Stephen Lett is a Liar

[Witness]

"She says she was 5 when another Jehovah's Witness raped her.  The religion's leaders call such accounts 'false stories'"

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/jehovahs-witnesses-child-sex-abuse-stephen-lett-chessa-manion-20180620.html

"Often times, the terms compulsive liar and pathological liar are used interchangeably. However, in reality, both are different. Although, both have this habit of lying about every small or big thing, yet their motives behind lying are not the same. Nor do they pose the same kind of threat to the people around them.

Compulsive Liar

A compulsive liar is a person who will lie, no matter what. It has become a habit with him/her to lie about everything and he/she has no control over it. The thing with people who have compulsive lying disorder is that they lie because they find telling the truth very uncomfortable. So, to avoid themselves from this discomfort, they resort to lying.

Pathological Liar

A pathological liar is someone who lies to get his way. They are manipulative, crafty, and usually have a goal in mind when they lie. They have no concern for the feelings of others, even of those people who are close to them.

Stephen Lett is a very sick man.  He suffers from both. 

(https://psychologenie.com/pathological-liar-vs-compulsive-liar)

 

 

 

[TrueTomHarley]

25 minutes ago, Witness said:

The religion's leaders call such accounts 'false stories'"

 

They do not.

It is your spin on them that they call false stories.

Assuming that it is true, In an ever-changing population of 8 million, there will be examples of anything.

[JW Insider]

4 hours ago, Witness said:

Stephen Lett is a very sick man.  He suffers from both.

I have suffered from both types of liars, too. But I don't think Stephen Lett is either. He was a District Overseer that included my present circuit. I've seen him up close in front of a congregation and at assemblies, although I can't say I have seen him interact closely with elders or other individuals. But he was known to be a man full of a lot of love and concern for others.

When it comes to defending something he loves -- and he loves the organization -- he is prone to the same kinds of mistakes that all humans make. They will often "spin" and exaggerate and filter out negative details to try to put the thing they love in the best light possible. Most people do this naturally when it come to speaking about their children, their spouses, and other loved ones. If you listen closely to what he said, it was also obvious that it was calculated to be a true statement. He didn't say that we have no trouble with such crimes, or that we are better than other religions. He said that we don't protect sexual predators and a claim that we protect predators is a lie that finds its source in apostate lies.

It turns out that he was trying to generalize, and probably spoke from a belief he holds to be true.

I believe he is wrong in some serious ways, but I don't know that he knew he was wrong. I think he thought he was right. I do have direct evidence that we have upheld policies that have protected criminals more than we have protected the victims of these criminals. This may have even protected criminal elders more than others persons in congregations where such crimes have been committed. I think that even now there are policies and procedures that tend to protect criminals more than they protect children, but the written policy is almost as good as it can be made under the restrictions of the two-witness policy (as we currently think we must apply it).

[JW Insider]

My 1991 Flock book has notes in the margins expressing the instructor's warnings about the danger of media contact. And, of course, it contains exactly the same text handwritten on the blank page 143 that every elder at the time was asked to write in their own Flock book.

I'll type out my handwritten notes as dictated during "school" with respect to what goes on an S77 or S79 form. I think it's easy to see from this (and comments from the instructor(s)) that protecting the reputation of the WTS is always considered very important.

I see much value in many of the points that were added. I think most people would be able to read this idea of "protecting the Society" between the lines, even if they didn't hear the words and attitude of the instructor. Here are my handwritten notes:

Avoid expressions on these forms:     S77, S79 form

1) "anything alluding or naming one of the Society's attorneys"

2) any mention of the legal dept

3) any comments referring to the direction from the Society

4) any comments mentioning anyone other than the committee itself as a possible influence in the decision reached

5) any comment that might suggest to someone with a critical eye that the committee did not reach its decision on its own but, instead, somehow yielded to the influence of an outside party

6) any comments indicating that the elders mishandled the case, or committed any error in the investigation of the judicial committee process.

Every time these forms are mentioned in the Flock book, the reference to the "blank" page 143 was to be written in the margin as a reminder. Still, as just one example, page 114 (or 115) in most "schooled" Flock books will also have a marginal handwritten note as stated by the instructor that says (with respect to reinstatements, especially):

"It would be best to check with Branch Office before making the exception."

