Merry Magdalene

Joined

• started 20 topics
• posted 781 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Merry Magdalene

• 
  26

  International Conventions

  by stillajwexelder in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  so i am sure you will be thrilled to know that the international conventions in 2009 will be held in mexico, hawaii, south america (but did not say where exactly), austria and germany with other possibles and kenya - nairobi.

  cost to europe is slated at 2500 dollars package but warned that other destinations will cost more.

  the main requirement read in the letterwas "make sure you have the finances".

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Merry Magdalene

  Speaking of Int'l Conventions...

  

  

  

  ~Merry
• 
  34

  The smoking gun: Proof they intentionally lied about Iraq to go to war

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  back in november 2005, col lawrence wilkerson, the chief of staff to mr powell, told the bbc's carolyn quinn he was aware the germans had said that they had told the cia of the unreliability.

  "and then you begin to speculate, you begin to wonder was this intelligence spun; was it politicised; was it cherry-picked; did in fact the american people get fooled?," col wilkerson said.

  interesting, but not surprising.. they never had hard evidence (how could they?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Merry Magdalene

  What is indisputable is the Saddam used chemical weapons on the Kurds

  and then

  Only six months after the slaughter at Halabja, the White House lent Saddam Hussein another billion dollars.

  All the Western countries were supplying it with arms and funds. France was particularly zealous in this respect. Not content with selling Mirages and helicopters to Iraq, it even lent the regime Super Etendard aircraft in the middle of its war with Iran. Germany supplied Baghdad with a large part of the technology required for the production of chemical weapons. And in an unusual display of East-West military cooperation, German engineers enhanced the performance of the Scud aircraft which Iraq had obtained from the Soviet Union, increasing their range so that they could strike at Teheran and other distant Iranian cities.

  and

  Clearly, Iraq’s powerful allies did not want Baghdad condemned. In August 1988 the United Nations Sub-Committee on Human Rights voted by 11 votes to 8 not to condemn Iraq for human rights violations. Only the Scandinavian countries, Australia and Canada, together with bodies like the European Parliament and the Socialist International, saved their honour by clearly condemning Iraq.

  It was not until Iraq occupied the oil-rich emirate of Kuwait in August 1990 that Saddam Hussein became America’s bogeyman, referred to by George Bush as a new Hitler. Still useful, however, he survived the Gulf war. American troops did nothing to overturn the Iraqi dictator. And they stood idly by in the spring of 1991 while his presidential guard ruthlessly suppressed the popular uprising for which the United States’ president had himself called.

  http://mondediplo.com/1998/03/04iraqkn

  and then in 2003

  President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials asserted before the U.S. invasion that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, had chemical and biological weapons and maintained links to al Qaeda affiliates to whom it might give such weapons to use against the United States.

  but in 2004

  Charles A. Duelfer, whom the Bush administration chose to complete the U.S. investigation of Iraq's weapons programs, said Hussein's ability to produce nuclear weapons had "progressively decayed" since 1991. Inspectors, he said, found no evidence of "concerted efforts to restart the program." The findings were similar on biological and chemical weapons. While Hussein had long dreamed of developing an arsenal of biological agents, his stockpiles had been destroyed and research stopped years before the United States led the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. Duelfer said Hussein hoped someday to resume a chemical weapons effort after U.N. sanctions ended, but had no stocks and had not researched making the weapons for a dozen years.

  Duelfer's report, delivered yesterday to two congressional committees, represents the government's most definitive accounting of Hussein's weapons programs, the assumed strength of which the Bush administration presented as a central reason for the war. While previous reports have drawn similar conclusions, Duelfer's assessment went beyond them in depth, detail and level of certainty.

  "We were almost all wrong" on Iraq, Duelfer told a Senate panel yesterday.

