JW Organization On Autopilot

by AlanF 82 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Mommie Dark

  A moron spewed:
  "AlanF said to Mishnah:
  "...go fuck yourself."

  But only a little earlier AlanF had said THIS of himself:
  Unlike JWs, I retain a sense of ethics."
  (he repeated the quote for emphasis, because he's a moron and probably didn't understand the instruction the first time...)

  What the cretinous Yadirf doesn't understand is, it's ALWAYS ethical to tell a blowhard cretinous moron to go fuck himself.

  So, Yadirf, why not join yer pal Mishnah in a round of self-fucking, and quit pestering people who have enough brain cells to string a coherent message?

  MD
  who also retains a sense of ethics, which has NOTHING to do with vulgar language or a lack thereof, and EVERYTHING to do with honesty
• 

  worf

  Alan,

  Thanks for the information in this thread about drunk Rutherford.These are really interesting details to know and you know I'll be one of the first ones to get the books on this when they come out.
  Btw, for anyone who disagrees that Rutherfords character was as bad as presented here in this thread, my Mother was at the very convention where drunk Rutherford made his famous comment that 'Women were a hank of hair'. My father who is deceased, and my Mother talked about that comment many times over the years.
  So hows that for God's anointed? He was probably drunk from Canadian booze when he said it.The lush.
  So you Rutherford sympathizers on this thread, how do you defend your boy da judge making a comment that publicly demeans women in front of thousands of people in what is supposed to be some holy gathering of God's only chosen people? The Bible as well as your hypocritical organization contains written information that goes against demeaning women in any way and you know that.
  YOU CAN'T DEFEND IT!
  The fact is that lush Rutherford was a person who treated women as lowlifes, he was a drunk and a lawbreaker and all the other things mentioned in this thread.Alan doesn't need to present you with written proof here because as he mentioned it will be coming out by other authors. Just 'WAIT ON JEHOVAH ' like he said and you'll get your proof.As to Rutherfords character, I have my proof from my own Mother and Father.Anyone who would make that kind of comment about women and especially in front of thousands of people in what is claimed to be some type of holy assembly of Gods only chosen people, is first of all not backed up by God anyway.Rutherford and the borg never were backed by God.And lastly, the booze that he guzzled served as oil which loosened whatever screws were in his crooked head holding it together.
  worf
• 

  Fredhall

  All the false stories I have been hearing about Rutherford is HEARSAYS.
• 

  AlanF

  Actually, Worf, Rutherford's remark about women wasn't just a drunken slip of the tongue. It was his studied opinion. He borrowed the remark from one of Rudyard Kipling's books.

  My Dad, who was in Bethel from 1938 to 1946, told me what happened. Several young Bethelites had decided to get married, which meant they had to leave Bethel. Rutherford got pissed and lambasted them at the Bethel breakfast table. He railed that it was a damned shame that any young man would want to trade the wonderful life of serving Rutherford for a mere "bag of bones and hank of hair". I believe he did this a number of times, and the Bethel brothers -- I don't how the sisters reacted, but probably like the dumb cows they were merely accepted it and asked for more beatings -- laughed and thought it was great. My Dad thought it was real funny, too, until he met my Mom, got horny and left Bethel in 1946. I think that the encouragement Rutherford received from the Bethelites spurred him to repeat the remark at the next assembly.

  AlanF
• 

  Fredhall

  Bag of bones and hank of hair. LOL.... I love Rutherford!!!
• 

  worf

  Hey Alan,
  Thanks for the extra details.
  Worf
• 

  Flip

  He was probably drunk from Canadian booze when he said it.The lush.

  Yeah right…there ya go again…blaming Canada for Brother Joseph Rutherfords unseemly behaviour.

  At least evidence indicates he wasn't a cheap drunk.

  Flip
• 

  Copernicus

  Mishnah:

  Copernicus, what? Alanf made allegations about Rutherford, as did Farkel, that are totally unproven. My calling them on this is not something I have to prove. It's just something I have to point out. If they cannot back up their claims, then mine are proven as a result.

  I’m sorry Misnah, but the conclusion you’ve drawn here (being proven right) escapes me completely.