I should add that the above information we were to write on page 143 comes after several chapters of very specific direction from the Society about various ins and outs of the judicial process, exactly how to judge the difference in "levels" of sexual immorality, porneia, and other types of wrongdoing, repentance, etc. And it comes immediately on the blank page just before the chapter called "Jehovah's People Theocratically Organized for His Name." The purpose of the chapter is to strengthen the idea that all this direction properly comes from the Society which is already somewhat contradictory in spirit to points 3, 4, and 5 above.

The text of the chapter includes many of the following points which are basically correct, but they also add greatly to the sense that Jehovah's Name must be protected through protecting the name (or reputation) of the organization:

• Today, this involves a "stewardship from God," an arrangement administered through a "faithful and discreet slave."
• Local congregations throughout the earth are not organized according to democratic principles but are under God-governed, theocratic control.
• We must recognize and submit to this theocratic rulership.
• The anointed remnant has been entrusted with all of the Master's belongings.
• Overseers serve as earthly representatives under the direction of the steward class.
• Theocratic submission requires recognition of this orderly arrangement.
• God's laws are based on righteous principles, and they are enforceable by an organization or an agency.

[Witness]

5 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Assuming that it is true, In an ever-changing population of 8 million, there will be examples of anything.

Assuming that it is true that Lett lies…and there are examples.

What bothers you more, that I stand up to your leaders, exposing them for who they are, or the child abuse coverup?  Do you love your leaders more than righteous acts, which Lett who had the power to perform more than just offering empty words, didn’t do; and followed up with a lie thirteen years later? Ps 5:9

JWI, your words are gentle, but if this man can be excused for saying or doing the wrong thing, how is it that the anointed “brothers” of his, who approach the elders about such issues – using scripture – and are very sure of their belief, are not excused by it, but reprimanded and face disfellowshipping?  Matt 24:48-51 explains this. 

He replied: “Watch out that you are not deceived. For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am he,’ and, ‘The time is near.’ Do not follow them.”  Luke 21:8

There is only one translation that I have found for 2 Cor 5:20, that throws in the word “substitute” – not just once, but twice – the NWT.

“Therefore, we are ambassadors substituting for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us. As substitutes for Christ, we beg: “Become reconciled to God.”

KJV – “Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.”

Among the anointed ones that I know, none have expected obedience to themselves. The governing body must be obeyed first and foremost over Christ. The scriptures don’t say a “faithful and discreet slave” should be obeyed.  What does that tell you?  They are the false “christs”, the apostates, and even if it does not appear so on the surface, liars. Prov 26:23-25

Matt 24:24 -  “For there shall arise false Christs, (“one who falsely lays claim to the name and office of the Messiah”)  and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect (chosen).”

The governing body lineage, are both false “Christs” and false prophets.

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

When it comes to defending something he loves -- and he loves the organization -- he is prone to the same kinds of mistakes that all humans make. They will often "spin" and exaggerate and filter out negative details to try to put the thing they love in the best light possible.

What should be his first love?  Matt 22:37-40

 

 

 

 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

The thing people often fail to realize is that there are EXTREMELY righteous people out there, inside and outside of Jehovah's Witnesses, that are dullards.

They do not know they are dullards .... and it doesn't bother them a bit.  It's like being dead ... you don't know you are dead ... but it makes it HARD for those who love you, and everything about you.

My very best guess about Stephen Lett, who I call "Poppin Fresh" (The Pillsbury Dough Boy), is that he is a very fine Brother who is truly one of the Anointed, and God loves him dearly ... although the cynical side of me visualizes him  taking huge bags of money and a shovel out the main gate of Warwick, in the dead of night,  across the street, and into the woods , to the massive Real Estate acreage he has in his  name.

Sorry ... I just cannot "turn it off".

My best guess is that he DOES NOT KNOW THAT THE THINGS HE SAYS ARE NOT TRUE ... which would make him totally innocent of the charge that he is ANY kind of liar.

As John 9:41 says, paraphrased "...Justice must be tempered with mercy for Blind pawns.".

Even blind pawns that think of themselves as enlightened Power Players.

For a person to be ANY kind of liar .... he has to actually KNOW that what he is saying is not true.

