JW Insider

That's not what I said.
And yes, that's true. The last people who were inspired were Bible writers.
 

Go back and read what you missed. It is the most valuable material here. 
And nobody, nobody, but nobody who knows me personally thinks me “self-righteous.”
Ask @Witness, who said she loves me so (not inappropriately—it was a manner of speaking) following a recent post. Even though she thinks I drink far too much of the “kooklaid.” Even though we have had some fearsome tussles. Even though she thinks me deluded as can be
But she does not think me self-righteous. Nobody does. 
Of course, Alan does. But he is so full of insults for anyone not coming around to his point of view that it doesn’t count.

I'm sure it's been pointed out under the many prior 1975 topics in this forum.
The fact that the prediction was for the 1970's, not 1975 is easily seen from the articles called, for example, "What Will the 1970's Bring?" and the Circuit Assembly badges we wore that asked: "Who Will Conquer the World in the 1970's?"
The reason for 1970's instead of 1975 was because of articles and talks that made the following points:
*** Watchtower 1968 August 15 p. 499 par. 30 Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975? ***
30 Are we to assume from this study that the battle of Armageddon will be all over by the autumn of 1975, and the long-looked-for thousand-year reign of Christ will begin by then? Possibly, but we wait to see how closely the seventh thousand-year period of man’s existence coincides with the sabbathlike thousand-year reign of Christ.  . . . It does not necessarily mean that 1975 marks the end of the first 6,000 years of Jehovah’s seventh creative “day.” Why not? Because after his creation Adam lived some time during the “sixth day,” which unknown amount of time would need to be subtracted from Adam’s 930 years, to determine when the sixth seven-thousand-year period or “day” ended, and how long Adam lived into the “seventh day.” And yet the end of that sixth creative “day” could end within the same Gregorian calendar year of Adam’s creation. It may involve only a difference of weeks or months, not years.
If that difference between the end of six thousand years since Adam, and the end of the "sixth day" could not be a matter of years, then this means that it must be less than two years from the autumn of 1975. After the autumn of 1977 it would have become a matter of years, not just months.
Then, especially after the 1970's, the focus of the prediction moved to a time before the year 2000:
The Nations Shall Know That I Am Jehovah p. 216
"Shortly, within our twentieth century, the "battle in the day of Jehovah" will begin against the modern antitype of Jerusalem, Christendom."
Watchtower 1984 Mar 1 pp.18-19
"Some of that "generation" could survive until the end of the century. But there are many indications that "the end" is much closer than that!"
"Let Your Kingdom Come" (1981) p.102
"But now in our 20th century, we have come to the time for harvest  "a conclusion of a system of things, and the reapers are angels"!"
Watchtower 1989 Jan 1 p.12
"He was laying a foundation for a work that would be completed in our 20th century."
 

Here's just a few off the top of my head, and I could include a dozen more:
We got back to the higher powers (superior authorities) being secular in the very early 60's. Made smoking a DF offense, which has probably improved the health of thousands. We went back to an elder arrangement. We dropped the District Overseer. We reduced the quotas for various pioneer titles. We replaced the separate meeting for the "book study" to be replaced with personal/family study and more focus on field service. Allowed our consciences to accept blood fractions, which has probably improved health or even saved 1,000. We opened up the possibility of the first resurrection from 1918 to a wider range of dates between 1914 and 1935 with the possibility that it could be even as late as the great tribulation. We opened up our understanding of the first resurrection to include the possibility of a "rapture" (as long as we don't use the word). We now see the cleansing of the temple as no longer tied to the situation in the organization in 1918. We now read several prophetic concepts that were once tied to 1914, 1918 and 1919 as no longer fixed to those years, with one now reaching back to the end of the first century, and a couple others now tied to the time surrounding the great tribulation. We got a much more accurate Watchtower history book which helps researchers understand the context of several of the major accomplishments along with several of the mistakes in our history. We now tell parents and guardians that they are free to inform authorities about child sexual abuse without concern for anyone's reputation. We now include elders informing authorities as part of the process wherever it is the law to do so.
It was a core concept with Frederick Franz. Everyone else knew that our chronology doctrines were always the most susceptible to change. Changing, moveable doctrines can hardly be core.
It was serious. But many are too embarrassed to admit it was serious, and are happy to repress their own reactions, or the fact that it came from the WTS, not rank-and-file members of the congregation who were pushing ahead. But you should know that there never was a "prediction of 1975 Armageddon." The prediction was for the 1970's based on 1975 being the end of the 7,000 years since Adam. When that failed, the prediction was for the period up to the year 2000. There never was a specific 1975 prediction.
I see nothing wrong with thinking of the GB as anointed. Saul was anointed. David was anointed. Judas was anointed. Peter was anointed. Thomas was anointed. I'm sure they diligently try to live up to the reputation of a faithful and discreet slave. I think Jesus meant for the phrase to apply to all of us, including them. Most JWs probably know that we all need to be faithful and discreet slaves, but that this is a way of seeing their particular ministry as special.

