Anna

Jesus’ followers have limited authority in every way. The authority given to them by Jesus  is to look after the sheep in their care, not lording it over them,  to keep the congregations morally and spiritually clean, and encourage them in the work Jesus commanded (preaching the good news). Also they were to provide spiritual food at the proper time. This did not mean re- inventing scripture or experimenting and then being dogmatic about the interpretation unless its proved crystal clear.
If the holy spirit had authority to “make” people do things, then people under its influence would never make any mistakes. It does not have that authority. Holy spirit only works if the person is willing to be molded by it. We know mistakes have been made in interpretation and organization.  Obviously Holy spirit was unable to influence that. The organization itself does not like the word dogmatic being applied to it because of its negative connotation. This is because imperfect humans do not have the right to be dogmatic about anything really.
 

You are right that there has been a movement to "normalize" all this supposed sexual fluidity and new definitions. These supposedly progressive "culture warriors" are out there trying to get anything and everything made acceptable. It's a real mess. And it is also working as a trap for stupid Americans (apologies to stupid Americans) who think that this is some wonderful bandwagon to jump on.
Even in many colleges and universities, so-called places for progress and freedom, many of these "culture warriors" have tried to suppress speech, etc.

This would mean that you think the dinosaurs died out about 4,400 years ago?
I heard you mention a couple of these. The ones I looked up didn't pan out. The claims about them were not very scientific. And obviously this is where I would hope that new answers will show up, and hopefully this is where WTS writers will be especially helpful. While I was at Bethel there was no one who knew much of anything about this type of science. If there was, he or she didn't speak up when the Evolution book was ready for an update.

Agreed - especially the evolutionists are making the creation into a thing that an unthinking process can accomplish!
Yes, an analysis of the logic, coherency, consistency and continuity of the main theme in the bible and compared to what is going on in the academic sector and the world - one can only come to one conclusion:- we need a government that is outside this universe and one which is based on much higher principles and justice than we see mankind capable of. We are truly wicked and our history proves that.  We DO have a nasty flaw as the bible says.
 
The general public and many people are not really interested in the nitty gritty little facts - they want a quick read... something which tells them what to think. Also,  there has been an explosion of new discoveries which now are being suppressed.  Every now and then I get something interesting in  my inbox which triggers my thoughts.
Many young people are too busy raising families and struggling with a career and to keep a job in these critical times.... there is little time for research and to attend and prepare for  meetings and field service. 
If I sounded harsh - I did not mean to...... but I  do say what I think.  I think the secular humanist ideologies has softened most American's brains.  It is everywhere and leading many astray..... even Jehovah's people. We must all be vigilant. 
I believe that our fight is against a very immoral world which is getting worse and worse as we speak.  I feel for the young people who are raising children in schools where they are teaching these corrupt sexual practices and other teachings as if it is the truth. Many children cannot opt out of saying the Shahada because Islam is promoted as a religion of peace-  another lie openly promoted by satan as truth. 

If you are referring to me here, then you should know that I am not disappointed in Jehovah, nor in Creation. I am only disappointed that our explanations are not able to keep up with the evidence. I can't think of another way to put it, but this is an area where we must currently reject evidence, some of which I have gone to see for myself, hoping the evidence was more ambiguous. There are many ways to resolve the existence of God and even MOST of the evidence. But we are clearly oversimplifying the process of creation if those unresolved pieces of evidence are real. 
And I have no problem with imagining that Jehovah created many thousands of species that we have not yet seen, and that creation was a much a grander and more wonderful process than we could imagine. I still think there is a good explanation out there somewhere. I am disappointed, not in the Bible, but in the fact that some WTS writers, especially in the past, had misused the writings of evolutionists instead of dealing with the evidence itself. I wasn't referring to the case that TTH mentioned. But I didn't think this point was generally in question.