 

 

[Witness]

On 6/22/2018 at 1:53 AM, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

For a person to be ANY kind of liar .... he has to actually KNOW that what he is saying is not true.

 

In other words, a blind guide.  Matt 15:7-14

[TrueTomHarley]

It is rather a sloppy article but the subject is so visceral that such things are overlooked.

All is told from the point of view of the wronged girl. I don't claim she speaks untruthfully. It is simply that, humans being what they are, we are inclined to remember things the way we remember them...embellish certain points and downplay or forget others. For example, when the judge recalled certain things in a matter-of-fact way, the victim says that's not how she recalled it, and the reporter at that point forgets all about the judge and runs with the victim. I suspect that the judge recollects it more accurately, because he has not carried the emotional baggage for two decades.

When Lett, many years later, speaks of 'apostate lies,' the reporter presents it as though he is calling his old friend a liar. Of course, he is not. No one says that what happened is a lie; it is the spin that enemies (which now seem to include the Inquirer) put on it that is the lie.

I answered at some length the Inquirer's first story and emailed it two two editors and the reporter. It was never acknowledged in any way. Instead, the reporter followed through on remarks he had made on the Reddit forum, that he had more material in the hopper that he considered damning to the Witnesses. Of course, this story that Witness is so thrilled about is what he had in mind.

I take it as evidence that the Philadelphia Inqurer wants this story told one and only one way. If there is anything to mitigate a damning verdict, they do not want to hear it. Of course, they have a story. No one would say that they do not. It is a variation of the "If it bleeds it leads" theme - familiar and not so terrible in itself, but the refusal to consider or even acknowledge a different lens through which the topic might be viewed, is to paint it, imo, as a not very good newspaper. Adding to this perception is that the paper does not seem to have a comment section for its online articles.

Comment sections are not necessarily great, as they attract many a moron, especially on 'hot' topics. But they have become ubiquitous and the fact that the Inquirer does not have one seems but another indicator that they will breach no dissent on what stories they report.

It is the religious version of the shabby journalism that has become the norm today. Reporters of the right or left hype up their view to the point of hysteria, and refuse to look at things that in any way confound their conclusions.

 

[Witness]

8 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

You should now “witness”. You’re an individual that can be compared to the definitions, of a sick mind pathetic liar, however, “Lett” doesn’t use social media as a platform to outrage individuals, while telling everyone his Christian.

An individual that preys on children is sick minded. That’s why the laws of the land have been composing new laws since 2013 to address the outcry of the world, NOT JUST “ONE ORGANIZATION!

Once again, if you’re going to address the issue? Include ALL! That issue is NOT for the single-minded individual that promotes HATE as a solution!

 

 

Although the last post was made in March, M.Stephen Lett, a "Public Figure",  does use a social platform doesn’t he, even though the Watchtower magazine made it clear the GB do not utilize social platforms.  Interesting that it is still up but not running.  If it was a fake, I believe there would be posts past March. 

  https://www.facebook.com/M-Stephen-Lett-737859476343764/

As is customary, you lump what is known as “Jehovah’s organization” in with all of the organizations in the world, making some sort of comparison based on the law of the land.  Yet, there is only one earthly organization that claims Isa 2:2-4 has its fulfillment; that is the Watchtower.  Only one, saying it is “spirit-directed” by God. Rev 13:1,11,15

 The “law” of Isa 2:2-4 consists of God’s ordinances. Do you realize this?  I don’t believe so, because when it is convenient, you say things such as, Once again, if you’re going to address the issue? Include ALL!, hiding the obvious into a bigger gene pool.  

Which is it, Allen, just another organization dealing with child abuse, or is it God’s organization?

Truthfully, it is the former, since the true “organization” is the anointed Body of Christ, God’s Temple, with “living stones” arranged as God chooses. Isa 43:10; 1 Pet 2:5,9;1 Cor 12:18,27 Christ spoke about this, do you remember?  John 2:20,21; 4:23,24  Following the laws of the land are scripturally necessary; following God’s laws are a demand that He requires of his anointed priesthood. Mal 2:7; Heb 8:10 We have instances where the Watchtower prefers breaking not only the laws of the land; but consistently, breaking God’s laws in Christ. 

 “And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.”  Dan 7:25  

This concerns God's time and laws, not man's.

