Mary---wow...right on ouch
What a pathetic drone you are. You're not fooling anyone on here with your bullshit ideas, but I guess you need to get those 15 minutes in any way you can right?
SW
Feb. 15th WT - WT Society says DFed Ones are Lawless- Just Like Demons
by flipper 217 Replies latest jw friends
-
Sayswho
-
itscrap&theyknowit!
From djeggnog....
I've found that many of the folks here are hardly literate, and I believe some of these are high school dropouts lacking social skills, and have apparent reading comprehension problems, so they are often on the defensive when conversing with them (which may be the reason some bodies of elders have reckoned such illiteracy as a lack of repentance and haughtiness and voted to disfellowship them when these persons were just ignorant and were lacking in faith as had the apostle Paul). (1 Timothy 1:13)
You've got to be kidding me!!!! I have been around the 'truth' ALL MY LIFE and I have to say close to 75% of elders thruout MANY of the congregation I've experienced are NOT intelligent. They ARE NOT eloquent. THEY ARE charismatic like PIMPS!
I have listened to brothers with HORRIBLE SPEAKING qualities. They are totally inept.
My question is, "What in the f---- are you doing on here?"!!! You are on here because you have doubt in the organization/society. It's okay to let it out on here.
-
sabastious
You've got to be kidding me!!!! I have been around the 'truth' ALL MY LIFE and I have to say close to 75% of elders thruout MANY of the congregation I've experienced are NOT intelligent. They ARE NOT eloquent. THEY ARE charismatic like PIMPS!
But, in DJ's mind, he is a seriously charismatic pimp.
-Sab
-
Quendi
And you've got to love the way DJ plays semantics about the meaning of legal terms in a way that reminds me of Jesus speaking of the false shepherds of his day. Yes, DJ loves to "strain out the gnat but gulp down the camel." That's right, SCOTUS "vacating" its own previous decision is not the same as "reversing" it even though that is its practical effect. But that is hardly surprising. DJ merely confirms what I said earlier about his reasoning being "specious". Jesus also said that if a blind man follows a blind man, both would fall into a pit. The WTS is one such blind guide, and it is clear that he is following them in lock step. More's the pity.
I marvel at him, not because he is obviously clever at manipulation and lying, but that he has seemingly convinced himself that he and the WTS are righteous and are walking in the truth. But that has been the pattern of propagandists throughout history, so maybe I shouldn't be surprised. And I still don't understand his rationale for associating with disfellowshipped people like myself. That is a clear violation of the February 15,2011 issue of The Watchtower. I also don't understand why he hasn't answered the questions Flipper has raised earlier. He can only quote from WTS publications (answering me from the 1975 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses, for example) or come up with long-winded gobbledygook that makes sense to no one but himself. Sayswho has him pegged correctly: a pathetic drone. The more he posts here, the more obvious that becomes.
@Flipper: By the way, my friend, I am a man, not a woman. But with a handle like "Quendi" (borrowed from J.R.R. Tolkien), it can be difficult to discern gender.
-
Quendi
Let me add one more comment about DJ's outbursts. Clearly he has legal training and has quoted "chapter and verse" in his posts. So that does give him a level of expertise here which many of us (including Yours Truly) lack. The problem is that he's still as blind as a mole. The Pharisees, scribes, and lawyers of Jesus' day were also very learned men, and they could quote the Scriptures and rabbinical law to support their thoroughly incorrect reasonings. DJ is in the same sorry class. He knows the minutiae of the law. He has much practice in applying it. But he can't see the forest for the trees. The WTS's tyrannical approach cannot be justified on moral and scriptural grounds no matter how sound its position is legally.
His participation on this board is a direct violation of WTS policy for which he could be disfellowshipped if the elders in his congregation found out about it. He may be an elder himself, but whether or not, his participation here is completely reprehensible from the WTS view. Why does he continue? Maybe it is only to gratify his own ego. Or to put it another way, "The lamp of the body is the eye. If, then, your eye is simple, your whole body will be bright.; but if your eye is wicked, your whole body will be dark. If in reality the light that is in you is darkness, how great that darkness is!" (Matthew 6:22, 23) DJ's responses to others, his hatred and contempt for us, show plainly in his responses; and that indicates his own spiritual darkness.
-
Mary
And since our good friend djeggnong is so familiar with with all the legalities of the Borganization, I wonder if he has any comment on the Watchtower Society filing the amicus curiae on behalf of the Jimmy Swaggart Ministries----you know, that slimeball that got caught commiting pornia with a hooker?