Do they? It is in the eye of the beholder. Must one really point out when quoting a scientist that he believes his own theory.
I gave an example with Darwin’s quote about the eye:
Darwin wrote:
“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”....
Q: If you quote this line, do you really have to add:  “of course, this is not to suggest that Darwin does not believe in his own theory of evolution by natural selection”?
I would never have thought so. I mean, what do you expect his next words to be? “Thus we can see that my entire theory is a load of horse manure. But I'm in this to win the praise of my peers, who for some reason, eat this stuff up. That, and maybe there's a buck to be made. So I'm putting lipstick on this pig. I'm sticking to my guns, even though you know, and I know, that it's all nonsense.”??
No! He's not going to say that! He's going to say something like: “Still, many now-established truths seemed equally absurd when first proposed. Evidence is scanty with relationship to the eye's development....no one's saying otherwise..... but we can expect future researchers to uncover corroborating material.”
That's my prediction (without peeking). In fact, he says almost exactly that:
“When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ["the voice of the people = the voice of God "], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.”
Alright, then. Pretty much what I predicted he would say. Any donkey ought to realize Darwin's not throwing in the towel on his own theory by admitting evolution of the eye sounds ridiculous. If you use his quote to suggest he considers himself a charlatan, that's dishonest. But if you use his quote to show he acknowledges some pretty high hurdles exist in proving his theory.....well, what's wrong with that?
.........The above is from the post: 
Darwin wrote:
“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”....
Q: If you quote this line, do you really have to add:  “of course, this is not to suggest that Darwin does not believe in his own theory of evolution by natural selection”?
I would never have thought so. I mean, what do you expect his next words to be? “Thus we can see that my entire theory is a load of horse manure. But I'm in this to win the praise of my peers, who for some reason, eat this stuff up. That, and maybe there's a buck to be made. So I'm putting lipstick on this pig. I'm sticking to my guns, even though you know, and I know, that it's all nonsense.”??
No! He's not going to say that! He's going to say something like: “Still, many now-established truths seemed equally absurd when first proposed. Evidence is scanty with relationship to the eye's development....no one's saying otherwise..... but we can expect future researchers to uncover corroborating material.”
That's my prediction (without peeking). In fact, he says almost exactly that:
“When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ["the voice of the people = the voice of God "], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.”
Alright, then. Pretty much what I predicted he would say. Any donkey ought to realize Darwin's not throwing in the towel on his own theory by admitting evolution of the eye sounds ridiculous. If you use his quote to suggest he considers himself a charlatan, that's dishonest. But if you use his quote to show he acknowledges some pretty high hurdles exist in proving his theory.....well, what's wrong with that?
......The above is from the 2011 post: https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2011/01/darwins-eye.html
which goes on to consider numerous examples from the 2 most recent brochures on creation v evolution. Numerous footnotes appear to point out that this or that scientist obviously believes in his own theory.
I think that’s sufficiently honest.

