Jaime, please stop posting, thanks.
Rutherford's smear campaign (a must read)
by Leolaia 198 Replies latest watchtower scandals
-
-
Christ Alone
KS, bethel didn't change it's drinking policies. I was there when I was 21. What they do is on your 21st birthday, your bethel overseer sets up a meeting with you to talk about alcohol. Mine was about 5 mins. He read the scripture in Psalms that says that wine makes man rejoice. Basically he told me "Set your limit and don't exceed it. Have fun tonight!"
Alcohol was HUUUUGGGGEEE at bethel.
-
Leolaia
Olin R. Moyle then wrote to a friend about his recent experiences.
#35
Olin R. Moyle to Mrs. Frances Hunter, 19 October 1939: "I heard some news this morning to the effect that in spite of the statement in the Watch Tower some of the Plainfield friends still believed that I could not be guilty of the things with which I am charged. You can't imagine what comfort that brought. I hope it is true. I never received such a battering in my life as I have this last month or so from the Society. All I did was to send to Brother Rutherford a letter protesting against some of the things he did, such as lambasting the brethren at Bethel, etc., and for that I have been charged with unfaithfulness; with being a Jesuit; a Judas; and an evil servant. I have imagined that everyone who read the statement in the October 15th Tower would believe I was guilty of writing false and malicious statements to the President of the Society. Of course reputation doesn't mean much, but nevertheless it's not pleasant to be accused of unfaithfulness, and I am more than overjoyed to hear that some of you friends believe that I am not as bad as painted.I haven't any war or quarrel with Brother Rutherford or the Society. Sister Moyle and I are working with the Milwaukee Company in full harmony with the truth and the Lord's organization. We intend to do so as long as the Lord is using the organization. There is no question but what the Society is the Lord's organization and that He directs its activities. Nevertheless there are human creatures in charge who have their share of human frailties, and do things not in conformity with the principles of righteousness. To protest against unrighteous acts does not constitute unfaithfulness, and for that reason I do not consider that I have done anything unfaithful. You can tell any of my friends who inquire, that I am just as faithful to the Lord and His organization as ever, and doing what I can to serve Him and the truth. I understand the story has been circulated in the east that I have been busy circulating a false letter against the judge. That is not true. I have shown copies of my letter to him to a few friends -- less than a dozen -- and that is all. I don't think I would be doing anything wrong if I did circulate the letter, because I didn't tell him any lies in it, but it wouldn't be good policy and would be conducive towards division and dissension.
So Sister Moyle and I have been quiet in spite of what the Society has published. But you can't imagine how comforting it is to hear that some of you brethren still have faith in us and do not believe that I am a renegade evil servant".
-
glenster
Same thing happened with Raymond going to Kingdom Hall another year after being
put out of the GB apparently thinking it was an unusual dark cloud that would
blow over. You don't want a resentful guy put out from the top hanging around
the customers where he could spill. So they made up rules to get rid of him with
damage control about him being apostate. -
Leolaia
Details of the shunning the Moyles experienced were related in the 1943 trial:
#36
HARVEY FINK
Q. Did you notice any effect that the articles I referred to, September 1st and October 15th ... had on any of the members out there? ....A. The articles that appeared influenced the minds of the readers against Mr. Moyle on the grounds that they considered the Watch Tower to contain a message from God, and as such, it wasn't open to question. Q. And did they then become unfriendly to Mr. Moyle? A. Yes, they did. Q. And did you notice any change of attitude in those companies that you visited? A. Yes, quite a considerable change....Q. Can you give any details as to how these articles affected people in their attitude toward Mr. Moyle? A. The articles prejudiced the readers against Mr. Moyle. Q. Can you state at any meetings you attended, can you give any details as to what effect it had? A. Yes. As time progressed, when Mr. Moyle and Mrs. Moyle sat in a meeting, those that attended finally wouldn't even sit next to them. They permitted two or three chairs both front and back to remain vacant, whereas they sat at a distance