "evil losers" fits the bill. As Trump says, you don't call them monsters; they will like that designation. These are not people who look at themselves in the mirror and gasp: "what have I become?"
Nor do you call them 'cowards.' To give your life in support of a cause, any cause, is the very opposite of cowardly.
Nor do you carry on about ‘senseless violence.’ If your goal is to kill people, it makes perfect sense.
Nor do you carry on ineffectually about how "we will not change our way of life because that is what they terrorists want." I suspect they do not want that at all; what they want is for people to continually prance around openly like bowling pins, easy to knock down. Surely if you say such inane things about not changing your way of life, you should acknowledge that it is at the cost of funding 100 cops in riot gear, whereas one with a baton used to suffice.
In their quest to undermine the President, I half expect journalists to turn critical of his label, describing it as 'judgmental', 'knee-jerk,' or juvenile. There's only so much you can do with rhetoric. But I'll take it over what we've had to hear in the past any day.
I like "evil losers" also because it doesn't pretend to have a handle on the problem, as some other responses have. Banal remarks about not succeeding in the fight to change a way of life implies that terrorists are merely a nuisance we all must bear, like mosquitoes.
Of course, what can never be addressed is how easy it is today to transform people into evil losers. And how, if you succeed in taking one out, there are ten in the wings waiting to take his place. Or, when mighty nations are bombing the snot out of weaker ones, how easy it is to turn on the citizens of that nation, thinking them not so innocent after all, since they vote into office the ones who order the bombing.

Wow! I won't do that again!
Look, we are on the same team, and all. Moreover, you have been places I have not. And I agree with your general sentiment that 
In both my books, I deliberately take on controversial matters. In my second book (No Fake News but Plenty of Hogwash) ["He's plugging his books again!" shrieks the Librarian, falling off her chair and landing on her fat keister. "After I ordered him not to!"] I describe at some length two greatly flawed persons, with names changed. One, an elder like Diotrophes, who bullied the elder body and plotted to kill his wife so that he could marry his girlfriend without suffering discipline, and two: a man who placed his hand on a teen's rear end and lived the rest of his life in self-imposed exile out of remorse. He had run away from a foster home at 16 and spent 20 years traveling with a carnival before coming into the truth; he was terrified at slipping back into what he had one been. At a time when everyone was doing high speed internet, he refused more than a slow dial-up connection, necessary for his business, so he would not instantly fall victim to internet porn. He may have masturbated himself to death, but he did not revert to what he had been.
Okay? I don't shy from controversy. Besides, I like you. If you are 'out there' in some ways, so am I. Even so.....having said that....it's amazing what you choose to spill. Surely the same GB member who told you of certain doings also told you about Proverbs 11:13. Clearly, there is something 1 Corinthians 5: 1-8esqe about your posting this here.
So there's my rebuke. I'm uncomfortable giving rebukes to a brother, for it isn't my place. But please don't squawk about it overmuch - you know you have it coming. A little squawking is okay, if need be, since I speak without the knowledge a counselor should always have; namely, I know neither you nor your history and I might speak differently if I did. But don't carry on too much.
Now, if the cat is out of the bag, the cat is out of the bag. What can we do with it? Perhaps it is not such a bad thing after all to have aired things.
Since it is not child abuse, it doesn't belong in a thread devoted to child abuse. If we are to discuss all our slimeballs, then everyone else must, too, and they are not - because the topic is something else.
 