On the overall subject of evolution, I don't pretend to know the answers. I think that a lot of the evidence on both sides has been misunderstood, but every time I try to look into it myself, it seems that the "wrong" evidence is winning. My mother believes that Satan, who keeps transforming himself into an angel of light, was given powers/permission to hide fossils in whatever places he wished to cause confusion and division. (Perhaps a hint of this in Satan's argument over Moses' body in Jude 9.) I don't like this theory at all. I've mostly heard it from young earth creationists, and was actually surprised to hear it from my mother. It brings up so many questions about the timing of such "miracles" that Satan was allowed to perform. Were these fossils moved at the time of the Garden of Eden? Is Satan still allowed to perform these miracles today?
I've heard my father (in fact I've been with him at museums) back in the years when he tried to explain the feathers on certain non-flying dinosaurs as feathery-looking ferns and/or other leaves and plants. I've now seen enough of these fossils up close so that I realize he is just grasping at straws.
I have always assumed that there is a bigger puzzle here and that none of us are ready to deal with all the facts and evidence yet. Although my own son (the math/physicist) tells me that the sum total of the evidence does currently fit the evolution theory, with some minor exceptions not yet understood, but which will probably still fit among the current theories, with minor adjustments.
To my son's credit, he does not believe the current theories are necessarily final, and they don't prove there is no God.
But here is the most surprising thing about my son's belief: The current theories are the ones that HONEST scientists are forced to accept based on rules of handling scientific evidence. It's not the same as scholars having a vested interest in keeping things going because of power and influence. In fact, if a scientist could come up with a new theory that fits the facts and evidence, he would become the new Darwin. It's probably the "holy grail" of scientists to be able to topple a current theory with a better explanation for all the evidence The problem is not the scholars, or the theory, it's that this theory is the RIGHT one from the perspective of science. It fits the old evidence and the new evidence, so far.
The best the Society can do is to look for inconsistencies and disagreements among certain scientists, and make the most of these issues to show us that there is still some room for disagreement over certain bits of evidence. I'm very disappointed when the WTS writers stoop to misquoting the evolutionary scientists, however, or quote a religious view from a different kind of scientist who clearly never dealt with evolutionary theory. I'd like to think that the WTS writers were only being careless when looking for ways to discredit evolutionary scientists, but the clever way in which words have been selected for quotes, with other words left out, tells me that the writers have sometimes understood the original intent and stooped to dishonesty. I'm not sure why a WTS writer would ever think this was a reasonable solution for us. But it tells me that the WTS is not ready to explain the overall evidence yet.
This reminds me of a problem I've had with uranium. What GOOD is it?
Radioactive substances were clearly on the earth when Jehovah declared each successive day "good." And after the sixth day he could look back and see that everything he had made was good.
Was it good because humans might find that some radioactive elements could be made to produce heat like coals? Obviously not! Were all radioactive elements and substances kept out of man's reach so that he would never come across them?
Perhaps it was so that man would someday harness these powers and create a safe source of energy? This implies that Jehovah wanted mankind to develop technologically, and as indicated by the Tower of Babel, perhaps controlled the pace of that progress until today or some time in the near future. But if we don't really need it until the new system, why not make it in the new system, in much the same way that he provided quail or manna. And why would we need it in the new system, anyway?
I can understand how Jehovah could have made all animals subject to man such as in a Garden of Eden. Even animals that are violent with one another can still be trained to be peaceful in their interaction with humans.
But perhaps this is the same argument that AlanF is making about thousands of years of animals being violent and unloving with one another. I have less problem with that, than with all the things that would seem to be poison to us, and which we would only learn about through dangerous, even lethal, experimentation. Does EVERY poison and danger have a good side? When did certain plants and elements become poisonous to us? Only after Adam's sin?