I think that if there were a lot of new things, many folks would just complain that it represents things we had wrong and had to change. The basic foundational beliefs have been around for quite a while, and we wouldn't expect any big changes in any of these. But we've gained a simpler message even though most of the "deeper" ideas are not discarded.
I think that we can be a bit humbler now because we aren't so often trying to compare our level of scholarship with others. We are not into the scholarship that proves the Trinity wrong, or Christmas wrong, even though we understand that our position on these things is much better than Christendom's.
I think we are wrong on a couple of less important doctrines that should be revisited in a scholarly manner. But if the WTS decided to never revisit some of these things, and could help us completely replace our concern instead with showing love to our fellow believers, and then showing love to our neighbor, and helping us learn patience, humility, peace, joy, love, kindness, moral cleanness, I would not care at all about a couple of mistaken doctrines.

I think that if there were a lot of new things, many folks would just complain that it represents things we had wrong and had to change. The basic foundational beliefs have been around for quite a while, and we wouldn't expect any big changes in any of these. But we've gained a simpler message even though most of the "deeper" ideas are not discarded.
I think that we can be a bit humbler now because we aren't so often trying to compare our level of scholarship with others. We are not into the scholarship that proves the Trinity wrong, or Christmas wrong, even though we understand that our position on these things is much better than Christendom's.
I think we are wrong on a couple of less important doctrines that should be revisited in a scholarly manner. But if the WTS decided to never revisit some of these things, and could help us completely replace our concern instead with showing love to our fellow believers, and then showing love to our neighbor, and helping us learn patience, humility, peace, joy, love, kindness, moral cleanness, I would not care at all about a couple of mistaken doctrines.

I'm sure it's been pointed out under the many prior 1975 topics in this forum.
The fact that the prediction was for the 1970's, not 1975 is easily seen from the articles called, for example, "What Will the 1970's Bring?" and the Circuit Assembly badges we wore that asked: "Who Will Conquer the World in the 1970's?"
The reason for 1970's instead of 1975 was because of articles and talks that made the following points:
*** Watchtower 1968 August 15 p. 499 par. 30 Why Are You Looking Forward to 1975? ***
30 Are we to assume from this study that the battle of Armageddon will be all over by the autumn of 1975, and the long-looked-for thousand-year reign of Christ will begin by then? Possibly, but we wait to see how closely the seventh thousand-year period of man’s existence coincides with the sabbathlike thousand-year reign of Christ.  . . . It does not necessarily mean that 1975 marks the end of the first 6,000 years of Jehovah’s seventh creative “day.” Why not? Because after his creation Adam lived some time during the “sixth day,” which unknown amount of time would need to be subtracted from Adam’s 930 years, to determine when the sixth seven-thousand-year period or “day” ended, and how long Adam lived into the “seventh day.” And yet the end of that sixth creative “day” could end within the same Gregorian calendar year of Adam’s creation. It may involve only a difference of weeks or months, not years.
If that difference between the end of six thousand years since Adam, and the end of the "sixth day" could not be a matter of years, then this means that it must be less than two years from the autumn of 1975. After the autumn of 1977 it would have become a matter of years, not just months.
Then, especially after the 1970's, the focus of the prediction moved to a time before the year 2000:
The Nations Shall Know That I Am Jehovah p. 216
"Shortly, within our twentieth century, the "battle in the day of Jehovah" will begin against the modern antitype of Jerusalem, Christendom."
Watchtower 1984 Mar 1 pp.18-19
"Some of that "generation" could survive until the end of the century. But there are many indications that "the end" is much closer than that!"
"Let Your Kingdom Come" (1981) p.102
"But now in our 20th century, we have come to the time for harvest  "a conclusion of a system of things, and the reapers are angels"!"
Watchtower 1989 Jan 1 p.12
"He was laying a foundation for a work that would be completed in our 20th century."
 