Not only is 'homosexual tendencies' vague, open to much interpretation (I am cautious here, for fear you will next post 8X10 glossies) but, again, he doesn't belong in a thread about pedophilia. Frankly, in the world's eyes, he becomes a heroic victim, his 'true sexuality' repressed by a homophobic organization - oh, yeah, I can hear the gears turning now in the murmurers' minds.
So we are down to three. I heard once about Greenless, but not the other. However, 'accused' is different than 'established.' With President Duarte's complaint, we were speaking of abuse that is frequently - some would say usually - rape. On the other hand, the person in my book would be put on the sex registry list today, but he plainly was not a threat to anyone - it is only the predators you need keep track of, otherwise you will keep track of damn near everybody, for it seems there are few who have not, at some point in their lives, touched a child inappropriately. (and if what you allege to have happen happened at Bethel, then it happened with young men, not children, and thus, was not 'child abuse,' even if innappropriate. It's most unlikely that abuse accusations here remotely approach the gravity of the Church leaders.
Lastly, we come to
Firstly, I accept you as a truthful source. Having said that, I am in no position to verify matters so my acceptance cannot be taken without a grain of salt. And I'm not saying that the above is great, but come on! We are contrasting this with serial rapists in the Church! And while perhaps the 80+ year old was 'getting off,' perhaps he was not. When I was in a health club years ago, it was not unusual for guys to sit in the sauna naked after a workout - I honestly don't remember it I ever did or not; I think I probably did. Guys his age will remember the YMCA, where boys and men routinely swam together naked; I remember that well as a child, and he probably had 30 years on me.
Moreover, not all in the sauna were naked. Some in the sauna were "semi-naked." Do you ever find anyone fully clothed in the sauna? When you go to the beach, aren't they semi-naked there? And what about the pervert Michelangelo, who sculpted 'David?' And aren't ALL art students - aren't they all perverts, for they have all painted nude models? Look, many people consider the human body beautiful.
What about tattoo artists? In a reflective manner, I once asked one whether, when they are tattooing intimate areas, they get a charge out of it, or is it just art. "It's art!" he told me indignantly. What about nudist colonies? Are they all perverts? When my homeschooling wife made high-ranking friends in the school system, one of them asked her to join his group where they would swim...um, you know...naturally. Nudist colonies are frequented by entire families, including the children.
There is mass hysteria here is what I'm saying. All 'abuse' is not the same, and some is abuse only in the eye of the person determined to see it that way. It's why Economist Magazine advised in April, or was it August? - it was an A month - of 2009 that we should all get a grip on ourselves. Only ten percent of those on the sex registries pose any significant threat to the public. All the rest are better handled (my point, not theirs) through parental training such as is encouraged in the Caleb and Sophia series. 
There! Much ado about little, in my estimation. I did not say it was obscene for commissions to examine any accusation of abuse that they see fit to examine; that's what commissions do. But I continue to hold that it is obscene not to slap down anyone who would attempt to equate abuse in Jehovah's organization with abuse in the general religious world. After all, unlike most religions, our spiritual bread and butter emphasizes keeping ourselves morally chaste. Surely, some of that training sticks and gives us a leg up on persons who don't receive it.

Because this is now demanded of them by law, and the legal department of the Society gives them strict instructions to carry it out the letter of the law if they have not already done so.
Notice that this method of dealing with a person actually increases the trust we have in elders, increases the respect given to Jehovah's Witnesses as a religion that does not tolerate such things, and makes it far less likely that anyone could expand a lawsuit to include liability to this "brother's" congregation or branch. Had this not been immediately exposed to the authorities, a legal liability connection to the Society could be made through claiming bad process and bad training.
Had this been an abuse of a child under similar circumstances, the elders should also make sure it is reported according to all current procedures, as I understand them.
Using drugs from medical waste to maneuver to abuse someone sexually is a whole other level of abhorrence.

