Anna

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 remember when you first posted here, all wet behind the ears and bewildered. You soon realised this was not a 'unicorn pooping rainbows' Witness only site, and stopped taking everything opposers said so seriously. All in all I would say it's been a good learning curve, for me too,  and I bet nothing anyone throws at you in the future will shock you anymore 😀
 

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?

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!

Of course. So I will leave it between them and God.
Really? How? I thought I did the opposite. You put a smiley for every quote I post.

I believe you
I don't believe in upsetting the elderly

This is all very entertaining! 😀
Already 13 pages within a week!

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. 😎

Actually you are completely wrong! The club is ran by an old hen, who got tired of having to listen to all the squabbles and mindless arguments in the chicken coop. She wanted to raise the 'roost' a little higher so she created this, so she could, with the help of some sheep, 'ewesdrop' on some quality human interaction. Actually, to be honest I am not entirely sure about all of this, but one thing I am 100% sure of is that it IS an old hen. TTH says so.

Actually you are completely wrong! The club is ran by an old hen, who got tired of having to listen to all the squabbles and mindless arguments in the chicken coop. She wanted to raise the 'roost' a little higher so she created this, so she could, with the help of some sheep, 'ewesdrop' on some quality human interaction. Actually, to be honest I am not entirely sure about all of this, but one thing I am 100% sure of is that it IS an old hen. TTH says so.

Sigh....
He’s back. Arguing with every single point, as was his wont, even the ones inconsequential to the thread—like the retort to the unreasonably chatty greeting from JWI with mention of concern of his atheism. 
This is the fellow that The Librarian told me privately, “Please stop arguing with Alan.” She knew what I was then finding out—that under no circumstances will he ever yield the final word. I did stop, and sure enough, he went away.
But he’s back.
Leading off with an insult to Trump, no less, though it has absolutely nothing to do with anything, and will likely fall flat to an apolitical audience, and those not apolitical will divide 50/50, so that he will unnecessarily antagonize some that he is trying to convince. Still he must get it in, and thus reveals—much as I hate to attribute wisdom to @James Thomas Rook Jr. that he has full-blown TDS and identifies with the leftists.
He’s back.
Oozing with contempt for anyone with whom he disagrees: “So are you claiming you don't worship the Governing Body? Don't let your fellows know, or you'll be disfellowshipped for apostasy,” he taunts. 
 

There is a lot of evidence that on the whole the organization has God's blessing, in spite of the "scandals". Here are just a few examples of observations from  outsiders: "It is a rare sight for people of widely different nationalities and cultures to bond together with such warm affection, although total strangers to one another........... With such a big crowd reaching several thousands, crowd control could have been quite a nightmare. But what the authorities and others saw surprised them. Pasay City police chief Col. Bernard Yang personally dropped in at the convention area and said, “Your preparations are perfect. We of the police unit assigned here for crowd control had felt no stress. Your people are very disciplined and followed all pedestrian rules. They’re all smiles too.” .............. It appears the convention’s theme “Love Never Fails” has proved not just a matter of faith, but a matter of personal conduct for Jehovah’s Witnesses, wherever they may be, in every aspect of their life......etc.
I do not think so many people could pretend, and make this happen, unless they were genuine, and unless they had a measure of God's blessing. In the congregations, individuals feel blessed that they have learned God's standards regarding living a clean life (not smoking, not taking drugs, morality etc.) because they were able to avoid many of the consequences and heartaches these things bring with them. They also feel confident and blessed about a good future for the earth, which many people, even religious ones, do not feel. They also feel confident and blessed about their reward, whether it be earthly or heavenly.
Yes, Jesus Christ died for everyone.
Personally? No I don't think that. It would be illogical to think so because there are so many who will never be given an opportunity to be in JW org. There are 8 million Witnesses, and 8 billion people on earth, so statistically it's an impossibility to reach everyone.
No, the GB said that saying we were trying to protect pedophiles were apostate lies. Not that sexual abuse never happened.
Wait and see 🙂. And we know Jesus's Kingdom won't be full of hypocrites.
Yes, leave it to them.

I have found from my experience as a JW for more than 30 years, that although you might never get the EXACT details about something, you can be sure of one thing, and that is: if there is smoke, it's because there is, or was a fire.

I have the feeling this evidence could possibly be in the orgs. files that certain lawyers are trying to get their hands on.

I have found from my experience as a JW for more than 30 years, that although you might never get the EXACT details about something, you can be sure of one thing, and that is: if there is smoke, it's because there is, or was a fire.

There is a lot of evidence that on the whole the organization has God's blessing, in spite of the "scandals". Here are just a few examples of observations from  outsiders: "It is a rare sight for people of widely different nationalities and cultures to bond together with such warm affection, although total strangers to one another........... With such a big crowd reaching several thousands, crowd control could have been quite a nightmare. But what the authorities and others saw surprised them. Pasay City police chief Col. Bernard Yang personally dropped in at the convention area and said, “Your preparations are perfect. We of the police unit assigned here for crowd control had felt no stress. Your people are very disciplined and followed all pedestrian rules. They’re all smiles too.” .............. It appears the convention’s theme “Love Never Fails” has proved not just a matter of faith, but a matter of personal conduct for Jehovah’s Witnesses, wherever they may be, in every aspect of their life......etc.
I do not think so many people could pretend, and make this happen, unless they were genuine, and unless they had a measure of God's blessing. In the congregations, individuals feel blessed that they have learned God's standards regarding living a clean life (not smoking, not taking drugs, morality etc.) because they were able to avoid many of the consequences and heartaches these things bring with them. They also feel confident and blessed about a good future for the earth, which many people, even religious ones, do not feel. They also feel confident and blessed about their reward, whether it be earthly or heavenly.
Yes, Jesus Christ died for everyone.
Personally? No I don't think that. It would be illogical to think so because there are so many who will never be given an opportunity to be in JW org. There are 8 million Witnesses, and 8 billion people on earth, so statistically it's an impossibility to reach everyone.
No, the GB said that saying we were trying to protect pedophiles were apostate lies. Not that sexual abuse never happened.
Wait and see 🙂. And we know Jesus's Kingdom won't be full of hypocrites.
Yes, leave it to them.