With regards to "being appointed by 'holy spirit,' a few things to keep in mind. A recent "Treasures From God's Word" stated: "The stars are under Jesus' full control, power, and direction." That COULD be a bit misleading depending on how literally you view that statement. Should we assume then that elders will do everything perfectly - as if Jesus by holy spirit has them on remote control - controlling every thought, decision and action within the congregations? If that was the case, the elders/GB would always act perfectly. Should we actually expect that today? Recall, that even while Jesus was letting the first century anointed elders know that they were accountable to him as to how they used the authority entrusted to them, what was actually going while he was yet speaking? Apostasy, immorality, lukewarm, half-hearted service that wanted to make Jesus vomit them out of his mouth... Why would that be the case when Jesus is in authority?
As we recall, we are often reminded not to expect perfection from our brothers and sisters - including appointed elders. The  apostle Paul candidly described his battle with good and bad inclinations. But there are other reasons too.                                    
1) Holy spirit does not give appointed men a miraculous ability to read hearts and minds. A person is spoken of as being "appointed by holy spirt," when they are seen to live up to the qualifications set out in God's Word - which is inspired by holy spirt. But humans are limited in that respect and sometimes mistakes are made. (i.e.. GB appoints an individual as an elder and later as a Circuit Overseer who turns out to be a communist spy that turns in the brothers causing some to stumble. Jesus didn't direct that to happen. After all, he would be working against his own interests - like a house divided. It was human limitation.)
2) Neither Jesus nor holy spirit take away a person's freedom of choice. (As was evidenced by what was going on even while Jesus was speaking). As we also know, in the first century, there were men in the congregations described as "rocks hidden beneath the surface." They weren't forced or directed to do that. That was their personal choice - which is important because our heart conditions are revealed by the choices we make. Anyone - including men in authority can make a wrong choice if they don't guard their heart. Freedom of choice is important for obvious reasons. 
3) If something isn't dealt with right away, does that indicate Jesus isn't in control of the congregation? No. As the comments point out, "if someone needs correction, Jesus will see to it that this is done in his own time and way." And it should come as not surprise that it's always been that way. As 1 Tim. 5:24 states: "The sins of some men are publicly known, leading directly to judgment, but those of other men become evident later." Later?!! How much later? The Bible historically answers that too. Sometimes the sins of some men like Korah and others became publicly known leading directly to judgment (when the earth swallowed up the rebels.) But other times, faithful men endured injustice for years, or decades and some would never see justice until the resurrection. So at times, things don't happen when and how we think they should. Or when we think is best. But we can have confidence that, as in the past, they will be dealt with one way or another. 
4) The operation of holy spirit can at times, be hard to "quantify." The first century Christians had strong and undeniable evidence they were anointed by holy spirit and some even had miraculous gifts. Even so, they didn't always have a complete understanding of things and some expectations were premature - although they were very interested as to where they thought the spirit was leading them. Likewise today. At times the leadings of holy spirit are easy to recognize and at other times not so much. Sometimes organizationally, we "go beyond the things written" as to dates, types and antitypes, times and seasons and even doctrinal issues. Well meaning, yes, but sometimes we forget that instead of making "predictions," (even while admitting we are not miraculously inspired prophets), our mandate is to preach and teach - not make up stuff that doesn't have a specific Biblical foundation. Historically and biblically there is nothing new to this. God's people have always had a gradual understanding of the outworking of God's purpose - and often leaning new things means we have to discard old things.
  But in all of this it's important to remember what is truly remarkable about benefitting from Jesus' authority as head of the congregation and what he has been able to accomplish using imperfect men. Miraculous some would say.
A) Jesus has been able to direct a world-wide preaching work using imperfect men, women, children and yes, imperfect elders. But it's much more than that when you think about it. We are preaching in Satan's backyard. He is the "god of this system of things" and has the support of powerful spirit creatures (henchmen) and world governments. And what is part of the message we deliver? "Satan is a malicious liar and that he and all of his spirit buddies, along with the world system he has spent thousands of years to develop, are all going to be destroyed." We preach that "right in his grill." How do you think that goes over? We would never be able to accomplish that if Jesus wasn't a powerful king in control of the congregation. So do we faithfuly follow the direction of appointed elders as to the details of accomplishing this ministry?
B) We have what everyone has wanted for thousands of years but been unable to achieve. World unity. Despite being from all nations, tribes and tongues - from different backgrounds and stations in life, we are united. But we aren't just united in a stalemate - "I won't attack you if you don't attack me." No. We are united because of the love we have for one another. The type of love that Jesus taught and demonstrated in our behalf. 
C) Many/most of Jehovah's Witnesses come from other religions. Even those born into the truth are exposed to many people from different faiths. And there is one thing we can all testify to: Spiritually, we are BY FAR, the best fed people on earth. More than that. We are the best fed group of people who have ever lived. We even know things first century Christians didn't know. Al of this is readily available. That is no accident. and Jesus continues to educate us using (imperfect) elders as teachers in the congregation. 
We benefit from a loving arrangement Jesus has by holy spirit set in place for our benefit. It's helpful to liken this arrangement to having good parents. As we grew, they fed us, cleaned us, clothes us, disciplined us, taught us, cared for and sympathized with us. When we were hurt they supported us. And even when we reach maturity, they are there for us and continue to love us. Again, this is possible by means of Jesus direction in the congregation and holy spirit.
  
 

The reason why I said what I did in that post was to highlight that "a little molestation" leads to "big molestation" unless the "little molestation" is stopped. What happened to me was nothing really. It did not traumatize me, and I was on good terms with my uncle. I doubt I would ever think of bringing something like that to the police, and my mum obviously didn't think it warranted it either. And to let you know, my mum was a tigress when it came to protecting me. Then in my reply to you I said:
I mentioned that elsewhere too. No one thinks child sexual molestation is ok. And no one thinks "a little molestation" is ok either (that is why I said something, and that is why my mum handled it). If my uncle had been a Witness, and not my uncle, my mum would have gone to the elders and told them what happened.The the perpetrator would have probably made some excuse, or shown remorse,  got a warning and a slap on the wrist. He would probably never dare to do anything like that to me again. The pertinent question is, would he do something like that to someone else? And if he did, would that someone else report it? And if they didn't report it would the "little molestation" lead to "big molestation"? That is the problem. I have no idea if my uncle molested someone else. He was my aunts second husband and had grown children. It probably didn't cross my aunts mind. I don't think it crossed anybodies mind, that other children could be in danger. Its because that's not how these things were generally perceived or understood. I am not making excuses. That's just how it was. In a similar manner, elders in those days were not aware that others could be in danger. They probably thought that a warning was enough to ensure it would not happen again. We now know the likelihood of something like that happening again is high. 
Yes, unfortunately it does appear that way. But to be fair, I would put both on the same plane. Child molestation is abhorred as much as the accusation of being tolerant of it, or hiding it. Especially  when felt it is not justified (the accusation).

