Pudgy

I think that part of the problem is that apostates are driven by a variety of motivations, and there is therefore a wide range of quality in their work. I have never heard of this book by Casarona, but from what you have shared, it seems to be the kind of book you could thumb through very quickly and reject as one of those that grasps at straws and just presents anything negative without doing much research, merely copying the worst claims he has heard about.
For example, Richard Wheelock did not jump from a third floor factory window as so many people think. He jumped from a window in the Towers Hotel. He had been suffering from depression from many years before this happened. He had even threatened suicide going as far back as the time when his fiance, Audrey Mock, left him to marry Brother Knorr.
It's stupid to blame the Society directly for factory accidents. These are usually human error. There are probably only a very few cases where legal liability might have reached "to the top." But it would be rare to get credible public knowledge of such events, because it would be rare for the family of a Bethelite to make a case against the entire Watchtower Society for a wrongful death. I can't imagine my own parents even thinking of such a thing if anything had happened to me there.
Yes, there were suicides even when I was there, but only two, I think. The numbers of Bethelites were greatly increased in the 1970s and there was a thought going around that congregation elders were purposely encouraging Bethel service to young brothers whom they termed "damaged goods." They thought that the spirituality at Bethel would fix them. In some cases it was evidently mental issues stemming from sexual abuse catching up to them. And we'll never really know what it was in this lifetime.
It appears that those were your words, not Casarona's. If so, I don't think it's fair to try to judge the faith of someone who suffers from deep bouts of depression. For all we know it was confident faith in the resurrection that motivated his suicide.
I do think, of course, that some ex-JWs, non-JWs, and apostates are definitely out to give Bethel, or the Watchtower Society, a bad review. But no matter their motive, I think we also need to look at the quality of their research. I remember when Jim Penton wrote a book about the history of the persecution of Witnesses in Canada. It was considered an excellent book and was available in the Bethel Library. Penton was considered an excellent historian and of course there was pride in that a professor or PhD had written such a good book. The Watchtower even said:
*** w77 1/1 p. 11 Insight on the News ***
“A Debt of Gratitude”
● Writing in the Toronto “Star” of October 4, 1976, Stuart Shaw mentions the book “Jehovah’s Witnesses in Canada: Champions of Freedom of Speech and Worship,” by James Penton, associate professor of history at the University of Lethbridge. Shaw explains that it discusses the intense persecution of the Witnesses in that country from 1939 to 1956, “first at the instance of the federal government and then at that of the government of Quebec.” . . .  Referring to the recent book, however, and shedding some light on the underlying cause, Shaw comments: “Penton argues convincingly, citing official correspondence and documents of the period, that the real reason was entirely different. The King government was under heavy clerical pressure—from the Roman Catholic Church in particular, but also from some Protestant clergymen—to suppress these ‘heretics.’”
Of course, when Penton later criticized certain aspects of the organization, he was disfellowshipped, and suddenly his books, even if they were better researched, were no longer argued convincingly, and he had somehow turned into a sloppy historian. 
I think that motivations and biases can be important to understand, but mostly it's about the quality of research and presentation of evidence. And sometimes we might have to ignore some conclusions a researcher might draw from the evidence, but still find the presentation of evidence itself valuable. 
Also, if no one finds anything specifically wrong with a book or research, or makes no attempt to counter the evidence, then it is probable that they are just complaining about the person BECAUSE the evidence itself is too strong to deal with.