This is what I meant 😀 and not only with regard to CSA but anything that we feel is not right.
I need to edit this: not just anything we feel is not right, but that is actually not right scripturally.

To be practical; all those who are concerned about allegations of CSA cover up in HQ, and these allegations come to light, and it is proved some were made deliberately and harmed children, then no doubt justice will be carried out, if not by human hand, then by God's hand. And the organization WILL be cleaned where necessary. In fact, this cleaning is happening all the time, (whether it be regarding doctrine or organisational procedure) because of the imperfection of man, it is something that is necessary and inevitable. It was going on in Bible times and it hasn't stopped. Some of it is immediately visible, some not so much. Some of it happens quickly, some takes more time, but in the end it happens one way or another and will continue to happen. And this is what we all want, isn't it? Some of us may even contribute to some changes personally, and we know worldly institutions have already effected changes for example in the handling of CSA. 
So what is the purpose of some on here who criticize? Surely they are not expecting, or wishing for the organization to cease to exist? That would be unrealistic of course. But if the criticism is constructive, and hopes for a better way of doing things, then that is a good thing. However, if the criticism is merely to tear down, or vent ones anger and dissapointment, then these people forget that the organization is based on faith in God, and that its members will always rely on God for the ultimate solution. So there is no point in unconstructive criticism (when is there ever?) only to vent. And that's also fine if they feel this is a good place for it.

This is what I meant 😀 and not only with regard to CSA but anything that we feel is not right.
I need to edit this: not just anything we feel is not right, but that is actually not right scripturally.

The motive should not matter, if the charges are truthful. The difference in motive will sometimes show up in the level of carefulness and honesty. So badly motivated persons will often make claims that are not going to be useful as "constructive." They may even backfire in a court of law and discredit the usefulness and value of claims that could have otherwise been constructive.
We often use a scripture that we apply to the congregation, when it actually appears to have more of an application to "secular" authorities:
(Leviticus 5:1) . . .“‘If someone sins because he has heard a public call to testify and he is a witness or has seen or learned about it and he does not report it, then he will answer for his error."
So, there is precedent for bringing to light those activities that "love" the darkness.

This is a good point. I agree with it. When people keep talking about child sexual abuse and it becomes the big topic in the news, then it is easy to kind of impose child sexual abuse as the intended meaning even when we hear the term child abuse, which does not necessarily imply sexual abuse. 

You are allowed to respond to criticism any way you want as long as you are civil and not rude.

But the skit is British 😀

It's quite possible you are right about the current eight old men who may have never personally touched a child (in an abusive way). It's my impression that they are also quite innocent of any such issues.
But I don't think you can ever say that anyone in such a position as in the GB cannot comprehend such wickedness in others. They have dealt with a lot in their lives and they have been forced to deal with the topic even if they didn't want to.
And not to deal in gossip, but I can speak almost positively about the following situation, at least I can speak for the trustworthiness of the brothers who gave me the information. What I heard about several years ago from a friend in Writing, were things I talked about before the ARC, and they came up again from another brother after I discussed the ongoing ARC with him.
It actually started with two members of the Governing Body, who seemed not to want to speak to each other. Both became GB members in 1974 and this issue was visible during the time I worked around them. One had previously been assigned to a leading position for the Branch in Australia and the other had previously been assigned to work in Japan. The brother assigned to Australia was recalled suddenly and demoted to become a Circuit Overseer in the Midwest in the United States. After many years of rebuilding his reputation, through Circuit then District work, he finally was asked to join the Governing Body in New York. The explanation I was given was that the demotion was punishment for being involved in accusations of child sexual abuse. (I never knew if the accusations had been in Australia, the USA, or both, but a later separate rumor had tied him to a case in the United States through a Witness doctor.) At any rate, by 1974, this issue was considered to have been from long enough in his past for his appointment to the GB.
By 1991 one of the GB members was heading the Writing Dept, and the once-accused GB member was heading the Service Dept. You probably already know that the October 8 1991 Awake! had an article on Child Sexual Abuse that included "worldly" therapy as a possible solution for some victims, and this head of the Service Dept hated the article. (For that matter it's probably true that most members of the Governing Body apparently thought that worldly psychotherapy was little more than something worldly or even satanic.) But by now, there were Witness psychotherapists and psychiatrists, and they appreciated the article. Mostly the article was appreciated by CSA victims, and tons of letters of appreciation came in. For an April 1992 follow up, the head of Writing decided to print some excerpts from some of those letters of appreciation and the head of Service actually "stopped the presses" to have the article replaced while the head of Writing was out of the country. The head of Service didn't get his way; presses started up again, and you can read the article in the April 8 1992 Awake!.
But, as head of the Service Department, he sent out several of the most well known Circuit and District Overseers on a campaign in 1992 to speak with abuse victims to let them know they should never reveal anything about their abusers and their abuse, or they could be disfellowshipped.
One of those men in the intimidation campaign is now on the Governing Body.
You can take these are merely unsubstantiated rumors, and I admit that I have no evidence to substantiate them. I can only speak to the honesty and track record of the brothers who told me about them.