Jump to content
The World News Media

Recommended Posts

  • Member

Anna said:

Quote

 

    3 hours ago, AlanF said:

    Your last post was excellent and well describes the attitude shown by TTH and so many elders, including and especially the Governing Body.

The reason why I said what I did in that post was to highlight that "a little molestation" leads to "big molestation" unless the "little molestation" is stopped.

 

Exactly.

Quote

What happened to me was nothing really. It did not traumatize me, and I was on good terms with my uncle.

I guarantee you that in my extended family, an uncle who was known to have done that to one of my female cousins would have become a pariah.

Quote

I doubt I would ever think of bringing something like that to the police, and my mum obviously didn't think it warranted it either. And to let you know, my mum was a tigress when it came to protecting me.

I suspect that this was many years ago, when such things were often shrugged off by most everyone.

When my mother, a real hottie, was about 16, a prominent Watchtower official molested her in the sense that he touched her breasts, bottom and other private parts. She was horribly naive and didn't think of it as sexual molestation, but only as uncomfortable. She didn't tell anyone until she was in her late 60s. Do you think she was molested or not?

Then in my reply to you I said:

    I think it's ignorance of how child sexual molestation really works, and naivete regarding "repentance" is what has caused all the doo doo.to happen.

I mentioned that elsewhere too. No one thinks child sexual molestation is ok.

Except for molesters like Greenlees. And enablers like certain elders and GB members who make or enforce policies whose result is covering over the crimes.

Quote

And no one thinks "a little molestation" is ok either. If my uncle had been a Witness, and not my uncle, my mum would have gone to the elders and told them what happened.The the perpetrator would have probably made some excuse, or shown remorse,  got a warning and a slap on the wrist. He would probably never dare to do anything like that to me again. The pertinent question is, would he do something like that to someone else?

We know that molesters are never really cured, just stopped or slowed down. So yes, it's likely he would have gone on to bigger and better things.

Quote

And if he did, would that someone else report it? And if they didn't report it would the "little molestation" lead to "big molestation"?

Very likely.

Quote

That is the problem. I have no idea if my uncle molested someone else. He was my aunts second husband and had grown children. It probably didn't cross my aunts mind. I don't think it crossed anybodies mind, that other children could be in danger. Its because that's not how these things were generally perceived or understood.

Many years ago, yes, that's how these things were perceived by most people.

Quote

I am not making excuses. That's just how it was. In a similar manner, elders in those days were not aware that others could be in danger. They probably thought that a warning was enough to ensure it would not happen again. We now know the likelihood of something like that happening again is high.

All good points, but that have nothing to do with Leo Greenlees, because no one aside from those he molested (like Mark Palo) were aware of his perversion.
     

Quote

 

    3 hours ago, AlanF said:

    "We abhor child molestation! But not as much as we abhor public exposure of anything that makes us look bad."

Yes, unfortunately it does appear that way.

 

Not just 'appears' -- it IS that way. Through at least the late 1980s it was unofficially stated but strongly enforced Watchtower policy that "keeping Jehovah's name spotless" was above all other goals in handling judicial and other matters. "Jehovah's name" was deliberately conflated with "the Watchtower Society's reputation". Thus, elders' prime goal was usually to keep all sordid situations under wraps. Hundreds of examples of this have been reported in various public and private media.

Quote

But to be fair, I would put both on the same plane. Child molestation is abhorred as much as the accusation of being tolerant of it, or hiding it. Especially  when felt it is not justified.

Good points! Tolerance is a form of enabling, which in some cases is even worse than the crime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 27.1k
  • Replies 42
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Brother Greenlees and Brother Chitty are not mentioned in the Proclaimer's book. Interesting that Percy Chapman (included in the picture above) is still mentioned now and then, often in the same conte

I can respond to that since you appear to be drawing assumptions without having all the facts. I completely agree that one should go to the police when dealing with such issues involving a minor. In f

With regards to "being appointed by 'holy spirit,' a few things to keep in mind. A recent "Treasures From God's Word" stated: "The stars are under Jesus' full control, power, and direction." That COUL

Posted Images

  • Member

@AlanF 

13 hours ago, AlanF said:

Not just 'appears' -- it IS that way. Through at least the late 1980s it was unofficially stated but strongly enforced Watchtower policy that "keeping Jehovah's name spotless" was above all other goals in handling judicial and other matters. "Jehovah's name" was deliberately conflated with "the Watchtower Society's reputation". Thus, elders' prime goal was usually to keep all sordid situations under wraps. Hundreds of examples of this have been reported in various public and private media.

Good points! Tolerance is a form of enabling, which in some cases is even worse than the crime.