Here's just a few off the top of my head, and I could include a dozen more:
We got back to the higher powers (superior authorities) being secular in the very early 60's. Made smoking a DF offense, which has probably improved the health of thousands. We went back to an elder arrangement. We dropped the District Overseer. We reduced the quotas for various pioneer titles. We replaced the separate meeting for the "book study" to be replaced with personal/family study and more focus on field service. Allowed our consciences to accept blood fractions, which has probably improved health or even saved 1,000. We opened up the possibility of the first resurrection from 1918 to a wider range of dates between 1914 and 1935 with the possibility that it could be even as late as the great tribulation. We opened up our understanding of the first resurrection to include the possibility of a "rapture" (as long as we don't use the word). We now see the cleansing of the temple as no longer tied to the situation in the organization in 1918. We now read several prophetic concepts that were once tied to 1914, 1918 and 1919 as no longer fixed to those years, with one now reaching back to the end of the first century, and a couple others now tied to the time surrounding the great tribulation. We got a much more accurate Watchtower history book which helps researchers understand the context of several of the major accomplishments along with several of the mistakes in our history. We now tell parents and guardians that they are free to inform authorities about child sexual abuse without concern for anyone's reputation. We now include elders informing authorities as part of the process wherever it is the law to do so.
It was a core concept with Frederick Franz. Everyone else knew that our chronology doctrines were always the most susceptible to change. Changing, moveable doctrines can hardly be core.
It was serious. But many are too embarrassed to admit it was serious, and are happy to repress their own reactions, or the fact that it came from the WTS, not rank-and-file members of the congregation who were pushing ahead. But you should know that there never was a "prediction of 1975 Armageddon." The prediction was for the 1970's based on 1975 being the end of the 7,000 years since Adam. When that failed, the prediction was for the period up to the year 2000. There never was a specific 1975 prediction.
I see nothing wrong with thinking of the GB as anointed. Saul was anointed. David was anointed. Judas was anointed. Peter was anointed. Thomas was anointed. I'm sure they diligently try to live up to the reputation of a faithful and discreet slave. I think Jesus meant for the phrase to apply to all of us, including them. Most JWs probably know that we all need to be faithful and discreet slaves, but that this is a way of seeing their particular ministry as special.

It was believed, until quite recently, that every sinner can change. Even homosexual pedophiles. "This is what some of you were", says Paul at 1 Cor. 6:11.  I am assuming when Greenlees was appointed, it was believed he belonged in that category of "some of you were, but are no longer". The appointment, as all appointments are, was based on qualifications outlined in 1Timothy 3:1-7. I am assuming he met those qualifications at the time he was named. It is now understood (although I believe the society balked at first, being convinced that the scripture applies in absolutely every case, no exceptions)  that people with these problems are for the most part incurable, but can fool others, including themselves, into thinking that they are cured. I find it difficult to believe this man would be appointed, knowing he still had that problem. What would be the purpose? Surely there would be plenty of other brothers, and there were, I think 18 at that time. For JWS, the Bible is a template for practically EVERYTHING. Much to the irritation of people who wonder how can someone be directed by a book thousands of years old. Without a doubt, JWS have made mistakes in their interpretation of some Bible passages.  Perhaps one of these mistakes was misunderstanding the scripture at 1 Cor 6:11. It can not mean that those who have "been made clean", will always stay clean or that they are cured. We know that from evidence. Greenlees being a case in point. The scripture is talking about those particular disciples, it does not mean it applies across the board, to every single person especially with regard to homosexuality. The apostle Paul had to pummel his body, and lead it as a slave, and he was just an ordinary sinner, no homosexual or pedophile. So no one is ever going to be faultless and yet, according to the scriptures, they have the potential to be forgiven and accepted by God if they stop.  With regard to the sickness of pedophilia, these people have got to be kept away from children, so that they are not able to molest them, and so that children are safe, because they cannot stop.Today, no one who has a history of CSA, can ever serve in any capacity in the congregation, ever. We have an old man in our cong. who has some kind of history in the distant past, and he is not allowed to do anything, except comment, and he must be accompanied by a brother in FS, without exception.
Part of the changes are no doubt due to the ARC, and the recognition of the truthfulness of some of the issues raised there. But I am sure that some of it has been because it was recognized that in the past, elders had been hoodwinked into thinking that someone with pedophilic tendencies has been reformed, and will never repeat the offense again. This realisation was unfortunately at the cost of other children being molested, not just the original child.
So, if it was today, Greenlees would have never been appointed not only as GB member, but he would have never become an elder or ministerial servant either.
 
@Vic Vomidog stop it!

