The H.M. Riley Trust (page 2)

teel

Alice, here's a couple of things for you. First, something you're misinformed about: noone misused their authority, afaik funds must be transparent. Which is why 6 months ago when I was researching the HR fund I easily found their IRS 990 forms online on the site http://www2.guidestar.org. Go there, register for free, and you have access for the last 3 years.

Secondly: let's assume the whole Phillip Morris thing was an overlook on their part. It was found out, people were stumbled, etc. All well, they should go and do their best not to stumble further. True enough, while digging through the IRS forms, Phillip Morris is not on the list any more. So they did the right thing? Phah! Guess what is in there instead of a tobacco company: Armor Holdings Inc (http://www.armorholdings.com). Hurray for beating our swords into plows!

StAnn

No, but once a death certificate has been issued by the government and the person's assets are left to a beneficiary, they have a responsibility to handle the matter appropriately. I don't know for sure what would happen if the assets were rejected by the organization, but I assume they would be seized by the federal government. If the society can put the money to better use, it's perfectly acceptable for them to do so.

Wrong. This woman, as a supposed JW in good standing, was responsible for what was in her portfolio. Also, the legal dept. at Bethel should have ensured that no shares of this stock came into possession of the WTS.

For example, as a Catholic, I participate in Ave Maria Funds. These are all stocks that perform well (let's hope) but aren't in opposition to Church moral teaching. For instance, when E. I. Lilly began manufacturing oral contraceptives, the Ave Maria Fund dropped them from their list of approved funds because using artificial contraception is a sin. This is called Socially Responsible Investing and it is the responsibility of every investor to know what they are putting their money into. Perhaps the WTS should try it.

So it looks, once again, like the WTS just can't maintain the high moral standards of the Catholic Church.

OLDCROW

i was a 22 year old kid working in a drug store and my conscience was acute enough according to WTS standards, as preached in the holy pages of the WT, that i questioned the elders as to whether i could in good conscience order and sell tobacco products. it's the old bs, the almighty wts can take blood money when they want, and ignore their own rules and pronouncements when it suits them. glad i'm out........eleven years and counting, and nary a regret as to leaving.

CAW!!!!

Honesty

I see that Alice the Troll is baaaack.

Witness My Fury

If the WTS wasn't so high and mighty and continually riding its high horse declaring LAW to it's minions and attempting to excercise control in ALL areas of our lives, we wouldnt react so harshly when inconsistencies and double standards occur, ... but as it is, they preach one standard and will happily (though quietly) break it when it financially suits them to do so.

Remember Watergate? Maybe not, but seen the film right and educated yourself? Small things seemed very insignificant at 1st didnt they? ...but in the end it got real messy thru all the lies didnt it? ...As Deepthroat said "Follow the money". Same applies here sadly. The WTS is ALL about the money.

Cheers

OUTLAW

No, but once a death certificate has been issued by the government and the person's assets are left to a beneficiary,

they have a responsibility to handle the matter appropriately. I don't know for sure what would happen if the assets were rejected by the organization,

but I assume they would be seized by the federal government.

If the society can put the money to better use, it's perfectly acceptable for them to do so......OccultAlice in Wonderland

Where did you get that nonsense from?..Your Ouija board?..

JW families have had to give up tobacco farming..Or..Face the wrath of the WBT$..

........................ ...OUTLAW

Lady Lee

I don't agree with you alice but thank you for resurrecting the issue so many new posters can see the WTS' duplicity

ProdigalSon

Is this a good time to let the new readers here know about the Watchtower's ownership of 50 percent of the stock of Rand Cam warfare technology?

http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&source=hp&q=watchtower+rand+cam+warfare+technology&btnG=Google+Search

I'll bet if a dub went to work for them though they'd face a tribunal in the Sanhedrin....

~PS

MMXIV

Firstly - thank you AIW for bringing this to my attention - I was not aware of this before.

I'm curious about why its bad that this information was leaked to the public yet you also quote on the whistleblower Jeffrey Wigand. One has leaked information about the hypocrisy of an organisation that has killed members by it's products (printed policies on blood, Malawi/Mexico etc) and the other has killed is customers by it's products. I don't see how one deserves to be protected and other outed?

You bring up the point about materiality (and quite rightly in my opinion). The Church of England clearly defines materiality in terms of it's defence investments:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:u3Rbj2v-sIUJ:www.cofe.anglican.org/info/ethical/policystatements/defence.doc+materiality+as+a+defence&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

The WTS is not transparent about materiality because we would all assume it's investments are "ethical" based on it's own teachings. Have I made a correct assumption about this or does it state anywhere that it wouldn't hold non ethical investements?

Do you think that the society was a) wrong to accept these in the first place, b) should have liquidated the portfolio upon receipt but kept the money c) it's not material so no wrong has been done d) we should not judge our brothers at the WTS and no-one should ever leak any information about them?

I worked for a company that received money from Phillip Morris for it's anti-smoking campaigns. Do you see what Phillip Morris does as hypocritical in any way or simply a good thing (aside from the fact it is a legal requirement)?

Thanks

MMXIV

The H.M. Riley Trust

Share this