While I do try to defend "the organization" as much as possible as a JW, I'm not one of those who feels that mindless unquestioning obedience is a mark of "loyalty." Yes, at times we don't second guess the direction we receive and progress has been made, but it is also true to say that organizationally we haven't always been that forthcoming. The fact is, that at times what has masqueraded as "discipline from Jehovah" has been nothing more than some men in authority silencing whistleblowers who have exposed the wrongdoing of those self-same men in authority - removing or even disfellowshipping those who they perceive as a threat to their position and reputation. (While I have seen that happen, it's important not to paint with too wide a brush here.) Saying one "doesn't have all the facts" in some cases is just utter nonsense. It at times can serve to protect those who should have been on trial while vilifying/diminishing the whistleblower. Yes, I have seen that happen and that's why I don't buy into the idea that Jesus controls everything that goes on in the congregation - especially when God's Word warns us of "wicked men and imposters," "wolves in sheep's clothing," "rock hidden below the surface..." I don't understand why people after reading these clear warnings in God's Word appear to think they can't actually happen. True it doesn't characterize the organization which is full of loving people who sincerely want to do the right thing, but it does happen and to categorically dismiss these things by implying Jesus controls everything is tantamount to blaming him.  

It appears to me that hiding behind the umbrella of "not bringing reproach on Jehovah's name," - which we should totally try not to do anyway, has at times been used by imperfect and sometimes wicked men to protect themselves. I ask: When has Jehovah ever withheld needed discipline because he was afraid of what the neighbours think? Did he forgo discipline to the nation of Israel knowing full well that the nations would attribute the victory to their false gods? No. Jehovah has always been true to himself and his standards - regardless of what puny imperfect humans think, do or say. He wasn't straightjacketed into non-action. fearing "reproach" from others. Still it would be unfair, as stated, to paint with too wide a brush. There are millions of kind, loving, sincere people who are actively trying to serve Jehovah the best way they can. And it can't be denied that despite the bad actions/choices of some relatively few individuals (some of whom may be in positions of authority) this is the best place to be. We recall that all of us are accountable - from members of the Governing Body to the newest publisher. We may not always be in a position to do much about it, but we can have faith in the promises found in God's Word that there will be accountability. Our policies, like our beliefs/expectations on certain things have and are changing - more in some areas than others. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

b4ucuhear said:

Quote

    I can respond to that since you appear to be drawing assumptions without having all the facts. I completely agree that one should go to the police when dealing with such issues involving a minor. In fact, the direction we get from the society is to do just that. One of the reasons we are instructed to call Bethel is to make sure we comply with all current reporting laws regarding child molestation. Some of the problems we have had in the past (and I have personally attended in court), have been because brothers had not acted in harmony with the instructions given because they haven't paid attention or been casual about doing their homework. The examples I had cited were from many years ago when the current laws were not in place and in fact, they have been evolving over the years - and in some cases, a moving target. Those individuals affected are now adults with the freedom to choose to go to the police under the current laws if they so choose. However, if what they had done decades ago occurred now, it would be an entirely different story. Our policies have changed as well to comply with legal requirements.

You're covering over the fact that in most regions only certain religious and other public officials are required by law to report. In the U.S., in most cases and due to the influence of religious leaders on lawmakers, elders are not so required. But they ought to be. That's why elders are supposed to check with the Service and/or Legal Departments, to see if they're required by law to report. So in most cases in the U.S., since the law doesn't require them to report, they don't.

b4ucuhear said:

Quote

. . . Holy spirit does not give appointed men a miraculous ability to read hearts and minds. A person is spoken of as being "appointed by holy spirt," when they are seen to live up to the qualifications set out in God's Word - which is inspired by holy spirt. . .

The key concept here is spoken of. As I have repeatedly said, that means that such 'appointment' by God is only in a manner of speaking. It is not literal, direct appointment such as described of the Old Testament prophets. But JW leaders deliberately confuse the two concepts, hoping -- and mostly succeeding -- to convince their followers that they themselves are quasi-inspired prophets who speak in God's name. Since they are admittedly not inspired, they do not speak in God's name, and so they are false prophets. They are also false prophets in the sense that anyone who claims to speak in the name of a god is a prophet by definition. Thus, such prophets who teach falsehoods of any sort are false prophets.

The rest of your post is a standard whitewash of the JW organization. But this organization demonstrably teaches all manner of falsehoods, and so is a false teacher and false prophet.

As for the JW preaching work, hardly anyone takes notice. Ask most anyone walking down the street, "What do you think of the message JWs preach?" The answer is usually along the lines of "What message? Aren't they the loons who don't take blood transfusions?"

As for the size of the JW community and its influence on the world, its 'unity' and so forth, note that the worldwide loose group known as Pentecostals has grown from virtually zero size 120 years ago to upwards of 300 million today. They are strongly united in many ways -- just not the same way JWs are united. For the most part, both Pentecostals and JWs as individuals are highly brainwashed by their cultish leaders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
45 minutes ago, AlanF said:

Pentecostals has grown from virtually zero size 120 years ago to upwards of 300 million today. They are strongly united in many ways -- just not the same way JWs are united. 

