Posts by kepler

322

WT Nov. 1, 2011 (public) - When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed - Part 2

by AnnOMaly in

out now.. yes, yes, yessssss!

on p. 26-27 they talk about how the lunar positions on vat 4956 fit 588/7 bce!!!.

"clearly, much of the astronomical data in vat 4956 fits the year 588 b.c.e.

kepler

Londo, Kurt, Ann,...

It's nice to see we've got a few scattered astronomy and astrodynamics enthusiasts here. And in accordance with the intent of keeping this thread going, I'll add a little recollection here too. My apologies in advance for some missing details. This is not with full notes.

Not being a JW, but having JW issues turning the last few years into a nightmare, about 2 years ago my attention was directed to the 1914 date as something stemming out of a 2500 year old previous destruction of Jerusalem. That's all I knew other than noticing a discrepancy between secular histories and the literature I was supposed to study ("What the Bible Really Teaches") with a lot more obvious problems. I had read the Ray Franz book, "Crisis of Conscious" and had acquired a lot of information about matters as viewed from the inside of the organization, but being on the outside, I found his discussion about the 587/607 controversy less explicit. As I recall, he said early in the book that he spent twenty or thirty pages in "Reasoning from Scriptures" presenting an argument against findings of Assyrianologists and admitted that he had not convinced himself. There were too many thousands of Neo-Babylonian cuneiform tablets to counter.

Subsequently I did read one of the editions of Olaf Jonsson's book on "The Gentile Times Reconsidered". The reason I bring up "editions" is that at the time I was looking for it on Amazon, the price of used copies fluctuated crazily: sometimes $15.00, sometime $150. I was wondering if someone was buying crates full and then dumping them in an incinerator. Do you suppose?

Jonsson had several lines of argument which included astronomical records. After a while it dawned on me ( summer of 2010) that I had already available some software to examine this problem: The ephemeris program Alcyone that I had purchased earlier as a check for planet, moon and asteroid positions. I seldom use if for observing, but from time to time it was of help in looking at planetary or satellite positions for space mission studies. In one case, it solved a problem of why one return from lunar polar orbit was on target and the other was not: the relative position of the sun as a perturbing body...

Anyway, rather than attempting to reconstruct planetary positions as described above, I concentrated on the four reported lunar eclipses that would seem to bracket the "secular" date for destruction of Jerusalem in the second siege.

15 September 591 BC

08 February 579 BC

02 March 567 BC

05 September 563 BC

My criteria for identification were simultaneous:

1. )that solar and lunar celestial longitudes (right ascension) would be 180 degrees or 12 hours apart

2. ) that solar and lunar celestial latitude ( declination) were of the same magnitude and opposite in sign.

When I first attempted these searches in 2010, I had a problem somewhat akin to the Society's. In this case, the software treated BCE dates with a zero year and counted backward from there. So I had to load the 15 September date in above as "-591". I had some results in January and February 2011. I don't know if the table will be visible in this entry, but here is what I am looking at from one of my Alcyone runs.

At -590 (591BC), September 15, at Baghdad universal time + 3hours, 6:00 local

RA Declination

Solar position: 11h 05m 44sec 5deg 53 min 47 sec

Lunar position: 23h 01m 57.9sec -6deg 05 min 06 sec

Since the moon and sun are about half a degree wide, I'd say the closest match was at about 07:20. The other three observation dates had similarfeatures and tolerances.

Whether visible above the horizon in Baghdad or Babylon, the LBAT 1419, 1420 and 1421 tablet data appears to provide good predictions for lunar eclipses. If you were to reset those four dates by 20 years and x days, I see no way that a duplicate set of eclipses could be generated.

Subsequently, I took the time to build a spreadsheet with the astronomical events, kings' reigns over several kingdoms and many of the other items enumerated by Jonsson and other writers about ancient Iraq.

There are other matters I have debated with members of the forum, true. But as far as the 587/607 issue is concerned - I look forward to seeing a widely available app for phones...

Later, looking for where the 607 BC story got started, I traced it back to the Studies of the Scriptures volumes by C. T. Russell with the 606 date. He might have got the idea from reading one entry in Barnes Bible notes about the first chapter of Daniel, but Barnes states unequivocably elsewhere ( commentary on 2 Kings 25:8) that Jerusalem fell in the 580s. Russell subsequently worked with astronomer Piazzi Smith to concoct the pyramid "proof" based on passageways for an 1870s Return and then refining it in the next century, perhaps with a file for 1914 in later publications of the work.