  ....The document rules out the possibility that biological weapons might have been hidden, or perhaps smuggled into another country, and it finds no evidence of secret biological laboratories or ongoing research that could be firmly linked to a weapons program.

  and yet

  House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) said: "We didn't have to find plans or weapons to see what happened when Saddam Hussein used chemical and biological weapons on his own people. So just because we can't find them and Saddam Hussein had 12 years to hide them doesn't mean he didn't have them and didn't use them."

  and people are still echoing this sentiment in spite of all available facts.

  And people continue to suffer and die for a lie while other people profit from it.

  ~Merry
• 
  22

  ''Miracle Wheat'' in the news today

  by candidlynuts in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  the brooklynn eagle's ''today in history'' .

  an excerpt is posted below.

  there's more to the story on the link.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Merry Magdalene

  I had never heard this part before:

  In 1912 Russell went on a world tour and had sermons published in many places as paid advertisements. The 2/19/1912 issue of the Brooklyn Daily Eagle stated that the newspaper had proof that Russell never preached the sermons as he claimed. He stated he had preached them before thousands but witnesses who were on the same cruise refuted it. They were said to be imaginary sermons and Russell was again proven to be a fibber.

  Interesting. Thanks for posting.

  ~Merry
• 
  16

  NON JW Watchtower Shareholders!

  by Gill in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i remember reading on a thread probably a year or so back that some of the wt shareholders, some of the many who are now shareholders of multiple wt companies, are not jws!.

  can someone enlighten me on this and how this could come about in the first place?.

  i take it that should the wt actually 'dissolve' these shareholders would take whatever is left financially in the companies!

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Merry Magdalene

  I forgot to quote this before:

  my understanding is that the limited number of shareholders are only voting shares, not ownership interest. this is the case because the corporations are all charities (non-profit organizations). with a non-profit corporation, no share holder, officer, etc. is allowed to profit from an ownership interest. in a sense charities are "owned" by the public. they enjoy their tax-free status because they give back to the public or serve the public's interest. if someone that is private individuals were allowed to benefit, then that would be a taxable situation. (of course this doesn't mean that charities don't take in more revenue than expenses (i.e. profit), can't pay a reasonable percentage of operating costs as salaries or on personnel, etc., or are exempt from all forms of taxation.)

  charities are set up for the benefit of the general public or with specific purposes to serve specific segments of the public. if a charity has to be wound up, after payment of any debts, any residual assets are either distributed in accord with the Articles of Incorporation or in the absent of a specific directive, in a manner that would similarly serve the public interest as the purpose of the charity. Generally the board of directors has this responsibility to wind up the non-profit corporation (charity) and makes such decisions as to the distribution or use of assets. If however, there is no acting board of directors or responsible party, the State Secretary where the charity is incorporated would make such a distribution or allotment. The goal would be to use such assets to serve the public interest in comparable fashion, so for example lets say there were a certain sum left of cash, no board, and the State Sec is making the decison, the State Sec could distribute the funds to other religious or bible charities/non-profits.

  --from Ouroborous on another thread http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/121766/2150350/post.ashx#2150350

  This is as close as I have been able to come to the WTS's Articles of Incorporation, a Charter Amendment registered in 1945, still interesting in its own right. It does discuss membership. Haven't read it all yet.

  http://www.macgregorministries.org/jehovahs_witnesses/charterscans/wt_chartscans.html

  ~Merry

  edited to add link to other post
• 
  16

  NON JW Watchtower Shareholders!

  by Gill in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i remember reading on a thread probably a year or so back that some of the wt shareholders, some of the many who are now shareholders of multiple wt companies, are not jws!.

  can someone enlighten me on this and how this could come about in the first place?.

  i take it that should the wt actually 'dissolve' these shareholders would take whatever is left financially in the companies!

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Merry Magdalene

  I bring this back up just in case someone knows or has an idea how to find out

  ...who the WT Society has named as their beneficiary in the event they dissolved.

  as it certainly might be interesting.

  I am also curious about this:

  A tip for those "following the money": The Treasurer's office was always part of the Pennsylvania corporation. Today I see Treasurer's correspondence under the NY corporation. Makes you go hmmmmmm.