They are so united that any jingoistic national leader can talk them into blowing each other’s head off in the latest inter-national skirmish, something that cannot be done with Jehovah’s Witnesses.

The “Truth” that Jehovah’s Witnesses cling to is the pearl of great price which the merchant, upon finding it, gladly sells all that he has to secure it. (Matthew 13:46)

If he later came to regard that pearl no more highly that a common pebble found on any dirt road, then he will naturally reverse course and holler about the price he and others paid to secure it

That’s all that is going on here with Alan. He has negated the upside, so of course all that remains is to moan about the cost. He has “disproven” even the central tenet of that “pearl.” He has “disproven” God.

For the most part, he does not outright lie. But he overstates to such a degree that nothing from him can be taken verbatim. It all has to be carefully checked. Much of it is embellished with sweeping assumptions. Minor, but typical, case in point is his recent insistence that his enemy stated the end would come specifically in 2000. Under relentless pressure, he walked it back to some generic statements about “within the century.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
On 12/2/2019 at 10:39 AM, Anna said:

consider my uncle (non JW) as molesting me when I was 13. I was wearing a t-shirt with some logo on it across my chest. He took his finger and begun tracing the writing and then at the end he tweeked my nipple.

 

On 12/2/2019 at 10:39 AM, Anna said:

I straight to my mum  reporting what had happened. My mum went straight to my aunt, and my aunt went straight to my uncle. Needless to say, that was the last time he touched me. 

Needless to say.

I like how the JW video “Protect Your Children” pushes just this course. “If anyone” touches you in a way that “makes you uncomfortable” “even if it is someone you know and trust” then “right away come tell mommy or daddy”, who respond pretty much like Anna’s mom did. 

I like the way how that solves the problem. Will reporting Uncle Hands to the police solve the problem? I have my doubts. Especially since reporting outright rape does not necessarily solve the problem—all the time we hear of CSA crimes from rapists who had already done time and were already on the Predator List. That’s not to say it’s not worth blowing these people in—of course it is. But if our goal is to solve the problem, then Anna’s mom and the WT video gets higher priority.

The WT video builds on the bedrock that only godly people will have—that Jehovah gave us a conscience. I squabbled with Ann O'Maly (one of the Three Apostates) a while back about dueling videos. Her video featured circled areas of a child’s body, as though the child of critical thinking should bring that chart to mind in order to determine whether he should feel bad about how he has been touched. Our video featured “a conscience” that God gave us.

O’Maly resisted for the longest time, but the knockout punch came when I pointed out that our video said “if ANYONE touches you” and hers specifically said that it was okay if a doctor touched children in those circled areas. “Ask the young women of the US Olympics Gymnastics Team which video they think would have protected them more,” I told her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

Unfortunately, we have had to learn the hard way what would have been the morally right thing in the first place.

James 4:17 "Therefore, if someone knows how to do what is right and yet does not do it, it is a sin for him."

I just love the way some JWs make up all the excuses, but then admit to the faults of the GB and It's Org. @b4ucuhear 

Unfortunately IT IS THE VICTIMS THAT HAVE SUFFERED, NOT THE GB OR IT'S ORG. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

TrueTomHarley said:

Quote

 

    2 hours ago, AlanF said:

    TTH: “At present, anything from a hand on the inner thigh or rear end to outright rape is described (and sometimes deliberately confused) as “molestation.””

You donkey, of course they are different!

 

I clearly said that, you moron. Can't you read? Or is your brain still dead?

Quote

You are committing Event Escalation Fallacy.

Nope. You are committing the fallacy of not understanding what you read.

Quote

Turn your mighty intellect upon murder, if you can do so without screaming ‘Straw Man.’ Consider that there is first degree murder, 2nd degree murder, even 3rd degree murder, not to mention hate crime murder. Vent your outrage over that, why don’t you? Tell the morons that “murder is murder!”

I already went through that with various degrees of child molestation.

Quote

Even that paragraph doesn’t adequately describe your idiocy, for the examples within all do involve murder. Better that you should insist that a shove to the body is no different than murder. That comparison is much more parallel to the CSA offenses that you think are the same.

Yep, a great big straw man alright -- invented because you can't understand written English.
     

Quote

 

    2 hours ago, AlanF said:

    I think you need to go back to square one on what constitutes morality....Coming from someone with a demonstrably defective moral sense and little critical thinking ability, that's rich!

Completely emotional outbursts. Not a shred of “logic” to them.

 

Any objective person reading your ridiculous responses and general lying would disagree.
 
 

Quote

Character assassination appears to be your specialty.

I unhesitatingly call spades spades and liars liars. You don't like it because you know you're a liar.

Quote

Not meeting your completely arbitrary criteria is enough to be labeled a person of “demonstrably defective moral sense.”

Arbitrary? My 'criteria' are generally part of The Law and clearly indicated by so-called Bible Morality.