from them. Q. Where did you find that taking place? A. At the general meetings. Q. In what city? A. In Milwaukee...Q. How long did that continue to your knowledge? A. That continued until Mr. Moyle no longer came to meetings. Q. Do you know about when that was that he ceased going there? A. Oh, it was a month or so after Mr. Howlett was there. I am not too sure of that, however, the exact elapse of time....Q. Did you ever participate in the resolution that was passed condemning the action of Mr. Moyle and also pledging full loyalty to the Society's side of the controversy? After Mr. Moyle read his statement? A. I voted yes to the resolution that contained an expression of loyalty to the Society, but I did not participate in that if it contained anything about condemning Mr. Moyle. No, I never condemned him....Yes, the resolution of the Milwaukee company as I read it was a resolution assuring the Society of the class' loyalty to it as the Central Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, nothing more that I recall....Q. Did you agree with this statement by Mr. Rutherford in his letter about "An entrapment by Moyle"? A. No, I didn't. Q. In other words, you have never changed your opinion about Moyle as you expressed here today, and have in your testimony? A. No, I haven't....Q. How long did Mr. Moyle occupy the same office with you? A. Until his leaving for Johnson's Creek....Q. Did Mr. Moyle pay rent to you? A. No, I gave him space in our office without charge. Q. Did he work for you during the time that he was officing with you? A. He helped us once in a while on matters for the rent that we did not charge him for. Q. Did you pay him any salary or anything like that? A. No. For a while I paid Mr. Moyle a small sum of money for being in the office and see to it that someone was there all the time.#37
KATHERINE FINK
Q. I direct your attention to the article of October 15th entitled "Information". Do you recall any happening with respect to that article as far as Mr. and Mrs. Moyle were concerned? A. I do. The attitude of the whole Milwaukee — (Mr. Covington: I move to strike it out because it is not responsive and calls for a conclusion.)...Q. Was your mother a member of Jehovah's Witnesses? A. She was. Q. What is her name? A. Mrs. Newman. Q. How long has she been a member? A. Since about 1914. Q. What attitude did your mother take after this article of October 15th, as far as Mr. and Mrs. Moyle were concerned? A. My mother took the attitude just as the rest did. She thought they were people not to be associated with. Q. Were they then, the Moyles, residing with your mother? A. They were. Q. What did your mother do, if anything, about their residing there? A. When she became suspicious of them — Q. Did they continue to reside there? A. For a while they did. Q. And then what happened? A. Then when the grapevine began to work, then my mother was influenced to sell her place. Q. And do you know whether it came about through these articles? A. I believe it hurried it. Q. How long after October 15th did they vacate from your mother's home? A. I don't remember if it was a month or so after that. Q. Was there some incident with a family named Prudhomme? A. There was....Q. Were these Prudhommes, this Prudhomme family, members of Jehovah's Witnesses? A. They were....Q. And in the Milwaukee company? A. Yes, sir. Q. And what attitude did they display towards Mr. Moyle? After this article "Information" of October 15th?.... A. The Prudhommes offered Moyle a beautiful dinette set to use as long as they wished and when all these articles kept on coming out and the Prudhommes began to shun the Moyles, then the Moyles decided that perhaps they would want their dinette set back and returned it....The Prudhommes were very friendly towards the Moyles and offered a beautiful dinette set for the Moyles to use because they had no dinette set and then after a while their attitude changed. Q. And did that continue permanently after the articles came out? A. It has. Q. And has there been any lessening of that attitude or change in attitude on the part of the people that have shunned Mr. Moyle? A. Definitely not, it has grown worse....Q. Did you join in the resolution, too, by the Milwaukee company, pledging the loyalty after Mr. Moyle read his statement? A. Yes, sir. Q. And did you believe it? A. Yes, sir. Q. Were you in favor of it when you voted? A. Yes, sir....We felt that the Society was the channel of Almighty God at that time and we thought that the resolution stated whether we warranted to be faithful to the channel of God.#38
JOSEPH T. JACOBS