The President of the Philippines was interviewed recently by the Russian Times.And boy oh boy, did he ever unload:
MF: Can I ask you a personal question, please? Two years ago, you shocked the media by revealing that you had been molested by a priest when you were 14 or 15 years old. And later, you even identified that priest. He was an American national.
RD: Yes. Not only I – the whole class. Two generations up and two generations down. All of us.
MF: You were 70 years old at that time. Why would you make that confession more than 50 years later?
RD: I said this because of the penchant to keep silent. The abuses of the priests had been filmed everywhere. There was an Italian underground film – I’m sure you saw that – priests were running naked there. And they don’t really bother to investigate. There is no condemnation. Nothing. They show the priests and the religious people doing shenanigans, but it is seen just as part of the show of the night. Is it liberality? Is it because you don’t want to condemn your own countrymen? Or is it because the victims were just natives? Never mind about them. We were considered natives. And sometimes pictured as apes.
In view of the above interview, it is obscene to even include Jehovah's Witnesses in the same discussion of rank pedophilia. It is obscene not to continually slap down persons who would attempt to equate the two. 
Knowing of a case that was not handled 'correctly' is poles apart from being the predator of that case. They would not even have that knowledge if they were like the churches that make no effort to keep themselves clean morally in God's eyes.

I always exaggerate. 'Never' in MySpeak means 'rarely.' 'All' means 'most.'
But in this case, I hold to the never. It is membership I am speaking of. Everybody's clergy gets outed when they do wrong in this regard, but nobody's membership. It's because nobody has a clue as to what their membership is up to. Nobody feels the obligation to present to God a morally clean people, so they don't bother checking to see what members apply biblical morality and what do not. If a member gets blown in for child abuse, it's not their affair; in fact, they know nothing about it. They are not the 'middleman'  and thus cannot be called to account for whether or not they handled matters in the way deemed acceptable by abuse people today.
So with regard to members, how else are we to know an abuser's religious affiliation? Can we imagine the police or the judge will ask about it? Of course, they will not, so the only membership you will hear about is Jehovah's Witnesses. We have a 'vulnerability' in this regard, and it is vulnerability that stems from doing the right thing. If we ignored the conduct of our members, as others do, we would not have this vulnerability. We also, in time, would not have a congregation looking much different than the world in matters of morality. That is what infuriates former members who are now enemies: our attempt to do so, for many of them were once on the losing end of discipline. 
Our 'clergy' stack up pretty well with regard to abuse, and clergy is the only place where you can compare apples to apples - you can't do it with membership because no one else keeps track.
In 2007,  Watchtower settled a number of abuse cases. This statement was released to the media at that time: "For the sake of the victims in these cases, we are pleased that a settlement has been reached. Our hearts go out to all those who suffer as a result of child abuse....During the last 100 years, only eleven elders have been sued for child abuse in thirteen lawsuits filed in the US. In seven of these lawsuits against the elders, accusations against the Watchtower Society itself were dismissed by the courts. Of course one victim is one victim too many. However, the incidence of this crime among Jehovah’s Witnesses is rare..."
We have a missing puzzle piece here. We know the stats for abuse among our 'clergy.' We know the stats for abuse among the clergy of others. But when it comes to membership, we only know the stats for Jehovah's Witnesses. So as not to be comparing apples to oranges, we need to know the stats for the membership of other faiths. We will never get them because nobody keeps track. So people who know better (and many who don't) will continue to equate the membership of Jehovah's Witnesses with the clergy of other religions.
With a missing puzzle piece that will not be supplied, all we can do is extrapolate. If eleven Witness clergy were sued over 100 years, with only four of them stemming from any culpability from the organization, then I submit that the overall rate among the members will also be low. If it is seen to be high, then the overall rate among memberships elsewhere will be astronomical.  
Of course, we see that it is. Child sexual abuse everywhere is an absolutely out of control pandemic. Like nurturing a seedling plant through inclement weather, apostates promote the idea that the pedophilia problem is disproportionately a Witness problem. It is not. If stats are disproportionate, it is probably the other way, as it is with clergy.