I do not know what JWN is. Can you tell me?
Besides Reddit, the two weeks were at JehovahsWitnesses.com. The 3 comments (NOT 12, you blockhead JTR!) were at AvoidJW.com. it is possible I have commented a time or two elsewhere, but I cannot recall. For the most part, I have confined myself to my own blog.
I started blogging in 2006, and some early posts reflect that I was working through some issues. I did not seek out opposers, but when they would comment, I developed ways to answer them, not disrespectfully, unless they were real jerks, but also not befriendingly. I wrote about a post a week. Something in the news would catch my interest and I would weave it in with scripture and humor to produce posts that I had never seen the like of before. It is like an artist with paintings. Complete one, throw it up for viewing, and of course you are happy to find people who like it. But that is not why you do it, and I would do the same, like a painter, even if it was completely ignored. I gained a fair number of frequent commenters. 
I took a leave of absence to deal with a perfect storm of troubles. They and the residuals kept me occupied for several years. When I began posting again, it was little snippets on Facebook, something that had not been around before. One FB friend I knew well from before kept saying: “You ought to write a book.” Another friend has said, “I think there’s a book in that blog.”
In time I began doodling paragraphs into what might be a book someday. I did it completely on the iPad that I had bought second-hand from a brother, on Notes, and without keyboard—one letter at a time. In time, as I got more serious about it, I bought a laptop. Mixing about 50/50 previous blog posts with original writing, in 2016 I came out with an ebook, “Tom Irregardless and Me.” Several persons, some known, some unknown personally, gave it good reviews By far the most creative review came from (I’m sure he won’t mind at this point, and if he does, I’ll say I’m sorry) George Chryssides writing under the pseudonym Ivor E Tower. 
Oddly, though I have written three more books, I have scarcely received another review. I can’t quite figure it. I mean, the obvious explanation is that the writing sucks, but I have had people, even elders, praise them effusively. I even had my strategy in place should apostates flame it with horrid reviews, but I didn’t get them either. It is too bad. I would like some. Ah, well—painter with his artwork and all.
While writing this book, I opened a Twitter account. I followed a link that led here and began leaving some comments. For a time, the only way I knew how to get here was to follow that link through Twitter. I started hawking my book, rather shamelessly, and the Librarian (that old hen) at last yelled at me—“enough is enough!” she said. “This is not a book store!”
I was stung. I almost left the site for good. In fact, I did, but in time, tentatively came back. It is probably due to some conciliatory posts from @JW Insiderthat I did stay. In time, I floated adding some value-added content not related to any book, and the Librarian signaled encouragement. Thus began a series of outrageous posts characterizing her as a wash-up, arthritic and alcoholic has-been of a grade school librarian who hates kids—with good reason because they torment her relentlessly—and is counting down the days till her retirement. I am the baddest of her pupils, but I am her pupil, after all, so there is a limit to how much she can discipline me.
I told her privately that I was going to do this, and that if it became too much, she should let me know. She said that she sort of enjoyed the games, and that she was actually a he. I have probably tested her patience since—she did at one point lay the law down on my “spamming” and when I felt that my contributions to her site buffered me, I linked to a post and said that if I was ever again called for spamming, I would discontinue all participation here. I said that, blogging since 2006, I have become a news source in my own right, and I would not put up with it. However, I also showed myself sensitive to her concerns. I would do it less, I said, never just a link in itself, and only include one where there was good reason for it—also that there would be no, or greatly limited comments on my blog, so that if anyone went there and wanted to comment on it, they would have to come here. I just wanted to keep all my stuff in one place, I pleaded. I wasn’t trying to steal her readers.
My followup ebook, “No Fake News But Plenty of Hogwash” was written too hastily, and was an ill-advised attempt to appeal to newsy and current events people. I reworked it substantially to make it the most autobiographical of my books. It, too, is about 50/50 old blog posts vs original writing. Little of it was written here. 
I kept writing more and more here. Our problems began in Russia. I began to post about it in my blog. Others, especially a @bruceq, posted many Russian woes here, and I contributed to those threads. On Twitter, I discovered Anton Chivchalov, who, from Belarus, was following events minutely, and does to this day.
I thought of writing a short brochure of sorts—nothing big—a collection of news releases about the ban, with maybe some melodramatic cover in black, as though an iron curtain was again crashing down. I kept expanding the idea into another ebook, centered around the theme of our letter-writing campaign that all Witnesses would take part in but no one else could ever appreciate the atmosphere. I described to my graphic artist a vision of a child writing Putin, as though writing Santa Claus, (children are always best, not just in themselves, but in what they symbolized—Jesus said you must become as young children) thinking a thought balloon occupied by Putin, not Claus. She returned with what is pictured below. See how clever it is, with Putin seeming to have bangs, like a child, and it is actually the kid’s hair? She is a fine and imaginative artist and I would recommend her in a heartbeat.
“Dear Mr. Putin”  is the only complete history of JW persecution from just before ban until about a year after. But I had by that time decided to include reasons JWs were opposed in Russia (CSA has NEVER entered into the picture there) since they were largely absent in the Supreme Court trial, in Part II, as well as a third section presenting a witness. All of it is written for non-Witnesses primarily. Little of it centers on doctrine—where there is doctrine, it is just enough to bridge points. Russia is not demonized, in the event the book ever finds an influential read there. (JWI—the old commie, gave it praise for breaking free from the Western point of view, not easy for a Westerner, and I appreciated the thumbs up in that regard.) Other faiths are not put down—JWs are presented as the canary in the coal mine—what starts with us may well spread to them, and they are shaking in their boots.
And as stated before, when I stumbled into this site, via Twitter, I was aghast at all the “apostates” operating here with impunity, on what claimed to be a Witness site, and I went after them with ferocity. As a result of one battle, the Librarian placed me heading a thread that she entitled “TrueTom vs the Apostates.” I tried to get out of it, to no avail. So I warmed to the task and went after them with such heat—it was the unlikely trinity of O’Mally, Witness, and Rook—until Admin made the Librarian pull the entire thread and slap me with an “Abuse” label that explicitly said was to follow me forever and ever, but after a time, disappeared. 
In time, this became the ebook, “TrueTom vs the Apostates!” It is a more tightly written book than Dear Mr Putin, with about 50 short chapters as opposed to the former’s 16. Part I of that book was mostly written here, some as complete posts, barely modified for the book. Part II is old posts of mine from the blog—close enough to the theme of skewering apostates that I figured it would fit nicely. 
I have about three other books in mind, all of which will probably be on the drawing board for some time. There may even be a “TrueTom vs the Apostates!—Round 2” someday.
Does that answer your question?