And, of course, despite pyramids being "satanic" according to Russell, and a discrepancy of a year zero in the chronology, and the event being invisible... it all worked.

A post script. My efforts have not meant an iota of difference to anyone I know who got their ancient history via the Watchtower.

76

Anthony Morris III... Did he really serve in Vietnam? Something doesn't quite add up...

by Calebs Airplane in

born in 1950, he apparently became a regular pioneer in 1971.. but wait.... let's just say that he enlisted (or was drafted) in 1968 at age 18.... depending on the branch of service, he would have to complete anywhere from 2 to 4 years of service.

yes, duty in hot combat zones was usually limited to 6-months at a time but you still had to serve a total of 2 to 4 years depending on the branch of service.

assuming he only served 2 years, he would have been 20 years old and discharged by 1970.... how did he get witnessed to, complete a book study, become an unbaptized publisher, get baptized and then become a regular pioneer in less than year???.

kepler

The first footnote mentioned above :

Joseph Parisi was drafted on August 22, 1968. According to the inservice conscientious objector application he filed with the Army on May 22, 1969 (pursuant to Army Regulation (AR) 635-20), Parisi had doubts at the time of his induction about his feelings toward military service. However, his beliefs did not coalesce into conscientious objection until he was well down the road of basic training and initial duty assignment (psychological social work and counseling). His application, which was made prior to issuance of any order for redeployment to a combat station, also stated that his Army experiences to that point led him to the firm conviction that participation in any form of military activity conflicted irreconcilably with his Christian beliefs

The initial interviews mandated by AR 635-20 uniformly terminated in Parisi's favor; the base Chaplain, the base psychiatrist, and the special hearing officer (as well as Parisi's immediate supervisor) all attested to the sincerity and religious nature of Parisi's conscientious objection to military service. According to the record, the Commander of the Army hospital at Parisi's base as well as the Commanding General of his training center also recommended approval of the application, although they did not interview Parisi personally. However, Parisi's immediate commanding officer, Captain Hubman, recommended disapproval, with the notation, "Consider application contrary to paragraph 3b(3) AR 635-20." This paragraph provides that conscientious objector applications will not be favorably considered when:

"(3) Based on essentially political, sociological, or philosophical views, or on a merely personal moral code."

Captain Hubman had not interviewed Parisi nor had he engaged in any conversations with Parisi about the latter's religious beliefs and convictions.

In November, 1969, the Department of the Army denied Parisi's application. That office noted two reasons for its decision: (1) that Parisi's professed beliefs became fixed prior to entering the service, and (2) that Parisi was not truly opposed to all war due to his religious beliefs, as demonstrated by his attempts thus far to support it.

Parisi then applied to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) for review of the denial of his discharge. Shortly thereafter, on November 28, 1969, he applied to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California for a writ of habeas corpus. He therein sought discharge from the Army as a conscientious objector.

In his habeas petition Parisi claimed that there was no basis in fact for the grounds cited by the Department of the Army in denying his application for a discharge. In addition, Parisi sought a preliminary injunction pending disposition of the proceeding to prevent respondents from: (1) requiring him to obey an order of August 8, 1969, to undergo training preparatory to being transferred to Viet Nam for duty; and (2) transferring him outside the jurisdiction of the District Court where the proceeding was commenced.

On the day the petition was filed, the District Court, after a hearing, entered an Order enjoining respondents from assigning Parisi to any duties which required materially greater participation in combat activity or training than was being required of him in this then present duties. This Order was to remain in effect pending decision by the ABCMR on Parisi's application to it for discharge as a conscientious objector.

The district court order recites that the court would retain jurisdiction of the case until the ABCMR made its decision. The Order also denied Parisi's application for a preliminary injunction against his transfer out of the Northern District of California. On December 4, 1969, Parisi took an interlocutory appeal (No. 25,133 in this court) from the Order denying his requested preliminary injunction.

About this time, Parisi received orders to process out of his then duty station at Ford Ord. California, and, following training, to report to the Overseas Replacement Station at Oakland, California, on December 31, 1969. This was later changed to the United States Army Personnel Center, Fort Lewis, Washington. Parisi then moved in this court for an order staying his deployment outside the Northern District of California pending disposition of his appeal.

Three other judges of our court denied the motion on December 10, 1969, "on condition that Respondents produce Appellant in this district if the appeal results in his favor." On December 29, 1969, the Circuit Justice denied a similar application for a stay.