Quote

It is perhaps understandable from Leonard McCoy. the hothead. But not from someone who claims logic and intellect that would put even Mr. Spock to shame.

 
You obviously know nothing of logic and intellect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
17 hours ago, b4ucuhear said:

With regards to "being appointed by 'holy spirit,' a few things to keep in mind. A recent "Treasures From God's Word" stated: "The stars are under Jesus' full control, power, and direction." That COULD be a bit misleading depending on how literally you view that statement. Should we assume then that elders will do everything perfectly - as if Jesus by holy spirit has them on remote control - controlling every thought, decision and action within the congregations? If that was the case, the elders/GB would always act perfectly. Should we actually expect that today? Recall, that even while Jesus was letting the first century anointed elders know that they were accountable to him as to how they used the authority entrusted to them, what was actually going while he was yet speaking? Apostasy, immorality, lukewarm, half-hearted service that wanted to make Jesus vomit them out of his mouth... Why would that be the case when Jesus is in authority?

As we recall, we are often reminded not to expect perfection from our brothers and sisters - including appointed elders. The  apostle Paul candidly described his battle with good and bad inclinations. But there are other reasons too.                                    

1) Holy spirit does not give appointed men a miraculous ability to read hearts and minds. A person is spoken of as being "appointed by holy spirt," when they are seen to live up to the qualifications set out in God's Word - which is inspired by holy spirt. But humans are limited in that respect and sometimes mistakes are made. (i.e.. GB appoints an individual as an elder and later as a Circuit Overseer who turns out to be a communist spy that turns in the brothers causing some to stumble. Jesus didn't direct that to happen. After all, he would be working against his own interests - like a house divided. It was human limitation.)

2) Neither Jesus nor holy spirit take away a person's freedom of choice. (As was evidenced by what was going on even while Jesus was speaking). As we also know, in the first century, there were men in the congregations described as "rocks hidden beneath the surface." They weren't forced or directed to do that. That was their personal choice - which is important because our heart conditions are revealed by the choices we make. Anyone - including men in authority can make a wrong choice if they don't guard their heart. Freedom of choice is important for obvious reasons. 

3) If something isn't dealt with right away, does that indicate Jesus isn't in control of the congregation? No. As the comments point out, "if someone needs correction, Jesus will see to it that this is done in his own time and way." And it should come as not surprise that it's always been that way. As 1 Tim. 5:24 states: "The sins of some men are publicly known, leading directly to judgment, but those of other men become evident later." Later?!! How much later? The Bible historically answers that too. Sometimes the sins of some men like Korah and others became publicly known leading directly to judgment (when the earth swallowed up the rebels.) But other times, faithful men endured injustice for years, or decades and some would never see justice until the resurrection. So at times, things don't happen when and how we think they should. Or when we think is best. But we can have confidence that, as in the past, they will be dealt with one way or another. 

4) The operation of holy spirit can at times, be hard to "quantify." The first century Christians had strong and undeniable evidence they were anointed by holy spirit and some even had miraculous gifts. Even so, they didn't always have a complete understanding of things and some expectations were premature - although they were very interested as to where they thought the spirit was leading them. Likewise today. At times the leadings of holy spirit are easy to recognize and at other times not so much. Sometimes organizationally, we "go beyond the things written" as to dates, types and antitypes, times and seasons and even doctrinal issues. Well meaning, yes, but sometimes we forget that instead of making "predictions," (even while admitting we are not miraculously inspired prophets), our mandate is to preach and teach - not make up stuff that doesn't have a specific Biblical foundation. Historically and biblically there is nothing new to this. God's people have always had a gradual understanding of the outworking of God's purpose - and often leaning new things means we have to discard old things.

  But in all of this it's important to remember what is truly remarkable about benefitting from Jesus' authority as head of the congregation and what he has been able to accomplish using imperfect men. Miraculous some would say.

A) Jesus has been able to direct a world-wide preaching work using imperfect men, women, children and yes, imperfect elders. But it's much more than that when you think about it. We are preaching in Satan's backyard. He is the "god of this system of things" and has the support of powerful spirit creatures (henchmen) and world governments. And what is part of the message we deliver? "Satan is a malicious liar and that he and all of his spirit buddies, along with the world system he has spent thousands of years to develop, are all going to be destroyed." We preach that "right in his grill." How do you think that goes over? We would never be able to accomplish that if Jesus wasn't a powerful king in control of the congregation. So do we faithfuly follow the direction of appointed elders as to the details of accomplishing this ministry?

B) We have what everyone has wanted for thousands of years but been unable to achieve. World unity. Despite being from all nations, tribes and tongues - from different backgrounds and stations in life, we are united. But we aren't just united in a stalemate - "I won't attack you if you don't attack me." No. We are united because of the love we have for one another. The type of love that Jesus taught and demonstrated in our behalf. 