-
Pistoff
@djeggnog:
you say this:
Why then in the case of a sister who sued the WT and local congregation did the WT lawyers assert in their briefs:
1. That the plaintiff was never a member (she is a baptized member)
2. That the WT does not receive most of it's operating capital from contributions from the local kingdom halls
3. That the judicial committees do NOT operate on instructions from Bethel
Your assertion that the WT is committed to telling the truth makes you untruthful.
The WT asserted that confidentiality prevented them from giving the courts information in the California sex abuse lawsuits; of course, no such confidentiality exists and in fact, the court ruled so, that no confidentiality was ever present. The cases were heard before 3 men and information was shared with Bethel.
But the WT claimed confidentiality.
Smooth words and high sounding phrases do not change the fact that the WT is an abusive religion.
You cite religious freedom in your and their defense; this is nothing more than saying that what you do is legal.
The real issue is the ethics and morality of telling mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, grandfathers and grandmothers to push their flesh and blood out the door and never speak to them until they get the official stamp of approval from the men who threw them out.
That is a morally bankrupt position, and I think deep down you know it.
No man will ever tell me who I can talk to.
I find it ironic that you speak for WT in saying that you disfellowship those who promote non-christian viewpoints.
Jesus of course spoke with sinners, whores, tax collectors; this scandalized the righteous but he did it anyway.
So I tell you, the WT, my local elders, my extended family:
I will associate with my disfellowshipped family when and as much as I want.
I dare you to talk to me about, to try to tell me I can't.
The Flock book says that associating with df'd family members is NOT a judicial matter.
That tells me all I need to know; the WT doesn't want me to talk to them, but they can't do a thing about it.
For you to defend the weak position of the WT in this speaks poorly for you.
Wake up.
-
flipper
Electricity was out 2 days straight due to a storm here . Lots of snow. So, here we go ! Pg. 10 posters I'll reply.
MARY- Very good points you bring out. In the Jehovah's Witnesses people can get DFed for just LOOKING at elders crooked. If ANY JW states differences of opinions it WILL be held against him or her at a JC meeting. Even if their opinions make sense and hold validity . ANYTHING spoken against the WT society gets condemned. The hypocrisy within the WT society is incredible. They condemn OTHER religions for tolerating priests who abuse children- yet the WT society tolerates the same thing ! So many double standards it's insane. WT society WANTS religious freedoms for themselves - but condemn that freedom in other religions. Truth be told- NO Jehovah's Witness is free ! They are trapped within the bordered walls of the WT society. Thanks for posting that SWaggart info. I doubt DJ will admit to it.
SAYSWHO- Exactly. DJ isn't fooling anybody here.
ITSCRAPANDTHEYKNOWIT- I think DJ just comes on to stir $hit up. He's the penultimate JW apologist and is mind controlled. He won't or isn't capable of listening to reason. He just wants to be an antagonist. I agree- most elders I knew only followed the WT society instructions. Which any 8 year old can read or understand. So any mental slowness in elders- I blame the WT society. LOL !
SABASTIOUS- The sad thing is - that ALL elders are pimps for the WT society. I think the younger elders are starting to see that now. Not so much the older ones.
QUENDI- My apologies my friend, thought you were a lady ! LOL ! Now I'm embarrased ! It's cool. You are right- DJ is an example of a JW drone at it's very worst in mind control. He won't admit to ANYTHING we have tried to prove to him - he's too proud. So is the organization he aligns himself with. Too proud to admit fault. On the reasons he HAS NOT answered me ? I think he's scared. He has FEAR that what I'm telling him is TRUE. AND my questions to him make him think about answers that he doesn't want to address because it will force him to analyze his beliefs. Many people don't like to be put in that uncomfortable position. He continues on this board to be a JW apologist and to stir up trouble. Don't take him too seriously. He's seriously disturbed.
PISTOFF- Very well put your reply to DJ Eggnog. I couldn't have said it better myself ! And you are correct- WT society is an abusive cult which spreads lies and teaches Jehovah's Witnesses to do the same
-
djeggnog
@flipper:
Don't get TOO apologetic for the JW cause and WT society just yet. They've settled out of court 16 child abuse cases involving abused JW children in California back in 2007 which was put forth on NBC nightly news in November 2007 . Just because the WT society wins DFing rights in court doesn't mean they aren't legally liable for the OTHER unlawful things they allow to go on inside their JW cult.