Parisi reported, on December 31, 1969, as directed, to the United States Army Personnel Center, Fort Lewis, Washington. At that time he requested an opportunity to file a second application for discharge as a conscientious objector. As required by AR 635-20, he was given seven days to complete his application. However, on January 6, 1970, Parisi advised the authorities at the Personnel Center that he no longer wished to make out an application. Accordingly, he was booked for transportation overseas.

Parisi then refused to obey a military order to board a plane for Viet Nam. He was immediately charged with violating Article 90 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 890, and was confined to the Post Stockade, pending disposition of the charge against him.

On March 2, 1970, while Parisi's court-martial was pending, the ABCMR notified Parisi of its rejection of his application for relief from the Army's denial of his discharge request. Four days later the District Court, pursuant to Parisi's habeas petition, entered an Order requiring respondents (appellees in this appeal) to show cause why a writ should not be issued. The United States responded by moving in the District Court for a stay of the habeas proceedings pending exhaustion of Parisi's military judicial remedies.

At this point Parisi suggested to a panel of judges of our court that the first interlocutory appeal he had taken from his habeas proceeding (No. 25,133 in this court, above) should be dismissed as moot. As noted, the ABCMR had by this time denied him relief, and, since he was incarcerated at Fort Lewis, there was no remaining need for an injunction to keep him in this country. We entered the requested Order, dismissing the first appeal, on March 17, 1970.

On March 31, 1970, responding to the Government's motion that it abstain pending completion of Parisi's court-martial proceedings, the District Court entered an Order staying its consideration of Parisi's habeas petition until there was a trial and a final judgment in the military courts on the court-martial charges.

The District Court did not stay the court-martial proceedings pending our consideration of the interlocutory appeal, nor have we done so; consequently, in the interim between the date of the district court order, March 31, 1970, and the date of our acceptance of the appeal, April 24, 1970, Parisi was, on April 8, 1970, court-martialed and convicted of the charge against him. He is presently confined in the United States Army Disciplinary Barracks, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, serving a sentence of two years at hard labor, with dishonorable discharge. We have been advised that his appeal before the Court of Military Review is now pending.

76

Anthony Morris III... Did he really serve in Vietnam? Something doesn't quite add up...

by Calebs Airplane in

born in 1950, he apparently became a regular pioneer in 1971.. but wait.... let's just say that he enlisted (or was drafted) in 1968 at age 18.... depending on the branch of service, he would have to complete anywhere from 2 to 4 years of service.

yes, duty in hot combat zones was usually limited to 6-months at a time but you still had to serve a total of 2 to 4 years depending on the branch of service.

assuming he only served 2 years, he would have been 20 years old and discharged by 1970.... how did he get witnessed to, complete a book study, become an unbaptized publisher, get baptized and then become a regular pioneer in less than year???.

kepler

I am attaching some supplementary material - incrementally.

I don't think I have sufficient time or research acumen to finish this job on my own, but I think it is important issue to study.

1. For those on this forum who are genuine conscientious objectors, and I have no doubt that there are many, the data provided by this case might be interesting to contemplate. The Joseph Parisi case remains a precedent setting case. It might have been that Joseph Parisi determined the outcome of the Anthony Morris case, or the Joseph Parisi case is the Anthony Morris case. While some of the details in the Parisi case do not mesh exactly with our "hearsay" record, it's amusing to think that someone of Italian descent ends up as "Anthony Morris III". But several monarchs and consorts named George or Albert spoke better German than English...

Some of the numbers below attached to extensive footnotes - particularly 1. The appeal attached below states the defense department argument headed toward the US Court of Appeals, naming attorneys involved.

To summarize, Parisi appealed to the chain of command not to deploy to VN war zone because of his CO convictions, but the appeal was still pending when he was ordered to depart. Not boarding the plane placed him in a judicial limbo. Beside dealing with Parisi, the judicial system had to work out a legal position for all the similar cases.

--------------------------------------------------------

435 F.2d 299

Joseph PARISI, Appellant, v. Major General Phillip B. DAVIDSON et al., Appellees.

No. 25773. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

December 3, 1970.

Richard L. Goff, San Francisco, Cal. (argued), Douglas M. Schwab, San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.

Steven Kazan (argued), Asst. U. S. Atty., James L. Browning, Jr., U. S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for appellees.

Before HAMLEY, ELY, and CARTER, Circuit Judges.