I always exaggerate. 'Never' in MySpeak means 'rarely.' 'All' means 'most.'
But in this case, I hold to the never. It is membership I am speaking of. Everybody's clergy gets outed when they do wrong in this regard, but nobody's membership. It's because nobody has a clue as to what their membership is up to. Nobody feels the obligation to present to God a morally clean people, so they don't bother checking to see what members apply biblical morality and what do not. If a member gets blown in for child abuse, it's not their affair; in fact, they know nothing about it. They are not the 'middleman'  and thus cannot be called to account for whether or not they handled matters in the way deemed acceptable by abuse people today.
So with regard to members, how else are we to know an abuser's religious affiliation? Can we imagine the police or the judge will ask about it? Of course, they will not, so the only membership you will hear about is Jehovah's Witnesses. We have a 'vulnerability' in this regard, and it is vulnerability that stems from doing the right thing. If we ignored the conduct of our members, as others do, we would not have this vulnerability. We also, in time, would not have a congregation looking much different than the world in matters of morality. That is what infuriates former members who are now enemies: our attempt to do so, for many of them were once on the losing end of discipline. 
Our 'clergy' stack up pretty well with regard to abuse, and clergy is the only place where you can compare apples to apples - you can't do it with membership because no one else keeps track.
In 2007,  Watchtower settled a number of abuse cases. This statement was released to the media at that time: "For the sake of the victims in these cases, we are pleased that a settlement has been reached. Our hearts go out to all those who suffer as a result of child abuse....During the last 100 years, only eleven elders have been sued for child abuse in thirteen lawsuits filed in the US. In seven of these lawsuits against the elders, accusations against the Watchtower Society itself were dismissed by the courts. Of course one victim is one victim too many. However, the incidence of this crime among Jehovah’s Witnesses is rare..."
We have a missing puzzle piece here. We know the stats for abuse among our 'clergy.' We know the stats for abuse among the clergy of others. But when it comes to membership, we only know the stats for Jehovah's Witnesses. So as not to be comparing apples to oranges, we need to know the stats for the membership of other faiths. We will never get them because nobody keeps track. So people who know better (and many who don't) will continue to equate the membership of Jehovah's Witnesses with the clergy of other religions.
With a missing puzzle piece that will not be supplied, all we can do is extrapolate. If eleven Witness clergy were sued over 100 years, with only four of them stemming from any culpability from the organization, then I submit that the overall rate among the members will also be low. If it is seen to be high, then the overall rate among memberships elsewhere will be astronomical.  
Of course, we see that it is. Child sexual abuse everywhere is an absolutely out of control pandemic. Like nurturing a seedling plant through inclement weather, apostates promote the idea that the pedophilia problem is disproportionately a Witness problem. It is not. If stats are disproportionate, it is probably the other way, as it is with clergy.

It is a classic example of getting slammed for doing the right thing, and it should not be spun any other way.
The way to avoid such messy critiques is to preach to the congregation on Sunday and let that be the end of it. It's up to them what they do with it. That way, if somewhere down the line a member of a religion is busted for child abuse, leaders can truthfully say, like Sergeant Shultz, 'I know notttthhhhiiiiiiiinnnngg!' 
Let them come to consume religion, and no more. Give no thought to disciplining congregants who misbehave. Construct matters so that you never know about these ones.
Fail in your duty to God to produce for him a people spirituality and morally clean. Tell Him: "What you see is what you get. It's not my problem.'
Surely this explains why we never hear religious affiliation for anyone other than JWs when abusers are found out. Nobody else cares about Scriptural direction to maintain cleanliness as a congregation. Nobody else has a clue what their members are up to. When cops nab an abuser, their religion is never reported because few imagine that today's religions should result in clean people; it's not their job. Only Jehovah's Witnesses take it upon themselves to insist upon clean people.
For the most part, former Witnesses who are now enemies and who push this narrative for all it is worth were disciplined at one time for one thing or another, and are livid over it. It's no more complicated than that.
 

“The Governing Body is neither inspired nor infallible. Therefore, it can err in doctrinal matters or in organizational direction.”
From ‘Who is Leading God’s People Today?’ Pgr 12, February 2017
That's not to say they have erred in the matter under discussion. It is a translating decision that they have provided abundant justification for in the attached appendix. 

Neither do they (now).