  ~Merry
• 
  16

  NON JW Watchtower Shareholders!

  by Gill in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i remember reading on a thread probably a year or so back that some of the wt shareholders, some of the many who are now shareholders of multiple wt companies, are not jws!.

  can someone enlighten me on this and how this could come about in the first place?.

  i take it that should the wt actually 'dissolve' these shareholders would take whatever is left financially in the companies!

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Merry Magdalene

  This was what I found using the on-site search function:

  KV: The Watchtower Empire has established numerous legal entities around the world. While likely similar, I suspect that "corporations" and "associations" may have some legal differences from country to country. To the best of my knowledge, all U.S. WTS/JW entities are currently "non-profit corporations". As such, they do not issue shares of stock, thus do not have shareholders. Rather, the corporate charters provide for "members", who each have one vote. The WTS's Charters provide for a specified quantity of members who are chosen/removed by the particular Board of Directors. The Charters also specify the responsibilities, duties, and liabilities (if any) of such members. http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/11/16627/202736/post.ashx#202736

  The voting members of the Watch Tower corporation are long time JWs, and the numebr has been normally around 500. But some do not attend the shareholder meeting, and vote by proxy, so the number 337 you mention is only of those that might attend or remember to vote.

  The only way one of these would not be a JW is if that person left the religion. But, I have no doubt that they have a means to remove or buy-out the share value, which is likely kept at a low nominal value. The share holders simply own stock in a 'Holding Corporation' that operates the subsidiary corporations.

  The only other way a Watch Tower asset may be held by non-JWs is where they own stock as a minority shareholder, and the stock is actually controlled by proxy. For example, the Society might turn over cash assets to be invested through an agent, such as Citibank, who then invests the funs on their behalf, and the Agent has proxy power, or power of attorney to buy, sell, trade, move assets, or hold net proceeds until reinvested. - Amazing http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/8395/99064/post.ashx#99064

  There were indeed non-JWs in the past. Some real characters.

  The idea has been advanced that the corporation is actually some outside group with insidious goals. Nope. The members are insidious enough in their rubber stamp. The Society follows "the Society."

  Replacement members have been C A R E F U L L Y selected. The ones I know personally are about as sweet and placid as one can imagine, followers following followers following followers--quite happy to get their ticket to go to the annual meeting and to agree upon everything the Lord wants ...

  :: Yes, the GB are no part of the corporation therefore gave up any voting rights.

  That's what's incorrect. As individuals the GB members may be part of a corporation but they now are not officers or directors thereof.

  There are a number of Watch Tower or Watchtower entities that may exist only as a letterhead. I've negotiated convention contracts on such prior to execution of an agreement between the venue and the New York corporation. In recent years these procedures are rigidly controlled.

  A tip for those "following the money": The Treasurer's office was always part of the Pennsylvania corporation. Today I see Treasurer's correspondence under the NY corporation. Makes you go hmmmmmm.

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/8395/99369/post.ashx#99369

  jurs,

  To Seeker, How did these people become members able to vote ?

  To be honest, I'm not sure how a person becomes a voting member nowadays.

  and what did they vote on ?

  Please note, we are not talking about GB voting matters here. The members of the corporation gather once a year, in person or by proxy, at the annual meeting to vote on corporation matters. Basically, when the officers of the corporation have their terms expiring, the members have to vote on either keeping that officer in place or voting someone else in. In practice, the expiring officers are always voted back in. It's a rubber-stamp affair. And that's all this is, a legal stockhold's meeting, and nothing else. Takes about 30 minutes, once a year.
  
  

  Stock shares ??? I never knew their was stock.

  Well, any corporation has stock, even companies that don't go public, like the WTS. The shares aren't worth anything if it doesn't go public, but exists merely as a form of control of the corporation in the aggregate.

  How did you guys find this out ?

  I was in Bethel, and I have been to the annual meetings where they announce the voting results and give the membership numbers (how many of them are anointed, etc.)

  Do most JW's know this ? Perhaps the information was in a watchtower that I never read or mentioned in a meeting I missed.