ELY, Circuit Judge:

1

This is an interlocutory appeal, under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), from an Order of the District Court, staying habeas corpus proceedings brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 until trial and final determination of court-martial charges then lodged against the appellant.

2

The complex history of the case is set out in detail in the margin.1 Briefly, Parisi is an army private who alleges that his application for discharge as a conscientious objector was denied by the army without a basis in fact for the denial. His petition was first presented to the District Court in November, 1969, but proceedings were stayed pending his administrative appeal to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records [ABCMR].2 A partial preliminary injunction also issued, prohibiting Parisi's assignment to any duties which required materially greater participation in combat activity or training than was being required of him in his then duties.

3

Before the ABCMR's decision, however, Parisi was ordered to Viet Nam, where he was to perform noncombatant duties similar to those which had been assigned to him and which he had been performing in this country. After unsuccessful attempts to win a stay of his redeployment order both from our court and from the Circuit Justice, Parisi chose, with all attendant risks, to disobey a military order to enplane for Viet Nam. Charges were then immediately filed against him, under U.C.M.J. art. 90, for failure to obey a lawful order.

4

Prior to the date set for court-martial, the ABCMR notified Parisi that it had ruled against his appeal. The District Court promptly ordered the Government to show cause why a writ should not then issue. In its return, the Government, requested the stay Order in question, on the grounds that to permit concurrent federal court proceedings would constitute an unwarranted interference with the military court system.

5

The question is not an easy one, but we have concluded that habeas proceedings were properly stayed pending the final conclusion of Parisi's military trial and his appeals therefrom.

6

The military, no less an agency of the federal government than the federal court system, has the equal responsibility to act consistently with the Constitution and laws of the United States.3 While civilian courts are available to correct, in a proper case, abuses by military authorities,4 they must be careful to avoid unwarranted interference with internal military matters.

7

"[J]udges are not given the task of running the Army. The responsibility for setting up channels through which such grievances can be considered and fairly settled rests upon the Congress and upon the President of the United States and his subordinates. The military constitutes a specialized community governed by a separate discipline from that of the civilian. Orderly government requires that the judiciary be as scrupulous not to interfere with legitimate Army matters as the Army must be scrupulous not to interfere in judicial matters."

76

Anthony Morris III... Did he really serve in Vietnam? Something doesn't quite add up...

by Calebs Airplane in

born in 1950, he apparently became a regular pioneer in 1971.. but wait.... let's just say that he enlisted (or was drafted) in 1968 at age 18.... depending on the branch of service, he would have to complete anywhere from 2 to 4 years of service.

yes, duty in hot combat zones was usually limited to 6-months at a time but you still had to serve a total of 2 to 4 years depending on the branch of service.

assuming he only served 2 years, he would have been 20 years old and discharged by 1970.... how did he get witnessed to, complete a book study, become an unbaptized publisher, get baptized and then become a regular pioneer in less than year???.

kepler

Back in the same period in question, went on leave from where I was serving to see a friend who had a summer job in the UK. On a summer Sunday I boarded a train from London after arriving at Heathrow, headede for Cornwall. I discovered I had a pence left in my pocket and had left my friend's address back at the base across the Channel. When I got to the sea coast town, I inquired with the constabulary:

"Well, he's an American; he's working with a clay mining operation ... and he's staying at a bed and breakfast..."

The local police could have been watching Monty Python. They were rolling on the floor. My friend was effectively anonymous.

When I gave up searching and decided to try to negotiate a place to stay, the first B&R I walked into was the one where he was staying.

-----------------------------------

In continuing to research this question, I am encountering the same situation. Medics serving at Long Binh with conscientious objections were about as numerous as bed and breakfast guests in St. Austell. But there was a complicated CO case that made its way to the Supreme Court with many parallels to the Morris account as we understand it:

435 F.2d 299

bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/435/435.F2d.299.25773_1.html
Joseph PARISI, Appellant, ... Richard L. Goff, San Francisco, Cal. (argued), Douglas M. Schwab, San Francisco, Cal., for appellant. .... First, Parisi asserts that denial of an application for conscientious objector discharge without a basis in fact is ...

In this instance, it is not clear whether army medic ever reached Vietnam in 1969, but some of the details of the case were similar.