I do not participate in the large "JWN" forum. I've tried but there is no way to actually have a Biblical discussion due to the number of non-believers and ridiculers of all things spiritual.
I have participated in forums for studies of the Ancient Near East (ANE) and Biblical Greek and Hebrew, but it's been years since I tried to get questions answered there. I got invited to a chronology forum based on a correspondence with Rolf Furuli. This "theworldnewsmedia" is the only one I have looked at in months. I think it makes a good place to write out my own opinions and concerns and usually get some thoughtful feedback. It's not too crowded, and I'm pretty sure it's small enough so that no one from HQ will take much interest. I'm sure it's not run by elders, btw. Mon 25 @ 11:50 Ong

AlanF and Allen or César Chávez,
I forgot exactly what happened last time between you two. But I think that there must be a way to keep this a little bit more civil and still make your points.
I find, for example, that replacing the word "liar" with "disingenuous person" goes a long way, and takes longer to read, too. 😎

I do not participate in the large "JWN" forum. I've tried but there is no way to actually have a Biblical discussion due to the number of non-believers and ridiculers of all things spiritual.
I have participated in forums for studies of the Ancient Near East (ANE) and Biblical Greek and Hebrew, but it's been years since I tried to get questions answered there. I got invited to a chronology forum based on a correspondence with Rolf Furuli. This "theworldnewsmedia" is the only one I have looked at in months. I think it makes a good place to write out my own opinions and concerns and usually get some thoughtful feedback. It's not too crowded, and I'm pretty sure it's small enough so that no one from HQ will take much interest. I'm sure it's not run by elders, btw. Mon 25 @ 11:50 Ong

I think that if there were a lot of new things, many folks would just complain that it represents things we had wrong and had to change. The basic foundational beliefs have been around for quite a while, and we wouldn't expect any big changes in any of these. But we've gained a simpler message even though most of the "deeper" ideas are not discarded.
I think that we can be a bit humbler now because we aren't so often trying to compare our level of scholarship with others. We are not into the scholarship that proves the Trinity wrong, or Christmas wrong, even though we understand that our position on these things is much better than Christendom's.
I think we are wrong on a couple of less important doctrines that should be revisited in a scholarly manner. But if the WTS decided to never revisit some of these things, and could help us completely replace our concern instead with showing love to our fellow believers, and then showing love to our neighbor, and helping us learn patience, humility, peace, joy, love, kindness, moral cleanness, I would not care at all about a couple of mistaken doctrines.