That was not the impression TTH gave me. Nor do I think that's the attitude of JW  leaders. I think it's ignorance of how child sexual molestation really works, and naivete regarding "repentance" is what has caused all the doo doo.to happen.

I know what you're saying, it's just that a hand on the inner thigh or rear end, if done deliberately, is usually just the beginning, and is like a test leading to other stages. Maybe the degree of molestation should be categorized in stages? Stage one: hand on inner thigh and buttocks, stage two: ........and so on.
The thing is, if the molester gets away with stage one (no one reports it, or the victim doesn't stop it) then you know for sure it will lead to stage two, and if that's not reported to stage three etc. So in my opinion, at least, it doesn't matter at what stage the molester gets caught or reported, because really it's about the potential, or goal of the molester, the actual "gravity" of the act is merely contingent on carrying on until he gets stopped. 
I consider my uncle (non JW) as molesting me when I was 13. I was wearing a t-shirt with some logo on it across my chest. He took his finger and begun tracing the writing and then at the end he tweeked my nipple. It all happened so unexpectedly that I didn't even think of moving. At the end of it I knew it had been deliberate because of the nipple thing. However, I nipped that one in the bud (no pun intended) by going straight to my mum  reporting what had happened. My mum went straight to my aunt, and my aunt went straight to my uncle. Needless to say, that was the last time he touched me. I hate to think what could have happened had I not said anything....

Because that kind of gossip travels fast!
Yes, very dogmatic. Obviously this was when they "didn't succeed" in not being dogmatic. I didn't say they were never dogmatic.
 

Thanks for those references. I obviously must have read some of them, especially the ones from the 80's and I am aware that our mothers would say we would never go to school, that Armageddon would be here by then. This was nothing new to me since we were saying this almost since the founding of the JWS. What I was questioning was the specific date 2000. That Armageddon would come in that year, in the same way as was insinuated for 1975. "Within the 20th Century" is open, and just because 15 year old Samuel "visualizes something happening in 2000" doesn't mean we had to think it will happen exactly then, lol. Samuel is 48 today, probably with kids, maybe a grandad,  and probably still a JW. I know plenty of people who visualized something happening, and nothing happened, and they are still visualizing it. But, everyone in their right mind yearns for good things, and Jesus told his followers to "keep on the watch" and Peter "await and keep close in mind the presence of the day of Jehovah".  As for the society setting specific dates for the end, 1925 sticks in my mind, for which Rutherford apologized, and 1975, which was not official anyway. And 1914 of course....

I know what you're saying, it's just that a hand on the inner thigh or rear end, if done deliberately, is usually just the beginning, and is like a test leading to other stages. Maybe the degree of molestation should be categorized in stages? Stage one: hand on inner thigh and buttocks, stage two: ........and so on.
The thing is, if the molester gets away with stage one (no one reports it, or the victim doesn't stop it) then you know for sure it will lead to stage two, and if that's not reported to stage three etc. So in my opinion, at least, it doesn't matter at what stage the molester gets caught or reported, because really it's about the potential, or goal of the molester, the actual "gravity" of the act is merely contingent on carrying on until he gets stopped. 
I consider my uncle (non JW) as molesting me when I was 13. I was wearing a t-shirt with some logo on it across my chest. He took his finger and begun tracing the writing and then at the end he tweeked my nipple. It all happened so unexpectedly that I didn't even think of moving. At the end of it I knew it had been deliberate because of the nipple thing. However, I nipped that one in the bud (no pun intended) by going straight to my mum  reporting what had happened. My mum went straight to my aunt, and my aunt went straight to my uncle. Needless to say, that was the last time he touched me. I hate to think what could have happened had I not said anything....