At the very least, they could have had an effect on the outcome of the similar Morris petition, Mr. Morris and Mr. Parisi are NOT the same individual. Two terms of incarceration were involved. In the first, while Parisi's conscientious objection appeal was under review, Parisi refused to board a transport aircraft to his Vietnam assignment. Whether for Long Binh or elsewhere I have not been able to determine. Nor can I determine from the record as yet whether Parisi's religious convictions were of a distinctly different nature than those of Mr. Morris.

I will not attempt to recap the legal arguments here. But it is a definite lead.

76

Anthony Morris III... Did he really serve in Vietnam? Something doesn't quite add up...

by Calebs Airplane in

born in 1950, he apparently became a regular pioneer in 1971.. but wait.... let's just say that he enlisted (or was drafted) in 1968 at age 18.... depending on the branch of service, he would have to complete anywhere from 2 to 4 years of service.

yes, duty in hot combat zones was usually limited to 6-months at a time but you still had to serve a total of 2 to 4 years depending on the branch of service.

assuming he only served 2 years, he would have been 20 years old and discharged by 1970.... how did he get witnessed to, complete a book study, become an unbaptized publisher, get baptized and then become a regular pioneer in less than year???.

kepler

In continued search on this topic, I was able to uncover an official biograph with some elaboration elsewhere:

---------------------

Anthony Morris III

Born in 1950. Brother Morris entered the pioneer service in 1971 in the United States. In December of that year, he married Susan, and they continued pioneering for nearly four years until the birth of their first son, Jesse. In time, they had another son, Paul. Brother Morris reentered the full-time service in 1979 as a regular pioneer. His wife joined him when the boys entered school. The family served where the need was great in Rhode Island and North Carolina, in the United States. In North Carolina, Brother Morris served as a substitute circuit overseer, and the boys took up regular pioneer service. Jesse and Paul were invited to the United States branch at the age of 19. Meanwhile, Brother Morris began circuit work. Then, in 2002 he and Susan were invited to Bethel, starting their new assignment on August 1. Brother Morris worked in the Service Department at Patterson and later as a helper to the Service Committee of the Governing Body. Appointed to the Governing Body on August 24, 2005.

------

Noted elsewhere was an inability to verify that an Anthony Morris III served in VN as a medic at Long Binh; nor, subsequently, that a military courts martial commenced over the issues of serving in that capacity.

It was noted, however:

"A Bethelite has claimed that Morris, Jackson and Pierce became known in Brooklyn's Bethel headquarters as a trinity of three Commanders acting as collective bosses after the death in 2010 of Ted Jaracz."

Since it is noted elsewhere as well that Mr. Morris is of Italian descent, it is possible that Anthony's surname at birth or enlistment was NOT Morris and that any records in the 2000 or so courts martial in FY 1970 were recorded as a proceeding of the United States vs. Tony Mxxxx - or perhaps a last name that begins with a different letter. If it is as recorded in the Awake article above, the name might be repeated within a year or two in legal records. However, it makes no sense that he could be convicted twice for not following the same order. Something else must have occurred.

Since the biographical information also omits the maiden name of Mrs. Susan Morris, one can only conclude that there is a deliberate effort to obscure the background of this member of the governing board. Mr. Morris is clearly not associated with any institutions of higher learning or professional organizations. His personal signature appears on little or no written correspondence and his speech and audio records appear to be brief save for admonitions to prepare for Armageddon. ... His name appears nowhere in the 2011 Yearbook.

There appears to be no one on Earth beside the other members of the board that can give him any vetting.

As a matter of corporate governance and oversight, this is an example of a hi-jacking undertaken in plain sight. Unless there is forth-coming information from co-workers in Rhode Island or North Carolina who had worked with him, evidently people, either born in the movement or who have just left, genuinely have no clue who this individual is!

76

Anthony Morris III... Did he really serve in Vietnam? Something doesn't quite add up...

by Calebs Airplane in

born in 1950, he apparently became a regular pioneer in 1971.. but wait.... let's just say that he enlisted (or was drafted) in 1968 at age 18.... depending on the branch of service, he would have to complete anywhere from 2 to 4 years of service.

yes, duty in hot combat zones was usually limited to 6-months at a time but you still had to serve a total of 2 to 4 years depending on the branch of service.

assuming he only served 2 years, he would have been 20 years old and discharged by 1970.... how did he get witnessed to, complete a book study, become an unbaptized publisher, get baptized and then become a regular pioneer in less than year???.

kepler

Since last post, have seen Cedars' #V video in which Mr. Morris recounts his experience in the war. Whether it was generally understood in this thread or not, it is Mr. Morris who says that