Q. Do you recall reading the article in the "Watch Tower" of October 15, 1939, entitled "Information"? A. I do. Q. And did you in respect to that article have occasion to talk to any of Jehovah's Witnesses? A. I believe I did. Q. And can you give us any details of when and where and with whom you did that? A. Well, with several of the committee that had to do with the giving out of territory in Milwaukee. Q. What was the statement that was made? A. I didn't comment much about the article at all. I believe I refrained from saying anything, as far as I can recollect. But the others of Jehovah's Witnesses commented about it and said it must have been the unmistakable truth, because of the fact that the board of directors put their approval upon that letter. Q. And did you attend meetings regularly at Milwaukee? A. Every Sunday. Q. And did you notice anything at those meetings as far as the attitude towards Mr. Moyle was concerned? A. I did. Q. And what did you notice? A. The attitude toward Mr. Moyle was generally a shunning of him and looking upon him with, I would say, contempt....Q. How did the people in the meeting act toward Mr. Moyle? A. They shunned Mr. Moyle. He was by himself most of the time. -
Leolaia
More details about shunning, as related by the Moyles:
#39
PHOEBE MOYLE
Q. And do you recall the article "Information" that was published in the "Watch Tower" on October 15th? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you notice any change of attitude on the part of the classes in Wisconsin that you attended toward you and Mr. Moyle? A. Yes, sir. Our one-time friends were no longer friends. Q. And there were a number of people in those classes, were there not? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did they avoid you and your husband? A. Yes, sir....Yes, a decided — well, they just had nothing to do with us and did not speak to us on the street or in the meeting places.#40
OLIN R. MOYLE
Q. Do you recall reading the article in the "Watch Tower of September 1st? A. Yes, I do. Q. And what transpired, if anything, after that? A. After September 1st there was a change in attitude. We were welcomed very warmly by friends among Jehovah's Witnesses in Milwaukee when we returned, and after that date things began to change. First it was only a coolness on the part of a few, which grew in extent until there was an antagonistic attitude by the major portion of them. As we would go into the meetings there would be an area around us where we sat where nobody else would be sitting. Sometimes it would happen if somebody was sitting where we would, that person would get up and go elsewhere, and that is an attitude which continued on all the time we were there. Q. Do you recall Mr. Howlett coming out there and holding a meeting on about September 24th? A. Yes, sir....to the best of my recollection, that attitude of shunning us and avoiding us continued to grow from there on....Q. And then did anything happen with reference to your carrying on in Wauwatosa [Milwaukee]? A. You mean as to my legal practice? Q. Yes. A. Yes, sir. I stayed there, in Wauwatosa, for a little better than a year. I had some good practice in the beginning. It came in fairly good, I might say, and then the situation arose that there was very little coming in and I had to move. Q. Did you notice any unfriendliness on the part of Jehovah's Witnesses there? A. Yes, sir, I did. Q. Did that have anything to do with your change of residence or office? A. That did. If I may explain. Most of the friends I had in that area prior to going there were among Jehovah's Witnesses, and the most acquaintances and friends in Milwaukee were among those. So that I thought that the friendliness which was there would be helpful in making a living and building up a practice. But when that attitude of shunning and avoiding me arose, that hope died away.
-
Jaime l de Aragon
VM44 please stop posting, that's irrelevant ;)
-
-
Lozhasleft
Excellent worl Leolaia. Thank you.
Loz x
-
irondork
Organization! Organization! Organization!
This reads like the Franz/Dunlap & company shake-up and local level examples of "apostacy judicial hearings" we often hear about. The power elite felt challenged and flew into a blind fury, attacking anyone percieved to be connected with or in support of the challenge. It's not about God, not about scripture, it's not even about the possibility of error or misunderstanding followed by repentance or apology. It's about ego, position, power, and grinding to dust anyone with the audacity to stand on personal moral ground.
If there is one surefire way to yank the panties off this Satanic organization and expose it for what it really is, challenge it's authority over the minions, and the organization will do the rest of the work for you.