C) Many/most of Jehovah's Witnesses come from other religions. Even those born into the truth are exposed to many people from different faiths. And there is one thing we can all testify to: Spiritually, we are BY FAR, the best fed people on earth. More than that. We are the best fed group of people who have ever lived. We even know things first century Christians didn't know. Al of this is readily available. That is no accident. and Jesus continues to educate us using (imperfect) elders as teachers in the congregation. 

We benefit from a loving arrangement Jesus has by holy spirit set in place for our benefit. It's helpful to liken this arrangement to having good parents. As we grew, they fed us, cleaned us, clothes us, disciplined us, taught us, cared for and sympathized with us. When we were hurt they supported us. And even when we reach maturity, they are there for us and continue to love us. Again, this is possible by means of Jesus direction in the congregation and holy spirit.

  

 

Spoken like a truly brainwashed Elder, well done. 

You point to all the faults, then say how wonderful these elders are. 

Quote "At times the leadings of holy spirit are easy to recognize and at other times not so much."

That is so funny as I think it has been proven on here that neither God or Jesus Christ approve of the GB or the JW Org right now. So it would seem that NO holy spirit is flowing into the Org. God can withhold Holy Spirit you know .

Using the old excuse of how many Witnesses there are and the world wide preaching, means nothing in numbers. There are millions of Catholics and millions of Muslims too earthwide. You would say that the devil is helping them, but i would say then prove the devil isn't helping JW's. 

After all you have admitted that the GB / Org : " Sometimes organizationally, we "go beyond the things written" as to dates, types and antitypes, times and seasons and even doctrinal issues. "

So in other word the GB and it's Org has deliberately told lies. 'Gone beyond the things written', made up dates,  and types/anti-types, and even questionable doctrine. 

So GB/JW Org is as bad as Catholics, Muslims et al, in those circumstances. But of course you are so deeply involved that you cannot see how bad the GB /Org is. 

And then, i think, one of the GB has said  that God/Christ trust them, and GB member asks if congregants trust the GB........... So funny. Can you honestly not see this as funny. You point out some of the faults of  the GB/Org, not including CSA and withholding information, homosexuals GB members, lawyers that tell lies in court, et al. And the GB want to know who trusts them :) 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

b4ucuhear said:

Quote

 

    15 hours ago, AlanF said to Anna:

    Not just 'appears' -- it IS that way. Through at least the late 1980s it was unofficially stated but strongly enforced Watchtower policy that "keeping Jehovah's name spotless" was above all other goals in handling judicial and other matters. "Jehovah's name" was deliberately conflated with "the Watchtower Society's reputation". Thus, elders' prime goal was usually to keep all sordid situations under wraps. Hundreds of examples of this have been reported in various public and private media.

    Good points! Tolerance is a form of enabling, which in some cases is even worse than the crime.

While I do try to defend "the organization" as much as possible as a JW, I'm not one of those who feels that mindless unquestioning obedience is a mark of "loyalty."

 

Then you're an apostate, because that's what your Governing Body requires.

Quote

Yes, at times we don't second guess the direction we receive and progress has been made, but it is also true to say that organizationally we haven't always been that forthcoming.

You're a master of understatement.

Quote

The fact is, that at times what has masqueraded as "discipline from Jehovah" has been nothing more than some men in authority silencing whistleblowers who have exposed the wrongdoing of those self-same men in authority - removing or even disfellowshipping those who they perceive as a threat to their position and reputation.

The cases of Carl Olof Jonsson and James Penton being prime examples.

Quote

(While I have seen that happen, it's important not to paint with too wide a brush here.) Saying one "doesn't have all the facts" in some cases is just utter nonsense. It at times can serve to protect those who should have been on trial while vilifying/diminishing the whistleblower. Yes, I have seen that happen and that's why I don't buy into the idea that Jesus controls everything that goes on in the congregation - especially when God's Word warns us of "wicked men and imposters," "wolves in sheep's clothing," "rock hidden below the surface..." I don't understand why people after reading these clear warnings in God's Word appear to think they can't actually happen.

They think that because JW leaders have made it a disfellowshipping offense to disagree.

I'm happy to meet one of the few JW apologists who straightforwardly admits to such faults, so good for you!

I met an elder nearly 30 years ago with whom I had some frank talks. He had been an especially respected elder for several decades, and had a realistic view of the JW organization reminiscent of yours. He didn't believe about 80% of JW teachings. He said he had become an elder mainly to damp down "the bears", meaning elders who he felt mistreated "the flock". Despite his being an undercover apostate, he often entertained GB members and other Watchtower officials. Go figure.

Quote

True it doesn't characterize the organization which is full of loving people who sincerely want to do the right thing,

On an individual basis JWs tend to be exactly that. But the leaders are vicious, and no different from those of the 'Christendom' they love to bash. In certain ways they're even worse, since most such leaders make no arrogant claims to be divinely directed and are often not as hypocritical. JW leaders are well known for talking out of both sides of their mouths, claiming virtual inspiration out of one side, and excusing their false teachings and predictions out of the other side.

