timetochange wrote:
::Did Harry Peloyan ever do this?
: You are quick to condemn a man who sought to change things for the better, albeit in his own way.
You're letting your personal feelings for this man cloud your judgment. I've stated several times why I condemn Peloyan: he was arrogantly and pridefully dishonest in handling his responsibility of writing and publishing widely dispersed Watchtower literature, he knowingly deceived millions, he was not a man of integrity, and he was unrepentant. You cannot disagree with this; you obviously knew the man. Peloyan's good work in the area of trying to reform the Society's mishandling of child molestation cases, as described by Barbara Anderson, in no way negates this. A philanthropist who molests a child will rightly be condemned for his criminal action despite his philanthropy, do you not agree?
Let me ask you this: since you knew Peloyan, why do you think he was unrepentant about publishing so much dishonest information in the 1985 Creation book and similar works?
: Apparently, your way is the only way.
Apparently, ascribing emotions to me that I do not have is your way of excusing Peloyan. I'm not saying anything other than that Peloyan ought to have displayed integrity by doing whatever he could to retract the gross misrepresentations in the Creation book and in other publications, after having them pointed out by many readers. I'm not saying that he should have gone public with this. I'm saying that Peloyan should have forthrightly acknowledged the errors to anyone who wrote in and complained. I'm saying that Peloyan should have displayed humility rather than extreme arrogance when the Society's and his lapses were shown to him. I'm saying that Peloyan should have put his money where his mouth was and acted as a Christian rather than a prideful religious official. After all, wasn't it Jesus who said that much would be expected of those who allowed themselves to be put in positions of great responsibility? You seem to want to allow for these Watchtower leaders exactly the same diametrically opposed things that they demand for themselves -- great respect for them personally in their self-appointed positions of spiritual leaders, yet complete lack of accountability. I don't buy it.
: If a man does not publicly declare his opposition to a system he has devoted his life to but rather attempts to iniate positive change within that system he, in your view, is condemned.
Wrong. See above.
: Ray attempted to do that very thing and he, to an extent, succeeded until the machine ate him and Ed Dunlap up. Yet, that insidious thing, belief in a system, impelled him, it impelled Ray to continue on as a Witness though he was expelled from Bethel and Ed had been disfellowshipped. If you had come across him at that very time and in your present state of mind you likely would have condemned Ray as well.
Not unless I had ferreted out the facts about his attitude. But once again, actions speak louder than words. Ray demonstrated repentance in a big and useful way. Did Peloyan ever do that?
I am aware of other Watchtower officials who used their power to reach out beyond Bethel and do much good to reverse the bad effects of the Society's, and even perhaps their own previous unchristian behavior. Did Peloyan ever do anything like that? Not bloody likely.
You seem to think that pointing out that I, like everyone else, has foibles somehow excuses Peloyan for his gross deliquency. I don't buy it.
AlanF