  Allow me to say this:

  (1) Years ago, while out in service, I encountered an old man who claimed to have been a witness in the 30’s. We talked for some time and he claimed to have left the org because of Rutherford’s shenanigans. What bothered him most, was that the Judge lived like a KING, while the typical publisher was barely surviving at that time. He spoke of mansions, Cadillac cars, fancy clothes, and luxurious world travels (among other things).

  At the time I scoffed and dismissed it completely. After all, how could God’s chief “anointed” on earth at the time possibly have been an ostentatious lout? Right?

  Then eventually I read Jim Penton's book, Apocalypse Delayed. While Penton is obviously (for good reason) no lover of Rutherford, it was all there in meticulously documented detail. Everything I had heard in the earlier service conversation was true. Now what?

  (2) I used to love JFR’s books – read all of them. Now, in hindsight I see that they’re full of plain whacko ideas and loony meanderings. Resurrection of ancient worthies? The end in 1925? Millions now living will never die? I could go on and on. So, we can definitely add false prophet to the list as the Judge is condemned by his own prophetic hallucinations, all of which had been presented as unequivocal TRUTH, and none of which panned out. Could God’s chief “anointed” have spoken falsely, and to such an extreme, in Jehovah’s name? Now what?

  Alanf is certainly in a position to know whether he can or cannot prove his claims. If he cannot then what else are we to think but that he purposefully libeled Rutherford?

  In the context I described above, someone referring to JR as only a drunk and an adulterer is being kind to the man, in my opinion. And the things of which Alan has accused him (if true) are the least of the guilt that he bears. In any case, the overwhelming preponderance of available evidence (outside the Witness literature) validates that this man’s character was extremely flawed. If not completely corrupt. Now what? Should I ignorantly defend him against these latest charges because Alan doesn’t want to give you the “in and out” specifics, or a stained blue dress? My best guess is that Alan is quite right in his statements, as believe me, he’s not one to simply talk out of his ass.

  As far as your proof contradicting this. . . where is it? The Witnesses are notorious historical revisionists. Why do you suppose that is? I’ll tell you why, it’s because they have plenty to hide.

  Now you have two choices, keep your head in the sand and call all of us liars, or go educate yourself as to the historical reality that exists outside of a Kingdom Hall; and my friend, you owe yourself that much. Get ready for a big surprise.
• 

  VM44

  Hi AlanF,

  I remember reading that Rutherford was quoting Kipling when he
  made the remark about women being a "bag of bones, and a hank
  of hair"....He probably thought he was so cultured, quoting
  Kipling like that.

  Somebody should have given Rutherford a severe tongue lashing, for
  speaking so disrespectfully of women. It appears that no one
  around Rutherford had the nerve to do so. (except for Salter, and
  Moyle, both of which got the boot from Brooklyn)

  Well, I decided to look up the quote, first what "The Judge" said:

  "A woman is nothing more than "a hank of hair and a bag of bones."
  -- Speech given at a 1941 St. Louis, MO convention discouraging
  marriage.

  .... and here is the poem by Kipling:

  THE VAMPIRE, by Rudyard Kipling

  A FOOL there was and he made his prayer
  (Even as you and I!)
  To a rag and a bone and a hank of hair,
  (We called her the woman who did not care),
  But the fool he called her his lady fair
  (Even as you and I!)

  Oh, the years we waste and the tears we waste,
  And the work of our head and hand
  Belong to the wonwn who did not know
  (And now we know that she never could know)
  And did not understand!

  A fool there was and his goods he spent,
  (Even as you and I!)
  Honour and faith and a sure intent
  (And it wasn't the least what the lady meant),
  But a fool must follow his natural bent
  (Even as you and I!)

  Oh, the toil we lost and the spoil we lost
  And the exceuent things we planned
  Belong to the woman who didn't know why
  (And now we know that she never knew why)
  And did not understand!

  The fool was stripped to his foolish hide,
  (Even as you and 1!)
  Which she might have seen when she threw him aside
  (But it isn't on record the lady tried)
  So some of him lived but the most of him died
  (Even as you and I!)

  'And it isn't the shame and it isn't the blame
  That stings like a white-hot brand-
  It's coming to know that she never knew why
  (Seeing, at last, she could never know why)
  And never could understand!"
• 

  Copernicus

  I am bringing this to the top again in hopes of getting some response from Mishnah.

  Come on man, I'd like to know what you think.