I do not participate in the large "JWN" forum. I've tried but there is no way to actually have a Biblical discussion due to the number of non-believers and ridiculers of all things spiritual.
I have participated in forums for studies of the Ancient Near East (ANE) and Biblical Greek and Hebrew, but it's been years since I tried to get questions answered there. I got invited to a chronology forum based on a correspondence with Rolf Furuli. This "theworldnewsmedia" is the only one I have looked at in months. I think it makes a good place to write out my own opinions and concerns and usually get some thoughtful feedback. It's not too crowded, and I'm pretty sure it's small enough so that no one from HQ will take much interest. I'm sure it's not run by elders, btw. Mon 25 @ 11:50 Ong

I have no idea who she really is, but she is a name known from the big exJW forum (Simon something-or-other) and I have seen the name on a private yahoo forum run by Witnesses where I have discussed chronology. I haven't checked it in a couple of years, but it has included some Rolf Furuli defenders. (Furuli is a JW with a PhD who has tried to make the Watchtower chronology seem possible. No one outside of a few Watchtower defenders have ever taken him seriously.)

It's very probable that other people know certain features, and can help validate pieces of the story. But neither you nor I have any knowledge that this is already out there somewhere, so I already knew you were bluffing. (It reminds me of the style that "Allen Smith" often utilized to bluff and bluster.)
I'm sure that you just don't realize that the portion of this story that puts it in perspective is fairly recent. I'm sure a lot of people knew that it was TJ behind the intimidation campaign, but he clearly didn't want his name involved, so that limited the number who could tell what was happening, even from within the Service Department. From the "field" people might have known and complained about Beagle or Pierce, but how could anyone in the "field" have ever known that this was part of a campaign that included targeted areas in the Midwest. I can also name the victim, and I searched on this victim's name, a dozen different ways and although I can find the name, it is not associated (yet) in any public way with these allegations or with these other persons.
I think that there is a very good reason that no one has ever offered these same talking points. And there is a very good reason that you can't point to them either.
Curious spelling of condone. Reminds me of how Cesar Chavez would have pronounced "Columbus" as "Colon," where the m and n move in the other direction. The Knorr idea has been suggested before. I have my strong doubts, but I have heard it pointed out that he always surrounded himself with tall, good-looking men: The Adams family (all three brothers), Max Larson, etc. There was another widely known homosexual Branch Servant at the time in Canada, Percy Chapman, who did such a good job managing the Branch that no one seemed to care. But I think it was Knorr who finally had him removed (not that this proves anything about Knorr, one way or another).
I have never heard of Rutherford being accused of homosexuality. I didn't search, but it was never one of the accusations floating around inside Bethel. My own table head (the Bethel Elder at the head of every morning and lunch table) worked with Rutherford and claimed that he was a drunkard, a womanizer, and a contentious blowhard, but this is the first I have ever heard of a complaint of homosexuality.
 It can be proven that at least one husband divorced his wife over all the time that his wife was spending alone with Rutherford.
True, but he seemed to have some details I had never known anyone else to mention, but they match things I heard about before exJW websites existed, and before the Web existed. And an attending witness could actually provide a lot of useful help here.