1. He was a medic

2. He was at Long Binh

3. He was sent out into the field to MASH units in the (Mekong) Delta

4. There was incoming mortar fire and some shrapnel broke his footlocker (?).

5. He had hospital duties on 7:00 to 7:00 shifts

6. He was new to the field units, so new that everyone could tell from his uniform

7. He didn't like being under fire. - And I don't think anyone else did either.

So I take all that as given. I assume that Mr. Morris served as an army medic and was in the field. And that based on chronologies elsewhere, this happened between 1968 and 1970. Some of that time was basic military training, and then tech school A VN field assignment thereafter for a draftee being 1 year. If a volunteer, in a special MOS (military "something" specialty) code - And I see no indication that medic was one - then the enlistment would have been longer - because additional the government invested in the soldier additional training. The government might have wanted two years of some kind of service in the field outside of tech school in a 3 year term. Maybe that was the case, but I doubt.

In the account above

...After becoming a Christian, however, he concluded he could not conscientiously ‘live by the sword’ and cause harm to a fellow human. So when called upon to serve another term he declined, and a fine was imposed. Shortly thereafter he was summoned again, and this time he was given a six-month prison sentence. Yet a third time he was called and sentenced to ten months in prison. However, he appealed this sentence to a higher court. For the next two years he was in and out of court, each time preparing himself and his wife for a ten-month separation. "My wife and I said ‘good-bye’ some 13 times in two years, but each time something happened to delay the carrying out of the sentence," he commented.

In the interim, he and his wife became special pioneers, and he was granted recognition as a minister. But the law still required that he serve his ten-month sentence. Finally he received a letter offering a suspended sentence if he would plead guilty. "I told them I could not do that, since I was innocent," explained Tony. He braced himself to go to jail. To his surprise came a letter stating that the justices of the High Court had analyzed the case and had thrown it out of court on a technicality! Tony felt blessed for declining to ‘live by the sword.’

w84 3/1 pp. 13-15 Declining to ‘Live by the Sword’—A Protection

Mr. Morris was about 18 years old when this whole cycle started. Was he already married when he was serving in Vietnam? Since he was serving in a medical field hospital, how was he "living by the sword"? It sounds to me that it was more like living under it while performing unspecified hospital duties. And subsequently, did he serve 6-months for refusing response to ....What? Why would he be convicted a second time? Why would he not be given some sort of discharge?

Since Mr. Morris is lecturing on the illegitimacy of legal governments base on his current theocratic authority, it stands to reason that when he cites his personal experience with the follies of war that we understand all the facts.

It is also interesting to note that in 1971, within one year of release from service, Mr. Morris was "granted recognition as a minister". Now that's an interesting piece of information in itself in the context of raging judicial debates this summer of 2012.

28

Perhaps the cruelest lie of all: resurrection of your loved ones

by King Solomon in

of all the lies espoused by the wtbts, perhaps the most seductive, most cruel and downright evil, is to tell grieving people that their loved ones will be resurrected, and will rejoin them in a paradise earth, forever and ever.

of course, the easiest lie to be accepted is one that people want to believe.. but taking someone when they are at their weakest, their most vulnerable, and offering such a false hope is far more cruel than anything contained even in account of the first sin, with the serpent tempting eve with the forbidden fruit.

that was simply the serpent mucking up the divine plan by appealing to her ego: no harm, no foul.

kepler

Reuniting with departed relatives or loved ones after death is inherent in Christian tradition. Near death experiences of those returned from comatose states seem to give some support to the idea too. But as Baby Doc Duvalier once said about human rights in Haiti, he was in favor, "But they had to be on [his] terms." After the son of my ex passed away, and despite the fact that the elder who presided at the funeral had blamed everything that had happened to her son on her, she made it clear that that was when she decided she would return. Shortly after making that known, I could see by the look in her eye as she spoke of being "reunited" that that was what it was all about. Whether she remembered doctrine or someone had slipped her that message, it was never clear. Obviously she thought reunion was very conditional and had something to do with her being a great pioneer. As time went by, the bar seemed to raise ever higher. Now it's easier to reach people in North Korea.