Alright. Let me be even clearer. I have never even tried to get you banned. I have never even tried to get any account of anyone banned. I have never tried to get any of your account names banned. I have never tried to get any variation of the account name "Allen Smith"  banned.
I was opposed to having the "Allen Smith" account(s) banned, and still am. I wish they could bring it back. I was also surprised (and annoyed) that they just removed almost all the content that you had contributed. Much of it was very valuable and I could tell you had put a lot of thought into it. I thought this was most unfair.
I do understand where one could get the impression that I was trying to get various new names banned, because I would point out when a new account was really just Allen Smith coming back under a new name. I think you figured that if Allen Smith was banned, then I could have only ONE reason to point out that, "Billy The Kid" for example, was the same person/account. You thought that was to try to get the new account banned.
It wasn't the reason, ever. I never pointed it out until after I made it clear that I never wanted "Allen Smith" banned in the first place. Also, you might not have noticed that I never even pointed this out until waiting several weeks watching how you would handle your new account. (Your early new accounts made it obvious since they were often just "AllenSmith" with a number attached at the end.) It was when other people noticed that additional accounts also sounded like you that I chimed in with ways that any of us could verify that those suspicions were true. Also I noticed that you would come very close to denying that these accounts were the same person, but without directly lying about it. I have to admit that this would irritate me, so I wold call you out with evidence that would confirm the suspicions others were having. But I would not immediately point out new accounts that were yours because I figured you might use one of more to really attempt a fresh start. (By that, I mean not so often trying to be divisive and negative and insulting about others.) When you would get right back into making ugly, insulting and judgmental accusations, I would begin to point out that what you were doing, without waiting for someone else to raise the suspicion first.
Since I've gone on this long, I might as well clear up one other thing, too. You have many times complained that I made fun of your various spelling and grammar mistakes. I always denied this, because I thought I was being so careful never to make fun of any of those things. I realized later why you thought I was making fun of you, and why you thought I was lying whenever I denied it. It's because pointing out these "consistencies" was a way to easily identify your accounts. I was pointing out various consistent spelling errors and grammar quirks across several of the accounts that I already knew were you for other reasons.  For me, I never thought of this as making fun. I never thought of it as a way to show superiority of grammar, as you claimed. It was just a very useful way of confirming suspicions. And you may recall that it was actually others who first pointed out a couple of these points (e.g., excessive commas, etc.) but I did "pile on," as they say, and have pointed out about a dozen other indicators, over the years.
I thought that others should know where you were coming from, and why you spent so much time complaining about why Allen Smith had been banned, for example, when it was off topic. So, yes, I have often "piled on" and provided some of the reasons that I recognized your accounts.
Now that I have said this, I think I can make a promise I'll try not to break. It's this: I will do my best to avoid the subject of multiple accounts altogether. I won't point out any reasons again about accounts that are run by the same person as other accounts.

I have never asked the Librarian to ban anyone. 
One thing I would like to know; why do you write G-d? Are you a secret Jew? There is no good reason if you are a JW. Well actually there is no good reason for a Jew either, only something they made up. Why do you do it?

as though that doesn’t happen anywhere else.
as though everyone else celebrates when their wife dies.
Whatever her influence once was, she’s been dead for several years. Her death preceded the release of Volume II. As to parameters, I’m not versed enough in the history to know what they might be.
In the 70s some touring Bethel brother presented a few clips from the PhotoDrama of creation at the Blue Cross Arena [then the Rochester War Memorial]. I was struck by how it appeared to be his own project and that otherwise Bethel would have let the film disintegrate through neglect. Not that anyone was ashamed of it. It was just that they were forward looking and didn’t do much to preserve history. The tone of his remarks was that he had to sort through the basement, or the attic, to assemble what he had, which was not in good shape and soon would have vanished.
The release of the Proclaimers book seemed to signal a shift from neglect of the past to cherishing ‘our spiritual heritage.’ Nothing wrong with that, in my view. It was as though, after assembling the yearbook material for 74 and 75 (Germany and US) it occurred to the brothers, seemingly for the first time, that if they didn’t start preserving records of the past it would soon be lost forever.
Maybe that’s why Rud can find an audience for his expensive book (I should take lessons from him in commanding a price); there’s a relative dearth of official historical material. It’s not my field of interest, but I recognize everyone wants to tell their own story and relate their own ‘expertise.’ As for me, I say, ‘If you have to go back 100 years to dig up dirt, there can’t be too much dirt to dig.’ Alas, they have modern-day allies, who endeavor to dig it up —some would say ‘concoct’—in the present too.

Wow that group sounds terrific…..I like Shultz tho I have not read of him much lately….I still have a book of his here to read….saving it for when and if the internet goes down…..I really hope those scholars are humble enough to let a little pooping seed picker in amongst them…. 