  It's in the Watchtower every year, in a box that calls for attendance at the annual meeting in early October, or else sending in your proxy votes.
  
  

  Do these shareholders get to keep the money that they may make ?
  Has anyone been able to look up the stock and see what its worth??

  What money? The stock has no real monetary value, for it's not a public company.

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/8395/99521/post.ashx#99521

  When I formed my nonprofit org (also in NY), I had to stipulate in my by-laws who would get any leftover assets if I dissolved my org. It is not that the public is entitled to the assets, but that another nonprofit is designated to get them. For the wts, that could mean a kh, or the Red Cross (ha ha), or whomever they chose.

  I have done extensive research on the "shareholders" rumor and have found no evidence that there are shareholders today

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/121766/2153170/post.ashx#2153170

  Any non-profit organization can send out bills and charge for services and not pay income taxes ... the issue is not whether they bill a customer or not ... but whether they make a "profit" ... additionally, the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society is a not-for-profit """religious""" organization, and as such, are exempt from income tax liability - even IF they have """surplus cash""" held over at the end of their fiscal year ... as long as that cash is used and recapitalized into their operation, and no dividends (profits) are paid to shareholders ... then they are truly a non-profit organization ... it's that simple.

  PS: The Watchtower Society, as any religion CAN ask for money from the public in the form of donations, and they CAN bill public (non-JW) organizations the same for services ... again, the issue is that they are not making a profit, and that they are a religion, exempt from tax liability ...

  Edited by - Amazing on 8 December 2002 9:52:58

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/41972/582811/post.ashx#582811
• 
  22

  It's not WHAT you believe; it is HOW you believe.

  by Terry in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  overheard:.

  "is your cup half full or half empty?

  "well, depends on whether you just poured something out or poured something in.".

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Merry Magdalene

  Interesting and thought-provoking, Terry. I have been noticing some of these differences between 'what' and 'how' in my own life recently.

  Welcome, Aleman.

  And almost all of them still carry crosses, like the ignorant people they are. I mean really! If they only look up the history of Roman punishment they will become informed and 'the truth will set them free'.

  With your obvious passion for truth, you might find this thread interesting (just click on the following title):"The facts on crucifixion, stauros and the torture stake".
• 
  62

  Barbara Anderson's Paedophilia CD: The Watchtowers Chocolate Cake Defence

  by Duncan in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  i received my copy of barbara andersons cd paedophilia in an american religion a month or two ago, and i have been reading through it since.. what follows, although i have called this a review, is in no sense a scholarly consideration of the legal merits of the cases described, a task for which i am wholly unqualified.

  these are, rather, my subjective reflections on the material presented, the impressions i gathered while reading the legal filings, my untrained, common-man appraisal of the cases laid out in those documents.

  ill also admit to being swayed by tone of voice adopted, and to using my own common-sense yardstick in determining the reasonableness of the statements made, the responses given and the arguments put forward.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Merry Magdalene

  Thanks so much for sharing that! Chocolate cake defense...interesting...and utterly detestable.

  ~Merry
• 
  171

  Have you changed your mind about ABORTION?

  by nicolaou in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i'm not after a discussion on the rights or wrongs on abortion, what i'm asking is whether or not your views have evolved over time.. perhaps leaving the watchtower was enough to allow your true feelings on abortion to find expression.

  maybe abortion is one of those subjects where you still find yourself in agreement with your old jw self.

  did becoming a mother change your perspective in any way or solidify your views?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Merry Magdalene

  Can't quite say that I have changed my mind since my mind was never fully and firmly made up as to the details of the matter, how I felt about the possibility arising in my own life and what I thought the law should be. It was one of those uncomfortable subjects I didn't even want to think about for too long.

  But it seemed obvious to me that abortion ends life and is therefore killing which, in some circumstances can be murder and in other circumstances can be justified as necessary. But how to delineate that?