76

Anthony Morris III... Did he really serve in Vietnam? Something doesn't quite add up...

by Calebs Airplane in

born in 1950, he apparently became a regular pioneer in 1971.. but wait.... let's just say that he enlisted (or was drafted) in 1968 at age 18.... depending on the branch of service, he would have to complete anywhere from 2 to 4 years of service.

yes, duty in hot combat zones was usually limited to 6-months at a time but you still had to serve a total of 2 to 4 years depending on the branch of service.

assuming he only served 2 years, he would have been 20 years old and discharged by 1970.... how did he get witnessed to, complete a book study, become an unbaptized publisher, get baptized and then become a regular pioneer in less than year???.

kepler

I was never a JW, but I did serve in the military in the 1960s, but not in VN. When I listened to the Morris video on neutrality and then looked at the discussion of what was the nature of his service, I did bemome interested in the question and then made a couple of inquiries myself with my own veteran's e-mail group.

Before proceeding any further with this discussion, I should say that there is fellowship as well among veterans of military service. Assuming that Mr. Morris as an 18-20 year old did service in Vietnam, from my perspective he is entitled at least to the benefit of the doubt in that regard and a hearing for whatever formative experience he might have had as a result. As crazy as the careers of the alumni of my own unit turned out to be, or conduct in chain of command, we have exercised the same welcoming attitude in gathering our kindred together after the fact. But still, I've got questions.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On another forum, there arose a controversy (imagine that!) about the background of a Vietnam veteran who was born in 1950, served in Vietnam in 1968 to 1970 (?) and then changed to a conscientious objector. Like a lot of us sixty or older, he is a very opinionated gentleman about war and the civil order, serving on the governing board of an organization with a passive-aggressive stance, not to mention its Millerite apocalyptic views...

Anyway, his story never fully adds up. As near as his critics/sceptics can re-construct, he might have served at Long Binh as a medic, but then returned to the States after objecting to a second tour. See the attached article about "Tony" (cited above).

Now my recollection of army terms of enlistment and draft in the 1960s have faded with the decades. But when I heard people wondering about his story, I figured I needed to get my memory refreshed as well.

Could someone get two rotations into Vietnam when they were drafted into the army as described below?

If the guy was a medic, would he have been signed on longer? Three or four years? Could he have enlisted?

Would a military judicial record remain somewhere regarding Anthony Morris the 3rd that would shed more light on this?

"Kepler"

------------------------------------------------

Answer from one of my friends from service days:

From my recollections: You had a six-year committment. If you were drafted, you served two years active, two years active reserve, and two years inactive. If you volunteered, you served three years active and three inactive. If he was a draftee who became a medic, he would have had time to serve one 12-month stint after training and then might have been offered an opportunity to volunteer for a second tour. If memory serves me, one of the benefits(?) of being a draftee was that if you survived one 12-month tour, a return tour was voluntary. I think something else is at play, perhaps akin to Stolen Valor.

If he served, then there are military records on file, but they should be confidential.

--------------------------------------------

Well, this is Kepler again, summarizing.

There is some record of Morris's term in service (born in 1950, in and out supposedly from 1968-1970), but it is mostly hearsay and difficult to verify.

Was he in the service? Was he in the army or marines? Was he in Viet Nam? Was he at Long Binh? Was he a medic?

If he was any of the above, why was he asked to serve a second tour in Vietnam at penalty of prison term?

The only scenario I can think of that fits is that he volunteered for a service with a term longer than two years ( e.g., three) and rotated out of VN after a 12-month tour of duty. From what our two-man consensus is is that he was up for re-assignment, but the Vietnam assignment was optional or voluntary. It would be more likely that at the end of the tour, the individual in this situation said he wanted out - period. Everything else is more conjectural.

During the VN war period there were hosts of incidents such as the one vaguely described - and many of them I remember reading about in local papers as well as the military newspaper Stars and Stripes. While service records are largely confidential, judicial proceedings such as described could reach the light of day.

Clearly, Mr. Morris argues against war or combat, citing his personal experience. But his personal experience is not elaborated in any detail and he relies for argument on the authority of his present position. How an end to everything will allay the fear that he spoke of... well... Has he done that well allaying fear in his own house?

21

Misapplication of Matt. 25:40 in Watchtower Study on Sunday

by The Searcher in

sheep & goats.

jesus said, "truly i say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me".. exactly to whom was jesus addressing these words, and who were his "brothers?.

the subject matter of matthew chapter 25 deals with christ's judgement of all humans, and verses 32 & 33 make it crystal clear that there only two groups standing before him - 'sheep' and 'goats'.

kepler

The restricted interpretation of "brothers" is a typical Joseph Russell raising by one's own bootstraps interpretation that leaves 2000 years of Christianity twisting in the wind.