There's a lot here, @flipper, but that's par because you're a gossip; a man, but like a woman whose propensity is to trash the reputations, both public and especially personal, of the people and groups that you and others here will venomously target here on JWN and on other websites vehemently with the grace of a slow-acting poison that corrupts the fertile minds that dare to come here with pained hearts seeking solace wanting to know how they should cope in the aftermath of the perceived wrong done to them by three imperfect men that just disfellowshipped them, men who seemed too far removed and grossly unable to dispense a just decision in their case. You're expert at alienating people from Jehovah and from His earthly organization. Touché.
There are always going to be court cases until the end of this wicked system of things arrives, but if you were a pedophile that preyed on pre-teens -- and I don't say you are, but I'm speaking hypothetically here -- and you were sued by someone that did not really know you, but believed that you were still one of Jehovah's Witnesses, and thought, "Oh, God! I could potentially obtain a six-figure settlement from the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society were I to say that I used to let my nine-year-old son spend an hour studying the Bible each week with this guy -- this "guy" would be you in this hypothetical -- and with me, being a single parent, I thought he would make a good role model for my son so I would occasionally even let this man pick up my son to take him to his church, his Kingdom Hall, only to learn later from my son that he would take him to other places without my permission, and I was so devastated when I learned from my child that he was really sexually molesting him secretly."
Not only would your life be turned upside by this allegation, but as was demonstrated in the 2005 case of People v. Jackson, in which the self-styled King of Pop, Michael Jackson, stood trial on January 31, 2005, in a Santa Barbara courtroom after a grand jury had returned an indictment against him for 'willfully, unlawfully and lewdly committed a lewd and lascivious act with a 13-year-old boy named Gavin Arviso, and using an intoxicating agent with the intent of arousing, appealing to and gratifying Jackson's sexual desires,' also known as "spooning," you would be linked to Jehovah's Witnesses because of your well-known association with us in the past of which fact a judge would take judicial notice.
In Jackson's case, on June 13, 2005, a Santa Barbara County jury exonerated him by returning a "Not Guilty" verdict on all 14 of the following charges that had been alleged against him, which many Jehovah's Witnesses followed with interest, since a "Guilty" verdict to any of these allegations would likely have been followed by the parents of Gavin Arviso filing of a civil lawsuit against Jackson with the WTS as a co-defendant in exploiting Jackson naivete about this world to enrich themselves, which could have adversely affected the reputation of Jehovah's Witnesses in the world due to Jackson's international fame and his former connection to us:
1 - Conspiracy to commit child abduction, false imprisonment and extortion: Not Guilty
2 - Lewd act upon a child: Not Guilty
3 - Lewd act upon a child: Not Guilty
4 - Lewd act upon a child: Not Guilty
5 - Lewd act upon a child: Not Guilty
6 - Attempting to commit a lewd act upon a child: Not Guilty
7a - Administering intoxicating agent to assist in commission of a felony: Not Guilty
7b - Providing alcohol to a minor (lesser included charge): Not Guilty
8a - Administering intoxicating agent to assist in commission of a felony: Not Guilty
8b - Providing alcohol to a minor (lesser included charge): Not Guilty
9a - Administering intoxicating agent to assist in commission of a felony: Not Guilty
9b - Providing alcohol to a minor (lesser included charge): Not Guilty
10a - Administering intoxicating agent to assist in commission of a felony: Not Guilty
10b - Providing alcohol to a minor (lesser included charge): Not Guilty
Were you falsely accused, @flipper, of 'willfully, unlawfully and lewdly committing a lewd and lascivious act with this hypothetical nine-year-old boy, and using an intoxicating agent with the intention of arousing, appealing to and gratifying your sexual desires,' your life, as you know it, would be over. You might have to move the Kingdom of Bahrain and convert to Islam to escape life here in the US as a registered sex offender from whom Jehovah's Witnesses distanced themselves after it settled a lawsuit that tied you to us, when you will have severed your connection to us long before this lawsuit was filed against you. The world will only repeat the story it heard on the NBC Nightly News involving yet another settlement by the WTS involving a Jehovah's Witness pedophile that sexually molested a nine-year-old child, the truth about whether you actually did that which you were convicted for doing won't matter to anyone.
Your formerly having been one of Jehovah's Witnesses can potentially make us liable for anything that you might do of a criminal nature, @flipper. All anyone need do is come to JWN and read your posts to establish your former connection to us, which former connection remains a potential albatross around our (necks since those who were former Jehovah's Witnesses know what things we teach and can be expected to use what things they know without restraint for their own ends.