Per Wikipedia, The Constitution says:
"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
When the Constitution was written, the terms "high crime" and "misdemeanor" were both used in senses that are quite different from the way we've come to think of them today. The original sense came from the laws that the framers had themselves been under, the British laws, which had used the term since as far back as 1386. It was originally a phrase to highlight the fact that almost any kind of "maladministration" --even things we might think of as NON-crimes-- could have a magnified effect due to the "high office" of the official, judge, president, etc. Most of the items that were considered "maladministration" would not be considered much of a problem at all if you or I practiced them. But they could become a perverting of justice or subject the populace to the ill effects in a way that only a person in high office had the ability to do.
When James Madison discussed the formulation of the "constitution" with Mason, they started out with only Bribery and Treason, but Mason argued that the definition of Treason is too narrowly tied to enemies when at war, and that this would hardly cover situations when a president "attempts to subvert the Constitution." So the British term "maladministration" was suggested and then, after discussion, changed it to the more formal British term "high crimes and misdemeanors." According to the Wikipedia article on "Maladministration"  it means the following in UK law:
The definition of maladministration is wide and can include:
Delay Incorrect action or failure to take any action Failure to follow procedures or the law Failure to provide information Inadequate record-keeping Failure to investigate Failure to reply Misleading or inaccurate statements Inadequate liaison Inadequate consultation Broken promises That's such a vague definition that Madison said it would be the equivalent of just having a President who served at the pleasure of the Senate. It would "normalize" impeachment, and therefore the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" was deemed closer to the idea of "subverting the constitution." The phrase was definitely intended to narrow the reasons that the Senate might try to impeach a President, but was also a way to include things that would not nearly reach up to the definitions of bribery and treason.
In Britain the phrase meant abuse of a high office even if the abuse did NOT violate any criminal laws. So this is how legal scholars have also applied it to the US presidency, usually with a focus on any subversion of the Constitution.
The Wiki article on "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" includes the following that gives an idea of how the original framers understood it:
Benjamin Franklin asserted that the power of impeachment and removal was necessary for those times when the Executive "rendered himself obnoxious," and the Constitution should provide for the "regular punishment of the Executive when his conduct should deserve it, and for his honorable acquittal when he should be unjustly accused." James Madison said that "impeachment... was indispensable" to defend the community against "the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the chief Magistrate." With a single executive, Madison argued, unlike a legislature whose collective nature provided security, "loss of capacity or corruption was more within the compass of probable events, and either of them might be fatal to the Republic."[10]
The process of impeaching someone in the House of Representatives and the Senate is difficult, made so to be the balance against efforts to easily remove people from office for minor reasons that could easily be determined by the standard of "high crimes and misdemeanors". It was George Mason who offered up the term "high crimes and misdemeanors" as one of the criteria to remove public officials who abuse their office. Their original intentions can be gleaned by the phrases and words that were proposed before, such as "high misdemeanor," "maladministration," or "other crime." Edmund Randolph said impeachment should be reserved for those who "misbehave." Charles Cotesworth Pinckney said, It should be reserved "for those who behave amiss, or betray their public trust." As can be seen from all these references to "high crimes and misdemeanors," the definition or its rationale does not relate to specific offences. This gives a lot of freedom of interpretation to the House of Representatives and the Senate. The constitutional law by nature is not concerned with being specific. The courts through precedence and the legislature through lawmaking make constitutional provisions specific. In this case the legislature (the House of Representatives and the Senate) acts as a court and can create a precedent.
In Federalist No. 65, Alexander Hamilton said, "those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself."[11]
The first impeachment conviction by the United States Senate was in 1804 of John Pickering, a judge of the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire, for chronic intoxication. Federal judges have been impeached and removed from office for tax evasion, conspiracy to solicit a bribe, and making false statements to a grand jury.[12]

Earlier in the day yesterday, someone had just asked me privately about some details that came out of the Lloyd & Ted drama. I wrote up an answer containing most of the information in the post to AlanF. I mentioned in that answer that although I thought my source or sources were excellent, I still thought some of the details seemed a bit contrived and hard to believe.
Later in the same day, AlanF shows up here, and I recalled that he, or persons in his family, had met a lot of these same people. So I copied what I had already written and then tried to edit it quickly. As it turns out I don't think AlanF could add much to it. And I don't get the impression that he's into the kind of quiet, reasonable discussion I was hoping for. 😞

It's very probable that other people know certain features, and can help validate pieces of the story. But neither you nor I have any knowledge that this is already out there somewhere, so I already knew you were bluffing. (It reminds me of the style that "Allen Smith" often utilized to bluff and bluster.)
I'm sure that you just don't realize that the portion of this story that puts it in perspective is fairly recent. I'm sure a lot of people knew that it was TJ behind the intimidation campaign, but he clearly didn't want his name involved, so that limited the number who could tell what was happening, even from within the Service Department. From the "field" people might have known and complained about Beagle or Pierce, but how could anyone in the "field" have ever known that this was part of a campaign that included targeted areas in the Midwest. I can also name the victim, and I searched on this victim's name, a dozen different ways and although I can find the name, it is not associated (yet) in any public way with these allegations or with these other persons.
I think that there is a very good reason that no one has ever offered these same talking points. And there is a very good reason that you can't point to them either.
Curious spelling of condone. Reminds me of how Cesar Chavez would have pronounced "Columbus" as "Colon," where the m and n move in the other direction. The Knorr idea has been suggested before. I have my strong doubts, but I have heard it pointed out that he always surrounded himself with tall, good-looking men: The Adams family (all three brothers), Max Larson, etc. There was another widely known homosexual Branch Servant at the time in Canada, Percy Chapman, who did such a good job managing the Branch that no one seemed to care. But I think it was Knorr who finally had him removed (not that this proves anything about Knorr, one way or another).
I have never heard of Rutherford being accused of homosexuality. I didn't search, but it was never one of the accusations floating around inside Bethel. My own table head (the Bethel Elder at the head of every morning and lunch table) worked with Rutherford and claimed that he was a drunkard, a womanizer, and a contentious blowhard, but this is the first I have ever heard of a complaint of homosexuality.
 It can be proven that at least one husband divorced his wife over all the time that his wife was spending alone with Rutherford.
True, but he seemed to have some details I had never known anyone else to mention, but they match things I heard about before exJW websites existed, and before the Web existed. And an attending witness could actually provide a lot of useful help here.