The authors of the lesson naturally enough assume that there were brothers in the audience before Jesus distinct from some undetermined segment of the audience meeting the sermon's words with deaf ears.

Then, we are led to believe that the institutional church went "apostate" at some temporal point left to the imagination or given rhetorical needs of a moment. With this earthly body no longer Christian, it is then left until Russell and his successors to ride to the rescue in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Thereafter, any charitable or loving consideration among the Rutherford corporate legacy is supposed to be the only legitimate manifestation of what Jesus was referring to. Odd the absence of hospitals and teaching institutions even there. I guess that institutional charity must have been another examle of the apostasy.

Never mind that when Jesus was asked to explain the concept of my brother's keeper, he gave the example of a Samaritan traveller attending to his Judean neighbor beaten and left for dead by robbers; the Samaritan who had no affiliation with Jesus or knowledge of his presumed mission.

Coming from outside the fold, sheep, goats or whatever, my most frequent contact with this passage is an exhortation to participate in mission efforts for people who were stricken by disaster: flood, famine, fire, war or whatever, with only the understanding that the mission could reach them, not whether they could produce a fellowship card.

If that was a misunderstanding, I am not interested in finding out about the correct version - nor passing it on to anyone so wrongfully engaged.

70

New YouTube video - Anthony Morris warns us against the horrors of higher education

by cedars in

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzcneuuajvg.

.

cedars.

kepler

Cedars,

I realize that the 1970s US television sitcom "All in the Family" had a trans-Atlantic background, but did I just watch a casting call video for a re-make?

Actually, I liked Carroll O'Connor in that role. He reminded me of a couple of my high school teachers with roots and accents in the Queens. Mr. Morris has something of that but not have the same delivery. The new Archie? "Archie's New Place"?

About points Mr. Morris was trying to make. For sure he didn't like the idea of a youngster enrolling in a higher institute of learning and studying Philosophy I or II. I suppose "I" leads to the other.

Like others posting, I confess I never took a philosophy course in college. But I suspect that many university graduates that Mr. Morris might encounter from day to day, students who went on to study law did. And that's probably where Mr. Morris's lament is based:

"How can you go out and get a decent, case-winning lawyer without having to bear the indignity of dealing with someone who might have had an exposure to philosophy (& ETHICS)? Why can't I find people to staff the legal department who have been trained to do and to think exactly as I say?..." A variation on Diogenes.

Hard enough already; but a pity to think that things could get so de-railed that some kids manage to get nearly all the way through Harvard with the elders standing helplessly by... Tragic.

Like I said, some of my high school teachers, who were also in a non-ordained religious order ('brothers"), used to grouse about us high school students going off to SECULAR colleges and possibly learning hostile viewpoints. But they were at least consoled that there were our religion's non-secular alternatives all over the country. Maybe half of my classmates did actually go to places like Fordham, St. John's, Dayton, Xavier, Notre Dame, etc. Had Morris been a different kind of executive, like the one's that apparently abounded in that "satanic" organization for centuries, then maybe things could have been better all around.

Shoot, it isn't just the RCs. Take a look out what's going on in Utah. And there are certainly other types of parochial schools and private universities around: Lutheran, Presbyterian... people you can knock on the doors and tell them about the Truth from theocratic sources.

You reap what you sow.

Aside from colleges, one of that crop of teaching brothers founded the high school a year or two before I went to it. He and people on staff founded several before they were done. Why doesn't Mr. Morris do that with the resources at his disposal? Oh, I know... Too busy spreading the Truth - and his place in it.

Personally, I think college age a little late for shutting the barn door on becoming "an evolutionist". Circumstances being what they were, I was pretty willing to defend that idea by seventh grade just thanks to the public library. In high school, our freshman year biology was taught by a brother of a teaching order and the text was prepared by writers of similar background, probably priests at one of those institutions fore-mentioned. Between studying Mendel's genetics and classifications of orders and species, it was hard for someone not to draw conclusions other than what alarmed Mr. Morris.

Later on, our freshman year homeroom teacher (religion and English) went off to work at a mission school in Uganda for several decades starting during Idi Amin's reign. Our high school valedictorian went on to a career in biology, teaching and doing research at university level. He then retired on proceeds from turning out editions of his biology texts. A few years ago he told me he s regularly sends to the Ugandan mission a crate or two of his books for our old teacher's classes.

I'd rather that than pamphlets for their laundry room.