You can see this sort of gross hypocrisy in several of the most rabid JW apologists posting on this board. I often taunt them in order expose their wicked attitudes.

Quote

but it does happen and to categorically dismiss these things by implying Jesus controls everything is tantamount to blaming him.

Indeed. Another instance of gross hypocrisy by JW leaders.

Quote

It appears to me that hiding behind the umbrella of "not bringing reproach on Jehovah's name," - which we should totally try not to do anyway, has at times been used by imperfect and sometimes wicked men to protect themselves.

Exactly. Even for an ostensibly good person, thinking that one speaks for God often emboldens one to act especially wickedly. As physicist Steven Weinberg said:

<< With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion. >>

Quote

I ask: When has Jehovah ever withheld needed discipline because he was afraid of what the neighbours think? Did he forgo discipline to the nation of Israel knowing full well that the nations would attribute the victory to their false gods? No. Jehovah has always been true to himself and his standards - regardless of what puny imperfect humans think, do or say. He wasn't straightjacketed into non-action. fearing "reproach" from others.

Would that JW leaders act accordingly.

Quote

Still it would be unfair, as stated, to paint with too wide a brush. There are millions of kind, loving, sincere people who are actively trying to serve Jehovah the best way they can.

Yet, you know that if push comes to shove, the majority of JWs would act according to the tribalism they've been ingrained with, and side with their leaders irrespective of facts or "Bible standards" of honesty and morality. Thousands of instances of this have been posted online for decades.

I've sometimes tested JWs who came to my door: "What if your organization began teaching that the moon is made of cheddar cheese? Would you reject such obvious nonsense?" Most have answered that they would go along with their organization. Tribalism at its best.

Quote

And it can't be denied that despite the bad actions/choices of some relatively few individuals (some of whom may be in positions of authority) this is the best place to be.

Yes it can.

And there is no reason to think that there must be a "best place to be". How about just quietly living a reasonably moral life free from as many bad influences -- like religion -- as possible?

Quote

We recall that all of us are accountable - from members of the Governing Body to the newest publisher. We may not always be in a position to do much about it, but we can have faith in the promises found in God's Word that there will be accountability. Our policies, like our beliefs/expectations on certain things have and are changing - more in some areas than others.  

I see no change for the better. Rather, I see the opposite, as JW leaders circle the wagons and demonize critics more than ever.

More than forty years ago when I was still a practicing JW, I understood quite well that to raise questions without a demeaning level of obsequiousness would get one disfellowshipped. After the April 1, 1986 Watchtower and other communications clearly indicated that even expressing contrary opinions privately -- not trying to teach them to others -- was grounds for disfellowshipping for apostasy, I realized that the JW leadership was unrepairably corrupt. Who in his right mind would want to be part of such an organization?

As for "the promises found in God's Word", you first have to prove that this God exists, and that the Bible is His Word. But the Bible contains, as I'm sure you're aware, many contradictions with facts, such as in the Genesis account. In this area the Society has been especially remiss, publishing all manner of lies and misrepresentations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
42 minutes ago, AlanF said:

I've sometimes tested JWs who came to my door: "What if your organization began teaching that the moon is made of cheddar cheese? Would you reject such obvious nonsense?" Most have answered that they would go along with their organization. 

Come, come. Tell the truth. Shame the devil. 

What are you hiding? What are you misrepresenting? What are you sifting through with your mighty “logic,” and in so doing, dropping everything of value, making yourself look ridiculous, and qualifying anything else you say?

They are NOT going to say: “If the GB says the moon is cheddar cheese, than IT IS!”

Most likely they demur because the question is so stupid, and then you crow your typical “victory!”

42 minutes ago, AlanF said:
Quote

“which is full of loving people who sincerely want to do the right thing”,....On an individual basis JWs tend to be exactly that. But the leaders are vicious, and no different from those of the Christendom they love to bash

 

I thought you said that you knew how to think. 

It will not fly with those who truly understand logic. Vicious leaders will produce vicious people. If, instead, the rank and file JW “tend to be exactly that”—“loving people who sincerely want to do the right thing,” then the leadership cannot be TOO vicious. 

No. Anyone of sense will tell you what ones of sense here do tell you. The leaders also are loving and try to do the right thing. They are imperfect, they can err, they are not scared of applying the discipline that any decent parent must. They are NOT “vicious”—otherwise those who look to them for headship would also be that way.

Now THAT is logic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

TrueTomHarley said:

Quote

 

    2 hours ago, AlanF said:

    Pentecostals has grown from virtually zero size 120 years ago to upwards of 300 million today. They are strongly united in many ways -- just not the same way JWs are united.

They are so united that any jingoistic national leader can talk them into blowing each other’s head off in the latest inter-national skirmish, something that cannot be done with Jehovah’s Witnesses.

