by Amazing 50 Replies latest jw friends
In response to Nathan's question about Greenlees, I once asked Ray the question whether Greenlees was resigned because of homosexuality. His response was: "tendencies, tendencies." I then asked him, but no specific incidents? He replied, "No." Not that he had any knowledge of.
~Ros
Rev.....please QUIT writing in upper case letters. It's disracting. No offense
Hi again,
Having been there at Bethel and having known Ray and Cynthis fairly well, I agree that his response was credible. I'm reminded of what Albert Speer, Hitler's minister said in his autobigraphy (``Inside the Third Reich''), that ones isolation from reality increases in proportion to one's ascent to the top. Without impugning Bill Bowen's integrity in the least, his remarks about Ray shocked me as totally uncharacteristic of the man I had come to know at Bethel and in many conversations since. Upon confirmation in this forum that a conversation took place between these two honorable men and a mutual understanding/reconciliation took place, how is it not pointless to revisit this issue ad infinitum?
I persist in feeliing that any conjecturing or speculation that casts aspersions at Ray -- or at Bill for that matter-- demeans the the unquestioned value of their contributions and doesn't deserve the dignity of a temperate response.
|
|||||
Edited by - Revmalk on 11 October 2002 16:34:44
RevMalk: Gumby probably means large font ... I have problems with this too ... I type in 8 pt just to try an assure it will not be too big.
Room 215: Yes, I agree that the issue has been dealt with and its time to move on ... the purpose of the second post is due to a technical accusation that some are making, and I felt it was good to address it, and Ray felt similarly, otherwise he would not have agreed to grant me permission to post it. With that said, I will move on. Thanks for stating things evry well.
In response to Nathan's question about Greenlees, I once asked Ray the question whether Greenlees was resigned because of homosexuality. His response was: "tendencies, tendencies." I then asked him, but no specific incidents? He replied, "No." Not that he had any knowledge of.
~Ros
I find it hard to believe this, but nothing is impossible I suppose. I met Leo Greenlees on a number of occassions. He had been a friend of our family since the 1930's. I had never gotten the impression that he had 'tendencies', nor had anyone else in my family. I was under the understanding that he did have a bit of a problem with alcohol and that was the reason for his leaving Bethel.
Amazing,
Thank you, you did good.
Also, is this better? I have my resolution to the max, so everything looks small to me.
|
|||
Edited by - Revmalk on 11 October 2002 16:31:46
Hi RevMalk: Yes, much better. I too have my resolution set near the max, and so everything including my icons ae very small ... and at first I didn't realize how it looked to others when I used 10pt or 12 pt ... untill I logged in on another PC and wow ... it knocked my sox off ... ...
Someone please show me where the Watchtower Society has stated, in cases of serious sin, the rule that requires "Two Witnesse" to the event or act! At best, One or Two Witnesses are Preferred! PERIOD ... but if there are NO witnesses, then other evidence can be presented to witnesses or the Elders. After I reviewed this, I rervisited and found that "IslandWoman" posted an excellent essay properly quoting the book, Organized to Accomplish Our Ministry which replaced the book, Organization for Kingdom Preaching and Disciple-Making. (See IW's thread at: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.aspx?id=29405&site=3)
I could not find the older book, Organization for Kingdom Preaching and Disciple-Making in my things ... but if someone can review their Watchtower CD ROM and post the chapter from it called "Safeguarding the Cleaness of the Congregation," then please do, for I would like to see the context ... but in all fairness, I believe that somehow, the Two Witness rule that has been pounded on is simply not suported by either of these books. If the older Organization" book does not support it, then I have to ask why we have had the discussions about this rule that seems to be so undocumented?
So far the only place I can find any mention of "One or Two Witnesses" has to do with Matthew 18 steps to resolve personal differences and some serious sins like fraud or slander between two people ... but nothing is stated that demands that the Elders in Judicial Committee hearings must have two witnesses.
Also, many are confused about the meaning of "witnesses" believing this requires a human eye-witness ... in matters of law, even in Bible times, evidence of any kind also serves as a "Witness" ... in modern law, a photograph, a tape recording, DNA, blood stains, semen all serve as "Evidence" ... and thus as a "Witness" ... nonetheless, the issue I am getting at is where the Society has demanded this in Judicial cases, or cases involving molestation victims ...
PS: I am aware that BOE letters may be behind the "Two Witness" rule ... but I will address those later.
Thanks to whomever can post it for me.
Edited by - Amazing on 13 October 2002 0:20:56
I tried Amazing, but the OR book is not on the 1995 CD, which is the only one I have.