He doesn’t like Shultz? Who could not like Shultz?
Shultz recently told me that in his ‘scholar group’ he pointedly told off Rolf and it was apparently heated enough that he thought one or the other of them might be kicked off, and that he didn’t care if it was him, even though Rolf was a one-person minority.
He had previously tweeted of a certain “moron” in his group. I observed that every group was a moron and inquired if it was in connection to a certain dastardly deed where Rolf had played his hand. It was.
I have floated the possibility with another of that group that it might be a fine thing to add me to it, even allowing that I am so not much a scholar as a seedpicker—peck a seed here and poop it out there, just like they said of Paul.
So far no one has taken the bait.

They have their own standards. It’s not so much humility as it is meeting their standards. Their club consists of published authors and/or scholars with advanced degrees.. I can spin a good story, self publish with typos, shift the gem to see things from a different perspective, but am not really in their league. There has been someone saying he will try to gain me admittance but I’m not holding my breath. If I did gain admittance I am not sure I would participate much. I’m not sure my advocate has the stature to recommend a new member anyway. He talks a good game.
I’m not overly impressed with ‘scholars’ anyway. It’s not the ‘greater gift.’ It’s a fine addition if you have the greater gift down pat but comes across as a little pretentious if you don’t. The twelve were not scholars. Paul (who was) said a Christian should be “a workman [not a professional] with nothing to be ashamed of,” thus choosing his words to favor the non-scholars. God arranged that his son should be born in the Bethehem Manger, not the Jerusalem Hyatt. He could have chosen the latter; he knows a lot of people. But he didn’t.
I don’t think these humble roots are embarrassing shortcomings to pull oneself up by one’s bootstraps from, which is how they are usually presented. I think they are permanent indications of the ones who God chooses. As soon as people fancy themselves ‘scholars’ they are inclined to get too big for their pants. They start to think, as did Rud, “The Branch wouldn’t dare mess with me!” In time they bluster around like Alan F, calling anyone who disagrees a ignoramus.
Have the greater gifts down pat and scholarship is fine. You need scholarship. I get that. But the guys that are topheavy with it wear me out.
I have one of his too. So far as I am aware he does have the greater gifts down pat. He writes Bethel in connection to his research and to a reasonable degree they cooperate. As he is reaching advanced years with poor health he donates rare literature to them. I’m glad he does the work he does. Somebody has to. I’m glad it is him. But I would never have the patience to put something like that together.
They sent a copy of their work to Bethel, to no comment, and his non-Witness niece speculated that Bethel “is incurious as to its own beginnings.” By and large I think that is true. They don’t look behind too much. They look forward.

I have never banned anyone at all. Much less likely I would be to ban anyone who challenges me. I love being challenged, and wouldn't even be here if I didn't enjoy it.
I'm sorry I called your behavior "unchristian." When I refer to the unchristian behavior of others, I'm not saying that I am right myself or that I am even a good judge of who else is acting Christian or not. I refer mostly to how some people tend to appear in their comments. If a person continues to tell untruths, I don't necessarily think of them as a liar; they are often just mistaken. Like your false and mistaken belief that I have banned people. What you do on your own time isn't anything I would try to do anything about. If you are a non-Christian, atheist, or even an apostate (I don't think you are) I still think you should be welcome here. When I mention "unchristian" behavior, which I admit I should not have done, I am referring to a propensity to create dissension, etc.
I think that many of us, including Pudgy, and myself too, have done this to an extent. And this is one reason I would never try to get one person banned over another, it's a kind of judgment call that I would probably screw up, not knowing who was egging on the other to push buttons or get a rise out of them. I see several people who use snide remarks or hints about things that they evidently think will produce a response from another person. But I can't read minds; I can barely understand half of what some people say outright. So I would agree that I shouldn't have used the term "unchristian." I should have just said a propensity to promote dissension, rivalry, petty arguments over words, etc.