 

Pentecostals generally don't do that.

Apparently you just make up "news" out of thin air -- just like your idol Trump.

Quote

 

The “Truth” that Jehovah’s Witnesses cling to is the pearl of great price which the merchant, upon finding it, gladly sells all that he has to secure it. (Matthew 13:46)

If he later came to regard that pearl no more highly that a common pebble found on any dirt road, then he will naturally reverse course and holler about the price he and others paid to secure it

That’s all that is going on here with Alan. He has negated the upside, so of course all that remains is to moan about the cost. He has “disproven” even the central tenet of that “pearl.” He has “disproven” God.

 

Correct. And obviously you have no answer against my proof.

Quote

For the most part, he does not outright lie.

I never lie. You're doing what ever-Trumpers do very well -- project their own faults onto their opponents.

Quote

But he overstates to such a degree that nothing from him can be taken verbatim. It all has to be carefully checked. Much of it is embellished with sweeping assumptions. Minor, but typical, case in point is his recent insistence that his enemy stated the end would come specifically in 2000. Under relentless pressure, he walked it back to some generic statements about “within the century.”

LOL! Such a transparent liar. I explained all that in excruciating detail, and of course, accompanied all of my claims with quotes from Watchtower publications. And of course, "within the 20th century" obviously means "in or by 2000". More grasping at straws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
2 hours ago, AlanF said:

You're covering over the fact that in most regions only certain religious and other public officials are required by law to report. In the U.S...

I am not in the U.S. and so cannot confirm or deny your comments. I can say that reporting is mandatory in my country.

3 hours ago, AlanF said:

such 'appointment' by God is only in a manner of speaking. It is not literal, direct appointment such as described of the Old Testament prophets.

I agree with that. After all the GB themselves have appointed men who were not whom they appeared to be (as have other levels of authority within the organization.) As for the rest, I assume you are referring to Deut. 18:20 which JW haters are so fond of parroting. You are going beyond the scope of your reference in your suggestion especially as to how JWs use the term as applying to themselves. The GB put out a video explanation of that for clarification as it seems some JWs needed to be clear on that issue as well. 

I was willing and planning to write a point-by-point response to the things you have written - including those I may agree with. But frankly, now I think it's just a waste of time. You clearly have an agenda that won't be swayed by what I consider "facts" and your hateful diatribe (from someone who apparently doesn't even believe in God in the first place) is to me, counterproductive. I am happy having a purpose in life, a wonderful hope for the future and a warm loving relationship with my creator and many friends. I wish the same for you, but of course, you may already be happy and content with what you have. We will have to agree to disagree - on some points at least. 

2 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

I just love the way some JWs make up all the excuses, but then admit to the faults of the GB and It's Org.

Umm...it's called being honest in case you don't recognize it. You noted correctly that I was willing to acknowledge negative things that may happen, but when I wrote what I considered to be reasonable explanations/positive points, you dismissively wrote it off as "excuses." Truly, there is no pleasing people who appear to have a hateful agenda and only see the bad. You are of course welcome to your opinion. It's just that on some points I don't share your opinion. Is that OK? 

I have been willing to honestly acknowledge both positive and negative things about us, but I've only heard negative, hateful diatribe from the naysayers here with not one positive thing to say in all these missives. There are millions of JWs who are good people by any standard, but if anyone bought into your nonsense they would all be viewed as bad or negatively. I may not agree with Muslims, Catholics, Pentecostals... but I can always find points of agreement when engaging them in conversation and things I like about them - even when it isn't a religious discussion.