  Personally, there was a woman in my family who died long long ago of a coat-hanger abortion, and everyone spoke very sympathetically of her even though they were against abortion. Her circumstances were very bad. But I wonder now if they would have been as sympathetic to her if only the baby had died and she had lived. Knowing them, I rather think they would have been, but would they have gone so far as to want to allow legal abortion to be limitedly available? I don't know.

  Also personally, I was always very careful to prevent pregnancy for myself to the best of my ability...with the eventual exception of the one time that I got pregnant. It was not a good time in my life for a pregnancy, not at all. I panicked. I considered abortion. Cold sweat. Hot sweat. Nowhere to turn. 35 years old. Unmarried, recently jobless (in a very small town with very limited opportunities) and on the verge of being homeless, completely in debt to survive and with no money to file for bankruptcy. I could go on but I won't.

  At least I can empathise better now with those who find themselves in difficult circumstances. But still, when I hear someone speak of "my body" "my right" I cringe. Because it isn't just "my body". There's another body inside it, completely helpless and dependant. Both bodies and both rights must be considered. That is why I tend to understand and agree with the analogy of how people once felt about the treatment of slaves and wives and children outside the womb--theirs to do with as they pleased and no one had the right to interfere.

  So I have to say I am truly pleased and relieved to find general Islamic teachings on this to be balanced and helpful.

  ...theologians have concluded that the killing of a fetus is not permissible as soon as one can speak of it as of a "child", a person whose parts are fully formed and into whom a soul has been breathed. There is no agreement among legal scholars – including those of the founders of the four schools of religious law of the early Islamic period – as to the exact point in time this happens, however.
  
  The Hanafi school (predominant in Turkey, the Middle East and Central Asia) allows abortions to take place principally until day 120; some jurists restrict this provision to "good cause", e.g. if the mother is still nursing an infant and fears that her milk may run out during the new pregnancy. In aborting up to day 120, the woman commits a mere moral transgression, not a crime. The Shafi school (Southeast Asia, southern Arabia, parts of East Africa) allows abortions to be performed up to day 120. For the Maliki school (prevalent in North and Black Africa) an abortion is permissible with the consent of both parents up to day 40; it is no longer allowed after that. For the Hanbali school (predominant in Saudi Arabia and United Arabic Emirates) abortions are principally prohibited from day 40 onward.
  
  Exceptions are made in some countries if the life of the mother is endangered, based on Surah 2.233: "A mother should not be made to suffer because of her child." As a result, abortion is possible for health reasons up to day 90 according to a number of scholars.
  
  
  The eminent Muslim scholar, Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi states in his well-known book, "The Lawful and the Prohibited in Islam":
  
  "While Islam permits preventing pregnancy for valid reasons, it does not allow doing violence to it once it occurs.
  
  Muslim jurists have agreed unanimously that after the fetus is completely formed and has been given a soul, abortion is Haram. It is also a crime, the commission of which is prohibited to the Muslim because it constitutes an offense against a complete, living human being....However, there is one exceptional situation. If, say the jurists, after the baby is completely formed, it is reliably shown that the continuation of the pregnancy would necessarily result in the death of the mother, then, in accordance with the general principle of the Shari'ah, that of choosing the lesser of two evils, abortion must be performed.
  
  The reason for this is that the mother is the origin of the fetus; moreover, her life is well-established, with duties and responsibilities, and she is also a pillar of the family. It would not be possible to sacrifice her life for the life of a fetus which has not yet acquired a personality and which has no responsibilities or obligations to fulfill.

  ~Merry
• 
  23

  What can we learn from the recent upheavals on the board

  by Lady Lee in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i had this this in my head and even had it typed out but didn't post it but i see some still need to talk about the trevor saga on the board.. i was reading some of the initial threads where many people posted how they felt about what trevor had done.

  people used the words; anger, shock, disbelief, hurt, sickened, duped, suckered, creeped out, confused, stupid, and betrayed.. given the situation those are all perfectly normal responses.

  it isn't easy when we find out we have been lied to.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Merry Magdalene

  Thanks for your answer Lady Lee. Your perspective seems very balanced and so helpful.

  ~Merry