Like I said above, @flipper, you said a lot here, but my remarks in response to @Quendi as to the changes she alleges to now be in effect within Jehovah's organization, with respect to our curtailing in some way the content of the announcement we make following a disfellowshipment, were designed to rebut her contention that we might lie under oath and would testify that we had not disfellowshipped someone despite the fact that Jehovah's Witnesses enjoy both freedom of worship and freedom of speech. First, we have no need to win rights already guaranteed us as citizens of this nation. Second, there are no "OTHER unlawful things" going on in Jehovah's organization, for we judge those "inside" the Christ while God judges those "outside" and we remove all of those that we uncover with a fondness for lawlessness. (1 Corinthians 5:12, 13) In fact, Jehovah gave us the Christ in order that we might be 'delivered from every sort of lawlessness in connection with our sanctification.' (Titus 2:14; 1 Thessalonians 4:7)
Remember I stated to you in my last post ( which you refused to reply to ) that O.J. Simpson won in court being cleared of murdering his ex-wife & friend - allegedly - however O.J. got busted in Nevada and is now serving 30 years for another crime. Point I'm making is it's just a matter of time before the WT society's criminal ways will catch up to them. Whether you want to admit it or not.
You might say that I'm as familiar as you are, if not more so, with the 1995 People v. Simpson case as well, in which former football great, OJ Simpson, stood trial on January 24, 1995, here in Los Angeles after his preliminary hearing that began on June 30, 1994, and ended on July 8, 1994, on which Municipal Court Judge Kathleen Kennedy-Powell ruled that she found "sufficient cause" to bind Simpson over for trial following allegations filed by several L.A. County prosecutors -- a whole bunch of them! -- of two counts of first-degree murder in violation of Penal Code § 187(a) and two counts of a special allegation pursuant to Penal Code § 190.2(a)(3), the first one for the murder of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and the second one for the murder of her friend, Ronald Goldman. Why you would even mention OJ Simpson in this context suggests a desire on your part to appeal to the ignorance of people, who like you, do not know enough about the Simpson cases to realize the absurdity of your comparing these criminal cases with the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society. But I'm going to humor you for their sake and respond at length.
Of course, what transpired in connection with Simpson's wrongful death civil trial is irrelevant to his Not Guilty verdict in Simpson's criminal trial, since the jury could not determine in deliberating the evidence presented against him by the prosecution whether Simpson actually committed the crimes with which he was charged, only whether the evidence presented was sufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Neither the jury empaneled in Simpson's criminal trial nor the one later empaneled during his civil wrongful death trial saw Simpson kill anyone, and the verdict of the jury that sat on Simpson's civil trial determined by a preponderance of the evidence that Simpson was guilty and awarded the plaintiff (Fred Goldman) on behalf of his deceased son $33 million in civil damages as a result.
Contrary to what you evidently believe to be the case, Simpson wasn't "allegedly" acquitted of two counts of murder, but he was really acquitted of the three charging allegations that had been lodged against him. (Actually there were four, but I won't bore you with the fourth one.) On October 3, 1995, a Los Angeles County jury acquitted Simpson when it returned a "Not Guilty" verdict on the charges as follows:
[1] "Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. In the matter of People of the State of California versus Orenthal James Simpson, case number BA097211. We, the jury, in the above-entitled action, find the Defendant, Orenthal James Simpson, not guilty of the crime of murder in violation of penal code section 187(A), a felony, upon Nicole Brown Simpson, a human being, as charged in Count I of the information.
[2] "Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, in the matter of People of the State of California versus Orenthal James Simpson. We, the jury, in the above-entitled action, find the Defendant, Orenthal James Simpson, not guilty of the crime of murder in violation of penal code section 187(A), a felony, upon Ronald Lyle Goldman, a human being, as charged in Count II of the information.
[3] "We, the jury, in the above-entitled action, further find the special circumstances that the Defendant, Orenthal James Simpson, has in this case been convicted of at least one crime of murder of the first degree and one or more crimes of murder of the first or second degree to be not true."