I don't think so, more like "some people just can't help themselves"

It might sound mealy mouthed, but it's hardly deception.
They tried hard not to be dogmatic, but they didn’t always succeed. Sometimes they did well and were not dogmatic, and sometimes they didn’t do well, and were dogmatic.
I believe they endeavored to avoid being dogmatic. But obviously didn't always succeed.

Because that kind of gossip travels fast!
Yes, very dogmatic. Obviously this was when they "didn't succeed" in not being dogmatic. I didn't say they were never dogmatic.
 

"But I never heard any facts for sure about the molestation charges, although it was a well-known rumor."
This brings to mind an interchange you and I had last year regarding information that may come out in mid 2016.  It seemed from your response that you were leaning toward the idea of some potential homosexual encounter. The person I had In mind in my statement was in fact Leo Greenlees.  I of course, knew about the "purported" charges of child molestation, but more recently a person who had been a well-known elder died, leaving an envelope stating it should not be opened until after his death.  In the letter he made the accusation that Leo had molested him when he was younger.  (Not the same individual who was involved in 1984 as far as I know since this elder was already an adult and elder by that year).  In any event, to the extent that all of this is true, Leo would have already been a practicing child molester prior to his being appointed on the GB (although of course, the GB wouldn't have appointed him if they had known).  Naturally, in the current climate of things, these types of things could prove "difficult" for current members of the GB who are aware of the details if governmental authorities get nosy.
"The predisposition of someone should not disqualify them from responsibility as long as they can handle the responsibility without bringing reproach on Jehovah, on themselves, or others, and/or scandal upon the congregation. If a brother has already proven himself faithful and morally clean for many years, even if he struggles with sinful thoughts, then he is probably not so different from anyone else who was on the Governing Body at the time, even if these particular sins seem much more unexpected."
 I agree with you on that, since I know a number of brothers who have been disciplined for child molestation in various congregations.  All of them have been faithful brothers for many years now without incident.  But a potential problem with that type of weakness is the rate of recidivism that can accompany that type of behaviour.  Naturally, there are some very thorny legal issues associated with appointing a person with such a history and whether he would even potentially offend again.  
My take on this is that even though information on certain websites (which we should avoid) may have some truth or even be completely true, my faith in and dedication to Jehovah is not dictated by the choices other humans make - regardless of what "position" they may have in "the organization."  They too are imperfect, not miraculously inspired and make mistakes and have poor judgment at times. Kinda' like all the rest of us.  But even with all of that, it's as close to pure worship and accomplishing our Christian mandate to preach the good news of the Kingdom world-wide as is possible to find today.  You won't find brothers accomplishing that, regardless of how intellectual their reasoning may appear.  Who is "walking the walk" as to the preaching work the Christian congregation was formed for?
Im still not sure however, if there was more news we might expect regarding what you had suggested last year.
 

Brother Greenlees and Brother Chitty are not mentioned in the Proclaimer's book. Interesting that Percy Chapman (included in the picture above) is still mentioned now and then, often in the same context with Brother Greenlees. He was more "openly homosexual" to the dismay of Brother Knorr who continued to work with him anyway. I never knew that Brother Ewart Chitty was homosexual and assumed it was a rumor although I was told it was a fact by several. People also told me that Brother Greenlees was homosexual. In his case, there was good reason to believe them. But I never heard any facts for sure about the molestation charges, although it was a well-known rumor.
I should add, however, that there may be nothing wrong with trusting a homosexual brother to handle high levels of responsibility. The predisposition of someone should not disqualify them from responsibility as long as they can handle the responsibility without bringing reproach on Jehovah, on themselves, or others, and/or scandal upon the congregation. If a brother has already proven himself faithful and morally clean for many years, even if he struggles with sinful thoughts, then he is probably not so different from anyone else who was on the Governing Body at the time, even if these particular sins seem much more unexpected. Paul spoke of struggling with sin even as an apostle.

My question would be then:
Can we count our time spent in trying to get Siri, and Alexa,  for that matter,  and any other voice assistant out there, to give correct answers to Bible Questions? (I know only 1 peson can count the Return Visit and Bible Study).
P.S. I discontinued the study with my Tom Tom! It was just unproductive. It is not spiritually minded. But I am getting somewhere with my telephone anwering machine!