JWs have been led to believe they are “safe” in the organization, no matter what sins the Wt. commits.  “Wait on Jehovah”, it is called.  When an individual sins, the story changes and that person is disfellowshipped.  Is God hypocritical, or men? Have JWs demeaned the Almighty God to the point that they believe He sways easily when it comes to the care of His sheep and the adherence to His decrees?  Jer 7:5-11; Dan 9:9-11  https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jer+7%3A5-11%3B+Dan+9%3A9-11&version=NKJV

The “mountain-like organization”/idol, and spiritual “Israel”/anointed ones and companions, are receiving breaking news.  The GB will be ousted and not long after, the organization will fall.

Matt 10:23; John 16:13;Matt 13:37-42; 17:11; Zech 4:11-14;Rev 11:1-3; Hos 10:8; Luke 23:30; Rev 6:16; 8:8;17:15-18 (the “anointed” of Rev 11:1-3; Zech 4:11-14 are the “angels” that Christ “sends” to the Temple/priesthood, declaring the need to repent Rev 2:20; 3:18)  https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt+10%3A23%3B+John+16%3A13%3BMatt+13%3A37-42%3B+17%3A11%3B+Zech+4%3A11-14%3BRev+11%3A1-3%3B+Hos+10%3A8%3B+Luke+23%3A30%3B+Rev+6%3A16%3B+8%3A8%3B17%3A15-18+&version=WEB

What better way is there, to reach thousands of spiritual “Israel” and JWs, than through social media? 

https://www.facebook.com/groups/restorationofjacob/?ref=bookmarks

Please, defend God and His righteousness in Christ – not a façade that pretends righteousness.

Go into the rocks, hide in the ground
    from the fearful presence of the Lord
    and the splendor of his majesty!
11 The eyes of the arrogant will be humbled
    and human pride brought low; (1Cor.10:12; 3:18)
    the Lord alone will be exalted in that day… NOT A “MOUNTAIN-LIKE ORGANIZATION!
 9 So people will be brought low
    and everyone humbled—
    do not forgive them."  (Luke14:11)
17 The arrogance of man will be brought low
    and human pride humbled;                         
    the Lord alone will be exalted in that day,
18 and the idols will totally disappear. (Rev.13:8)
19 People will flee to caves in the rocks
    and to holes in the ground (Rev.13:4,3)
    from the fearful presence of the Lord
    and the splendor of his majesty,
    when he rises to shake the earth.
            (Amos9:9; Haggai 2:6,7; Ps.18:7; Isa.13:13;
             Heb.12:26; Eze.38:19; Rev.11:13; 16:18; Joel3:16)
    Stop trusting in mere humans,
    who have but a breath in their nostrils.
    Why hold them in esteem?"    Isa.2:10,11,9,17,18,19,22

(From Pearl Doxsey’s article: YHWY’s Genuine Mountain)

 

[TrueTomHarley]

1 hour ago, Witness said:

Although the last post was made in March, M.Stephen Lett, a "Public Figure",  does use a social platform doesn’t he,

No, he doesn't. How can anyone be so naive (or deceitful)?

Anybody can pretend to be anyone on the internet. I, for example, have about ten personas on this forum and @James Thomas Rook Jr. falls for every one of them.

If a Governing Body member were to be on social media, it would be a huge change in method of communication. He would not do so without abundant notice given beforehand on trusted channels.

 

[Witness]

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

No, he doesn't. How can anyone be so naive (or deceitful)?

Anybody can pretend to be anyone on the internet. I, for example, have about ten personas on this forum and @James Thomas Rook Jr. falls for every one of them.

If a Governing Body mIIIember were to be on social media, it would be a huge change in method of communication. He would not do so without abundant notice given beforehand on trusted channels.

 

1

Did you ask him?  Did you check it out, or are you too afraid to?  If so, how can you be so naive?  The posts are benign, with the comments made by JWs.  You can look them up and see. The same goes for his "friend", Anthony Morris III. There is not one sarcastic note about either page.   For both pages, the activity stopped around March/April., and I am guessing because of the statement made by the organization concerning the GB and social forums.

[Anna]

18 minutes ago, Witness said:

Did you ask him?  Did you check it out, or are you too afraid to?  If so, how can you be so naive? 

Why don't you ask him? His page says that he typically "replies instantly". Let me know what he says