I haven't checked for sure, but I think the actual owner of the site is not a Witness and doesn't really get involved in any discussions unless those discussions get flagged by someone. If no one complains (by "Reporting" a post) the owner will never know what anyone is writing. I think that The Librarian is a Witness, but I'm sure he is in the same situation of not having time to monitor thousands of posts in hundreds of threads, some going on for a hundred pages. The Librarian has offered moderator functions to a couple people here, including me, and maybe we are supposed to try to keep order. But I personally just don't see the point in trying to remove posts or try to get people banned. They will just come back under a different name, and act worse than before. NoisySrecko/Dmitar/WalterPrescott has been clearly been itching to try to embarrass Pudgy about his arrest and, as we've all seen, Walter will just get bolder and more brazen under a new name if anyone tries to call him out on his unchristian behavior.
If you tell Walter he has slandered, he will just say that it's everyone else doing the slandering.

Note to readers: Almost all the above book covers shown are manufactured parodies of actual books of a more genteel nature.
Satire.
heh heh heh!

My parents bought me a 20 volume Encyclopedia before I could read, but I gravitated to those 25 cent hardboard covered children's books popular in the early 50s.

Well all I can say after reading that is…bethel must have been like a nut house!!..and appears run by nuts!…
I certainly would not want any of my children to go there….adults or not!
As one older elder said here and of whom I would trust my life with..this was said from the platform and said with some despair in his voice.
THERE IS NO ONE IN THIS WORLD YOU CAN TRUST BUT JEHOVAH AND JESUS..NO ONE.
and I stand by his wise words…….sheesh 
oh and thanks for those links…I will look them up for sure…

This is just plain dumb pudgy…grow up…some things are just not decent to joke about….

I had read about that in one of the old WT. It was quite crazy reading....Johnson jumping out of a window in London bethel to get away from the brothers who had come to ask him questions. Apparently it was in the local newspaper, reported by a passerby who saw him jumping, lol

Jehovah uses whomever he chooses. Now what Jehovah makes of said individual in the long-term is up to him. I could care less about the sticks Jehovah uses as tools. (Mt. 23:17)

I thought I wouldn't do this, but since you asked, I found the answer interesting.
In 1915 Rutherford felt himself a "defender of the faith" in a very literal sense. He had written a defense against most of the attacks on Russell in 1915. When Russell died, in 1916, it looks like Rutherford was genuinely concerned to do the right thing, scripturally. I hadn't known that P.S.L. Johnson was actually a very good friend of Rutherford's at the time. (Later they had a big falling out.) So when Russell died, Rutherford went to his good friend because he trusted him to know the prophetic types better than anyone, and wanted to know if Russell would have a successor. (They had both just recently met in Maryland at the time Russell died. Johnson lived in Ohio, but was in Maryland on a "Pilgrim" visit  and Rutherford was there on business.)
Johnson told Rutherford that he didn't know about Russell having a successor, but he would study the "types and anti-types" and get back to him. And they both traveled fto NY in the next couple of days to get to the funeral. It might seem naive to look at "types" for a kind of "sign" as to what to do next, but it was new to me that Rutherford did not at that moment come across like the bombastic, brash person we sometimes think of from later months. Even though we have recently dropped "type/antitype" doctrines, it is interesting that they would use these as a kind of "Urim/Thummin" before they made a decision, and not just find "types and antitypes" to explain or justify or "scripturalize" decisions or events that already happened.
When they felt "lost" they turned the Bible, and Rutherford turned humbly to someone he thought of as smarter than himself on scriptural matters. (PSL Johnson was considered to be the most brilliant of the Bible Students at the time.)
Also, I learned from the book that the board of directors actually tried to run things the way that Russell had outlined in his "last will and testament." Johnson said that this lasted about a week. It wasn't just Rutherford who were rejecting Russell's will.

“No, no, Rude Person is actually a very nice guy!”
Sorry, it is just such low-hanging fruit. Why should this character be so named? It’s almost like Nabal—the ‘senseless one.’
All of this is a bit at odds with the “shrewd and scheming legal mind” he is said to have had in the book’s promo.