During 1994, in my first-ever sit-down discussion on theocratic issues with one of Jehovah's Witnesses (JW), Albert Schroeder, of the Watchtower Society Governing Body, put me to school with the Christian Gospel of Saint John, chapter 6, verse 44, to wit:
"... No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day....' (kjv)
Albert Schroeder said to me: "...go home and ...study this verse..."
And so,... the most unlikely person - me - is now a Disciple of Christ, a Bible student, one of Jehovah's Witnesses in vindication of the Sovereign Jehovah God.
Albert Schroeder had tagged along with JW Elders from Liberia who were before my United Nations/New York committee which was assessing effects of the then ongoing Liberia civil conflict on Liberia's religious groups. At the end of the review with the Liberia JW delegation, Albert Schroeder introduced himself to me. Of course, I did not then know who he was, but I did notice that the Liberia JW group was according him deference, so I inquired of him his role with the Watchtower Society. Still not knowing exactly what the Watchtower Society Governing Body did, I presumed he was some sort of "head honcho".
Considering that I was of the Catholic Church's Seraphic Order, a Worthy Sir of the Holy See, as well as an active participant in many other religious groups because of my political and diplomatic connections, I asked Albert Schroeder if I could acquire honorary membership in the Watchtower Society. His reply was, "...do you have a Bible?... go home and study the sixth book and forty-fourth verse of the Gospel of John, study this verse ...". I did so; and, at the following United Nations review meeting three months later, Albert Schroeder and I began an exchange of notes which guided my work in establishing the modalities of the peace process in Liberia.
Note that between 1994 and 1998, I did not attend a Kingdom Hall, associate with a JW Congregation, or begin a formal study of the Holy Scriptures, until two JW sisters came knocking on my door while out in field service distributing invitations to the Memorial of 1998 to be held on 14 Nisan (10 April 1998, ironically the day before my birthday of 11 April). Interestingly, these two JW sisters appeared at my door exactly as I was in the midst of praying to Jehovah God, "...please show me women who love you...". My prayer was in reaction to the immense and stiff opposition of very close female relatives to my quest of seeking a true association with the love of the Sovereign Jehovah God.
I have steadily progressed in my theocratic dedication and am now both a Pioneer and Ministerial Servant in the Watchtower Society.
BTW,... I am of the persuasion that Albert Schroeder - more than anyone else - tremendously impacted the solid placement of instruments of peace in the cessation of civil conflict throughout Liberia.
Ijoma Robert Flemister
https://www.facebook.com/groups/jwinternational/permalink/1650901681827311/
 

@James Thomas Rook Jr. is such a wuss. We all know it.
Given how, at the drop of a pin, he lauds Trump to the high heavens, and given how Alan is unambiguous in denouncing that luminary, @Anna and I thought we had front row seats for the battle of the century! They are both pugnacious. Neither knows the meaning of holding back in the slightest detail. How could we go wrong?
We sold tickets to the event. We lined up vendors. We had programs printed. And what happens?
A LOVEFEST! “You have never disappointed me, James,” Alan coos.
It has cost us serious money in refunds—and I had most of my money spent pampering Mrs. Harley!
WELL, IT IS NOT HAPPENING AGAIN!!!!
”Man-induced climate warming” is a problem that “may well” end the world, Alan says—and WHO has raged on and on that global warming is a HOAX to fool the GULLIBLE sheeple for the sake of left-wing politics, the politics that Alan adores? JTR - THAT’S who. By all rights, this ought to be the mother of all wars, even greater than the Trump/no-Trump war!
But he punted on that war!
He will punt on this one, too—the big wuss. Anna, keep your counsel to yourself! I am NOT going to print up tickets, again.
 

I thought I already gave you an answer to that, that of course God knew, and therefor Greenlees couldn't have been appointed by God using holy spirit.
 
Claiming one thing and actually doing it are different. And we have already established God is not deceived.
 
If the Pope qualifies by doing God's will according to the Bible, seen and unseen by human eyes,  then yes.

Anyone who wishes to share their opinions, personal experiences, (or the experiences of others) they had with Fred Franz, can do so here!

Anyone who wishes to share their opinions, personal experiences, (or the experiences of others) they had with Fred Franz, can do so here!