A few weeks ago I tried this approach with someone at the door {I usually never get anyone anymore mentioning the trinity even tho I live in the Bible belt}. Anyway the first Scripture he brought up was of course Jn. 1:1 so I said "Well who wrote that Scripture. He said "John" and I said and John was a Jew and Jews do not believe in a Trinity so I am afraid you will have to find another Scripture since he would never write about or teach something he did not believe in himself. So he went to Hebrews Chp.1 and of course the same thing occurred only about Paul. He then said "Well it dosen't matter what Scripture I use then does it" Then I said "Ya thats the point, the Trinity is not in the Bible"! It is funny however to see someone act like a squirrel trying to cross a road. They usually end up pretty flat.
Anyway I actually have a return visit on him and he is now much less argumentative and wants to learn more about the Witnesses from Witnesses. 

I like this. The scoundrels will always try to muddy the waters in hopes you will eventually say "Ah, the hell with it - let them have it their way!" The answer is as Bill Clinton said: KISS (keep it simple, stupid.)
I also like the observation I read in a Watchtower somewhere: 'The scriptures that can be used to refute the trinity were not written for that purpose.' I like to focus on what they were written for. 
I won't spend much time with trinitarians. If possible, they are more persistent than apostates in arguing. They will not give up and many of them make provisions in their wills for someone to take over in the event they should drop. 

We respect those who have religious beliefs. The beliefs themselves may have to earn respect.

it was all very predictable. And to think that apostates helped us, inflating the letter count with their pleas for the ban to go forward, If I wasn't mad at them, I would offer a hearty 'thank you.'

Don't remember that Hislop himself recanted, although a huge portion of his work has been debunked. But there have been persons who spent years promoting and repackaging his work, who have since apologized and recanted after realizing through more serious research that they had been duped.
The Watchtower stopped citing him directly based on some information that came to light in researching the Aid Book, which was published in 1972. The Watchtower was supposed to stop quoting him after that, but one article slipped through around Christmas in 1978. Fred Rusk was the Watchtower Editor at the time and didn't let it happen again. (The Awake! had a different editor, Colin Q., and let a couple more Hislop references get through into the mid-1980's.)
Unfortunately, Hislop's work had already seeped into some Bible commentaries, including some of  the favorite ones that the Watchtower has especially depended on from the late 1800's, and which we still quote from now and then. This has allowed some of Hislop's debunked ideas to get quoted indirectly. 

Nonsense. At the very least, even disregarding the worldwide witness given - I mean, who else has such love for every other member that they would do such a thing? - they have 'rescued' Post Offices the world over, which are always on the brink of collapse. Thus, they make for themselves friends in high places.
You need to be more positive, JTR. Turn that frown upside down.

Nonsense. At the very least, even disregarding the worldwide witness given - I mean, who else has such love for every other member that they would do such a thing? - they have 'rescued' Post Offices the world over, which are always on the brink of collapse. Thus, they make for themselves friends in high places.
You need to be more positive, JTR. Turn that frown upside down.

We need wait no more. JWBroadcasting now reporting on increased attention worldwide as result of the ban and resulting publicity, people checking to see if jw. org is really extremist and finding it is not. Knowledge of this contribution to the worldwide ministry will fortify Russian brothers for some time to come.
Thank you, Witness, for adding to the letter count, and thus magnifying attention. They were all sunk to the bottom of the sea anyway, most likely. But the impression of the count is overwhelming. Just ask Guinness.

it was all very predictable. And to think that apostates helped us, inflating the letter count with their pleas for the ban to go forward, If I wasn't mad at them, I would offer a hearty 'thank you.'

About COS'  Fish god : Hatmehyt
Her name can be translated as "she who is in front of the fishes" or "Foremost of the fish". This could either suggest that she was the most important of the (few) fish cults, or that she was considered to be the oldest fish deity. She was sometimes depicted as a fish (either a dolphin or a lepidotus fish) or a woman with a "Fish" emblem on her head.
Doesn't the POPE have a headpiece also with a fish emblem on it. The very religion that believes your Trinity?