I think that several items of information in my last post cannot be found in ANY of the thousands of ex-witness websites.
I have never mentioned the Pierce, West, Lett, Beagle incidents before, and I doubt that C.A. has publicized anything. I would be extremely surprised if you found the case of the mother who got a letter from TJ about her daughter, or even which circuits that Beagle and Pierce were sent to, and which circuits West and Lett went to. In a previous version I gave the state and even an indication of how the story came up again recently. I removed it because I realized that it involved too many specifics about a living person.

That's the thing - we do not live in a perfect world, but as a man of God, a follower of Christ, you should have the sense to know better during the End Times.
Clearly. Not all instances can be stopped 100%. You can save and or help one, but the other you cannot. We as Christians can help people, but we do not take orders of men of the world to strike down another man who is blindly following the same order. The fact you support going to war only adds more fuel to the fire.
In this sense, you are among the fold who are very supportive of such. I can tell you this, some in the military that I've met don't always want to go fight, others, wish for war to cease, like you said, "a perfect world", but clearly, the rich and power and Babylon has their ways.
Unfortunately we live in a sin filled war. Unlike you I had seen my fair share of blood and death, some I had prevented, but it does not change the fact that I take drastic action that would cause me to strike and kill someone, who is also God fearing.
You clearly do not know what happens in war. There are evil people out there. They have men fight and kill other people's sons and daughters, some of their sons and daughters are butchered and raped, and brutally murdered. You can prevent an action in this village, but you cannot in the next.
Man, no, mankind cannot solve all problems, they cannot prevent all problems, let alone make corrections and or solutions to benefit all people. You and I both know that is impossible, for if that was the case, we would not have a need for God's Day. Only God and his Christ can solve mankind's problems, the very reason God made Jesus King and has given him power and authority, hence the gospel of Matthew and what we read in Hebrews. Only God's Kingdom is perfect and can cure the imperfections of man, and by means of God's Kingdom, His Kingdom will crush all of man's Kingdoms, hence Daniel 2.
That being said, I would also like to point out, of the Temptation of Jesus gospel (Matthew 4:8-10; Luke 4:5-8), what Satan tried to offer God's Son is the Kingdom of this world (governments), and what was Jesus' reaction? He refused and even told the fallen one that it is God that he must render religious worship to, for in this interaction, Jesus, a born Jew, quoted what was written in the Law.
So in regards to going to War, as a Christian, the blunt and absolute and obvious elementary answer is - No.
Yet again, the line is painted between True Christians and Mainstream Christians, and it does not surprise me in this sense to see why the Atheists nowadays like to make jokes in this case of Christians and War, even to the point some would even point out the fact that Jesus is for guns and bloodshed - blasphemy.
That being said, you and I both know this is not a perfect world. Be God fearing and continue to wait for the End Times and Tribulations, try to reach out for hearts - not physically disrupt someone's heart by force and or violence to cease their life, Matthew.

Earlier in the day yesterday, someone had just asked me privately about some details that came out of the Lloyd & Ted drama. I wrote up an answer containing most of the information in the post to AlanF. I mentioned in that answer that although I thought my source or sources were excellent, I still thought some of the details seemed a bit contrived and hard to believe.
Later in the same day, AlanF shows up here, and I recalled that he, or persons in his family, had met a lot of these same people. So I copied what I had already written and then tried to edit it quickly. As it turns out I don't think AlanF could add much to it. And I don't get the impression that he's into the kind of quiet, reasonable discussion I was hoping for. 😞

Thanks for the compliment - you seem to take offence pretty quickly - which indicates a bit of an ego. I am not "brought in"   ..... I butt in by my own free will..... and I do not need your permission.... lol. 
I just wish to remind you that I do have a different viewpoint to most people here (because I am African and we call a spade a spade)  and while I do not have a debating spirit - I have never seen the need to "win" an argument - I have a viewpoint and an opinion which can enhance understanding from a different perspective - that is all.  If you see no use in it that is your choice. 
And for your accusation about insults - I think you do pretty well at it yourself!

I think that several items of information in my last post cannot be found in ANY of the thousands of ex-witness websites.
I have never mentioned the Pierce, West, Lett, Beagle incidents before, and I doubt that C.A. has publicized anything. I would be extremely surprised if you found the case of the mother who got a letter from TJ about her daughter, or even which circuits that Beagle and Pierce were sent to, and which circuits West and Lett went to. In a previous version I gave the state and even an indication of how the story came up again recently. I removed it because I realized that it involved too many specifics about a living person.