In the book, Persson notes that he first noticed a discrepancy in the book "Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose" (jp) in the late 1960's, and that's when he first took an interest in our modern-day history. But he started his research in 1973 (still a Witness, of course) when he began writing to those who still had some first-hand knowledge or documentation. He planned to write the book in the late 1970's, he says, but was delayed with other matters (unspecified). There are many indications from his research that he was very serious about this project for many years prior to 2014.
I called an older brother from Bethel in his 80's last night and we spoke for about 2 hours about things he knew about the matter. I'd heard things from an elderly elder in the 1970's at Bethel (my "Table Head") but the elder I spoke to last night actually did a lot of historical research, and his writings are still being used in the current publications (but it's things he wrote several years ago; he is "retired" and not actively writing any more). He didn't know about the book, but won't get it or read it because he thinks of Rud Persson as an apostate. But he's happy to answer any questions. 
When at Bethel, I was just one of several Bethelites who taped interviews (about those "olden days") with persons like Maxwell Friend, Fred Franz, and Grace DeCecca because we could give non-outline Sunday talks in the congregations in those days, and I gave a couple of talks in several congregations based on excerpts from several hours of those interviews. This same brother I spoke to last night had helped me organize the excerpts.

Just be like a beroean and you should be good to go.

I don't need to read 600 pages about a person who dies of anal cancer.

Why do I want to attach a laughing emoji to this but somehow feel I shouldn’t?

Maybe I’ll get back to you after I finish Children, picked up a few weeks ago at a ….. um……eclectic book store out in the boondocks where you suspect the owner doesn’t really care if he ever sells a book or not—he just likes to hoard them. Cats roam freely and I’d be a little leery of books on the bottom row. Many aisles are completely impassable. You can only explore the far end by going down an adjacent aisle and doubling back.

No Walter, (am I really taking time out to reply to this nonsense?) you are a troll with ADHD and a persecution complex. Please believe me when I say NO ONE can be bothered to delete content or ban anyone. You are not that important, this site is not that important, no one here is that important.
Once in a blue moon when the Librarian takes a look in here he may have banned someone for breaking forum rules....but I don't even know that. I am just taking your word for it when you say you've been banned. I know for a fact that neither JWI nor me have banned you or deleted any of your content....or anyone else's content.
But you won't believe me of course because you evidently have delusional views of your own importance and grandeur. 
(wasted minute I will never get back)
 
 

I am an idiot, as this same character always says, and anyone else who dares to ask him questions or disagrees:  but it seems, no matter what he masquerades as, or which mask he puts on, in the end we  recognize the nastiness in the aliases.  In Africa we say, a leopard does not change his spots....just like in other countries.  Unless there is humility - this never changes. And as we learnt recently, we also need Jehovah's Spirit to change.  We cannot do anything by ourselves. I think this character, whichever one he assumes, cannot get away from that.
So as a fellow human I encourage him to at least try to please Jehovah even if he has no wish to get along with us.  I will do the same. Our time is running out in this system.  It is not worth the strife. We must rather try to encourage one another.
I heard about an interview with doctor Malone (searching for it today), where he talks about the WHO taking over the rule of the world.  WHO is the only UN organization with a constitution (I checked).  The rights given the WHO in this Amended Agreement, which will be voted on next week,  can put the Western world under the most terrible lockdown for a dark winter when fall comes this year - if not before.  (I am not sure of the implementation date - within 6 months or 2 years). Those who are pulling the strings have a timetable they are working on. 
All countries will be forced to comply and I will not put it beyond them, to use and international army on those countries who do not comply.  This reminds me of the abominable thing of destruction, as the second lockdown of Rome came along........ Very few will escape - only those who know Jehovah will. Talk of calling out false germs in food plants, businesses, areas, officials going from house to house to force "sleever" those who have not complied, identifying those humans who are vermin (carrying the germ).  It is germ warfare to bring health and food 'security".  The soft touch will be gone.
It seems the King of the North and some of his alliances will not sign.... but the UN works according to majority vote (democracy).  ALL countries are forced to accept when those who agree accept the terms. .... BUT it seems China has a large stake in it. The current head of the WHO was appointed due to China wielding to much power in this organization. He is pro-China. Those who are working behind the scenes to put him in power may put another in his place or keep him.  I just watch this development...... 

Well pudgy why dont you try the closed group….yeah some might find you a bit prickly or you might find others prickly…..sort of like it Is in  real life…one is allowed to disagree over there Too….or DONT reply to him…..you can pull the plug on him.