Again, you said a lot here, @flipper, but there was nothing about Simpson's conviction in Nevada that is in any way related to his acquittal in the criminal case, which can arguably be the result of "karma," which I believe in really your real argument here, or anything else, although there are some that actually believe Simpson's stupidity on September 13, 2007 -- as if he was the same celebrity in Los Angeles, California, before his criminal trial than he was after his criminal trial at the Palace Station Casino in Las Vegas, Nevada, when he was found guilty on October 3, 2008, of all 12 counts for which both he and Simpson's co-defendant, Clarence "C.J." Stewart -- was the real crime for which Simpson and Stewart were convicted:
1 - Conspiracy to Commit a Crime: Guilty
2 - Conspiracy to Commit Kidnapping: Guilty
3 - Conspiracy to Commit Robbery: Guilty
4 - Burglary while in possession of a Deadly Weapon: Guilty
5a - First-degree Kidnapping with use of a Deadly Weapon (Bruce Fromong): Guilty
5b - First-degree Kidnapping with use of a Deadly Weapon (Alfred Beardsley): Guilty
6a - Robbery with Use of a Deadly Weapon (Bruce Fromong): Guilty
6b - Robbery with Use of a Deadly Weapon (Alfred Beardsley): Guilty
7a - Assault with a Deadly Weapon (Bruce Fromong): Guilty
7b - Assault with a Deadly Weapon (Alfred Beardsley): Guilty
8a - Coercion with a Deadly Weapon (Bruce Fromong): Guilty
8b - Coercion with a Deadly Weapon (Alfred Beardsley): Guilty
What happened in Las Vegas in Simpson's being overcharged by the prosecutors for his crimes was based on the racial prejudice that is alive and well in the US in the belief of some that Simpson "got away" with murder upon his acquittal in his first criminal trial exactly 13 years before his conviction in his second criminal trial, for Simpson's co-defendant Stewart was released in January of 2011 based on an appeal granted by the Nevada Supreme Court affirming Simpson's convictions while granting Stewart's appeal, in which Stewart's attorney alleged that he should have been tried separately due to the prejudice that the jury had against Simpson, which more than adequately underscores the injustice to which Simpson was subjected as he must sit in Lovelock Correctional Center for a minimum of nine years until 2017 when he will be eligible for parole when he is 70 years old, at which point, if actually released on parole, Simpson will then have opportunity to do something else stupid that will violate his parole where he will lead to his completing what remains of his 33-year sentence until 2041 when he will then be eligible for release at the age of 94.
It is interesting that Nevada justice offered to the four (4) other men that had initially been charged -- Walter Alexander, Charles Cashmore, Charles Ehrlich and Michael McClinton -- all of them accomplices of Simpson, plea bargains as if none of them were as equally culpable of the crimes for which both Simpson and Stewart stood trial. What happened in Las Vegas was a case of stupidity followed by injustice, and not a case of Simpson's getting himself "busted." Even a stupid person doesn't merit the treatment that was meted out to Simpson by the criminal justice system in the state of Nevada. What happened in Nevada simply doesn't happen anywhere in the United States. But it did. While you here have no problem conflating these Simpson matters with the WTS, in suggesting that its "criminal ways will catch up to them," all I can really say to you, @flipper, is that you are not alone in your ignorance.
@Pistoff:
The real issue is the ethics and morality of telling mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, grandfathers and grandmothers to push their flesh and blood out the door and never speak to them until they get the official stamp of approval from the men who threw them out.
This idea of yours isn't the policy of Jehovah's Witnesses.
No man will ever tell me who I can talk to.
The decisions of the local body of elders of Jehovah's Witnesses and those of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses only affected those in good standing, which means that we would never presume to think that we can tell anyone that has severed his or her relationship with us or those who have been disfellowshipped to whom they may or may not speak.
Jesus of course spoke with sinners, whores, tax collectors; this scandalized the righteous but he did it anyway.
Jesus spoke to unrighteous Jews about the kingdom of God, so these whores and tax collectors to whom you refer had not yet been taken into the new covenant arrangement, but were, like Jesus himself, living under the old covenant arrangement, they being called to repent of their sins under the Law of Moses of which John's baptism had been a fitting symbol (Acts 19:3-6), while these same sinners -- the whores and tax collectors to whom you referred -- would upon their having been baptized in spirit have stood in a different position before God, and they would have been shunned were they to have conducted themselves in manner unbecoming to a Christian. (1 Corinthians 5:12, 13; 6:9-11)
So I tell you, the WT, my local elders, my extended family:
I will associate with my disfellowshipped family when and as much as I want.
No one has any right to tell you with whom to associate.
@djgggnog
-
Mickey mouse
WTF?! Mary, can you give us the background story to that Jimmy Swaggart appeal thing you posted?
This is a new one on me!