So as far as I am concerned, you are not only unfair in your blanket characterizations, I simply don't find your association either enlightening, helpful or even fair-minded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Just once I’d like to see a Pharma ad in which the actors, rather than acting out the touted benefits of the drug, instead act out the side effects of the voiceover—gasping, clutching their throats, turning blue, hair falling out, doubling over, dropping dead, straining on the toilet to ‘go’, swiveling about in dizziness.
    • Journalists who go rogue often do it for me. https://www.thefp.com/p/npr-editor-how-npr-lost-americas-trust RFKjr is turning out a fine source as well. Look how he says 60 years ago most people (80%) trusted government and now 90% do not: https://x.com/vigilantfox/status/1777710201937732085?s=61&t=fM8K_zHB-Zw9l_mM_4QHqg
    • My overall point is that most Witnesses I know in the United States are very political and don't even know it. Often much more political than their neighbors who vote. There are certain limits to what we will say about our political views, but I think we don't recognize that those political views often come out inadvertently in other ways. In fact, I've seen strong political views among Witnesses who only use the line "we don't take sides in politics" when they wish to shut down an argument they disagree with. My parents and many relatives were of the type that said they wouldn't be fooled by all the lies and exaggerations from MS-NBC supposedly on the "progressive left." Nor the lies and exaggerations from FOX News on the supposedly "conservative right." But that didn't stop them from being fooled by thinking that CNN was not mostly "state-sponsored media" that would cherry-pick stories now and then to keep up the ruse that they weren't. As long as they continued to support corporate sponsors, including "Big Pharma" and "Big Military Industrial Complex," it was clear what side they were going to take. And although Trump was golden to all networks for his ability to spout controversy, one of his biggest sins for CNN was the fact that he went 4 years without getting the USA involved in any new wars.  We were watching CNN once, not on purpose, and although many segments were introduced with "Brought to you by Pfizer" one was introduced "Brought to you by McDonnell-Douglas." As if any of us watching were about to go out and buy McDonnell-Douglas fighter jets and missiles for accessories. Of course, even the segments brought to you by Pfizer weren't really for any of us to be swayed in our pharmacy choices, either. As with all corporate media, those ads are really just payments to CNN; they are all just a way for corporations to PAY (bribe) the news writers and commentators to realize on which side their bread is buttered. They are merely buying influence. ---- All this was probably just my own rationale to excuse my own tendency to throw in opinions about politics, politicians, and the mainstream corporate media. There are no easy answer to how someone should go about getting their news, or how to feed their own opinions. But I would be happy to hear about the various sources people use when trying to find the "truth" about various world events. 
    • Here was the general conversation, skipping a part where I had just explained how 30,000 Palestinians, largely women and children, had been killed, and the majority of major news outlets were still equivocating about whether Israel had gone too far. But when mostly "white" aid workers were killed, suddenly Nancy Pelosi (friend of the aid organization founder), Joe Scarborough, Elizabeth Warren, and a bunch of others turn on a dime to stop giving Israel a free pass -- embarrassing their own man Biden.  THEM: Well, anyway, we don't take sides about literal Israel, and we don't discuss political sides of who supports whom. ME: But that last part is just information, even history. THEM: History is one thing but the Bible says don't speak against the King. What's that it says in Ecclesiastes? (Ecclesiastes 10:20) . . .Even in your thoughts, do not curse the king, and do not curse the rich in your bedroom; for a bird may convey the sound, or a creature with wings may repeat what was said. ME: Yeah. That's where we get the expression: "a little birdie told me." Basically, it means that someone on Twitter will turn you in. Or all the government agencies will be listening in on Twitter.   THEM: Very funny. You mean "X." ME: Yeah, but they still call them "tweets." THEM: But still we don't take sides, we don't even say anything against any ruler, whether he's good or bad. We only pray that they make decisions that are good for us.  ME: I don't think it's wrong to say something against a ruler. Don't you think Hitler was a bad ruler? THEM: But he's not a king now is he? He's dead. ME: I mean even when he was alive. THEM: Well, of course, because he was attacking Jehovah's people. ME: But it would have been wrong to say he was bad while he was attacking millions of Jews? THEM: [changing subject] But look how respectful Paul was talking to Felix, he never said a word against him. ME: Maybe not, but Luke tells us he was probably looking for a bribe. That's pretty negative. ME: continuing . . . And Jesus called Herod a fox. THEM: Well maybe he was "foxy" -- "crafty" not always a bad thing. ME: You don't believe that . . . and even if it was a good thing, then Jesus was taking sides. THEM: Anyway . . . it's wrong.
    • The conversation went like this: ME: I'm just now seeing the new article on the front of jw.org, about whether Bible prophecy points to literal Israel. That seems to be on everyone's mind. THEM: Absolutely. One of my studies just asked that question and I went through the usual scriptures, especially Galatians  6. I hadn't seen the article yet. I wish I had. ME: Yes, the article uses Matthew 23:37 "your house is abandoned to you" and Galatians 6, and Romans 11. THEM: I think I used Romans 11, too.  ME: I just noticed that the article says one thing that might be confusing though. “A dulling of sensibilities has happened in part to Israel until the full number of people of the nations has come in, and in this manner all Israel will be saved.” (Romans 11:25, 26) . . . By the expression “all Israel,” Paul meant all of spiritual Israel. ME: continuing . . . Actually, I don't think that will make sense to most people though. I mean, ultimately, yes, it's spiritual Israel that is saved. We know that from Galatians 6, but in this context people are going to notice that Paul actually was speaking about the two olive trees and the LITERAL Gentiles getting grafted into the tree representing LITERAL Israel.  THEM: But it means all of spiritual Israel will be saved. ME: That's the only way it works out in the long run, yes. But doesn't it make more sense that as many of literal Israel as possible get saved because it's these people of the nations who now have Jehovah's blessing, and this makes some of natural Israel jealous? And that helps lead to the salvation of as many natural Israelites as possible. (Romans 11:11) etc., etc. Who is right on this point is not important here, it's the next part of the conversation. Next post . . . 
  • Members

    • Pudgy

      Pudgy 2,398

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • dennis

      dennis 1

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      65.4k
    • Total Posts
      159.2k
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      17,678
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    James Hume
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.