|
Post by Gene on Jul 20, 2012 22:18:49 GMT -5
Awww, all of this makes his removal as overseer in OK make sense....it was given out that he was catering to the rich folks in OK and ignoring the poor....but that would have been nearly impossible UNLESS he stayed 24/7 with the rich folks as there were far more poor folks then rich ones at that time. Just goes to show you at the lies that get invented to cover something no one wants the real truth known! If HB desired male companions, I think prehaps if he was discreet he'd get by with those things just as much as someone else sneaking in some sex from a female! Yes, homosexual relationships in the work get the same treatment as heterosexual ones. They just cover them up and move the workers around. I was victim of one such homosexual companion. He was known to have assaulted his younger companions in another country and then sent home. Then put back in the work as an older companion with responsibility only to groom the next guy(me) that came along. I can easily see how Harry could do something like groom younger companions. I never knew the guy but I have no problem recognizing the grooming process. I have said before, from my experience being groomed in the work, that were I to be able to go back in the work incognito I could easily find those workers who are homosexual. I got a lot of insight into that. I also had a companion who informed me of how the homosexual workers in third world countries seek each other out. It is not as uncommon as the friends would like to think it is. Strange. They all (well, most) seemed to be well-closeted while I was in the work. Who knows? If I had found a compatible companion, perhaps 'we' would still be in the work!
|
|
|
Post by ts on Jul 20, 2012 22:44:02 GMT -5
Yes, homosexual relationships in the work get the same treatment as heterosexual ones. They just cover them up and move the workers around. I was victim of one such homosexual companion. He was known to have assaulted his younger companions in another country and then sent home. Then put back in the work as an older companion with responsibility only to groom the next guy(me) that came along. I can easily see how Harry could do something like groom younger companions. I never knew the guy but I have no problem recognizing the grooming process. I have said before, from my experience being groomed in the work, that were I to be able to go back in the work incognito I could easily find those workers who are homosexual. I got a lot of insight into that. I also had a companion who informed me of how the homosexual workers in third world countries seek each other out. It is not as uncommon as the friends would like to think it is. Strange. They all (well, most) seemed to be well-closeted while I was in the work. Who knows? If I had found a compatible companion, perhaps 'we' would still be in the work! I had been in the work about 10 years and had seen a few workers I knew had the tendency towards homosexuality. However, I did not think it were possible for a worker to be having sex at all while in the work. I did not think it would be tolerated in the least. That is how naive I was after ten years in the work. I can say that the workers were well in the closet. I also figured out that I pass for being potentially gay with my build and mannerisms, I guess. I also was sort of liberal in my thinking. Like, I would not just condemn a homosexual to hell. So, these sorts of things sparked discussions with a companion who was looking for an opportunity. I noticed in the discussions that he would ask me about people who I knew to be gay leaning. Also, he talked about gay men. Were I to go back in the work and wanted to find out who was gay and not, I would find someone on the staff or convention who was a seasoned veteran and who seemed to fit the profile of a gay person(don't ask me. I seem to have a feel for it). Then confirm the suspicions with a conversation that included inquiries about certain known gay workers. Talk about how spiritual they are...turn it into a spiritual discussion to legitimize it. That is the way to start. I suppose if someone were so inclined they would know how to carry the relationship to the next level. By the way, I am sure the process is much the same for heterosexuals who are sexually active. The know each other generally and support one another. If there is a particular place to go for thrills, they will know who and where and let each other know. Overseers know other overseers who are sexually active and help cover for each other. It happens all over the world. It isn't necessarily illegal. But for good reasons, they don't want to blow the mystique and let the friends know that they are just men and have no more mystical spiritual power to be celibate than the next guy.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Jul 20, 2012 22:44:18 GMT -5
Or, it could be a clever way of grooming. Speak of the things openly to draw out the ones who were "struggling" with the same things he was (not) struggling with. I experienced the same sort of grooming when in the work. In that respect, I guess it worked. It was because of his open conversation with us brothers about sexual struggles that I felt he was was the one worker I could confide in. Hmmmm.... guess I was naive. Never occurred to me that 'grooming' was what was going on. Nor, I suspect, did that occur to him. Shall we try to put the pieces of the story together, or are you going to tell us straight out how it went? Open conversation about struggles Confiding in HB Inappropriate contact Contact reported (apparently) Restricted to gospel meetings only
|
|
|
Post by ts on Jul 20, 2012 22:56:09 GMT -5
Or, it could be a clever way of grooming. Speak of the things openly to draw out the ones who were "struggling" with the same things he was (not) struggling with. I experienced the same sort of grooming when in the work. In that respect, I guess it worked. It was because of his open conversation with us brothers about sexual struggles that I felt he was was the one worker I could confide in. Hmmmm.... guess I was naive. Never occurred to me that 'grooming' was what was going on. Nor, I suspect, did that occur to him. Not that I have any way of knowing the particular mindset of Harry Brownlee at the time, I do believe that our naivety and trust is the greatest weapon of the predators who become overseers. Smart men who know how to work a victim. Know how to speak. Know how to gain the trust of many. Speak kind words. And patient enough to make the victim feel like it was THEIR idea to enter into the relationship. And it isn't difficult to find struggling, confused, abused and/or needy people in the work as prime candidates to groom. I suspect that Harry Brownlee was very practiced and knew exactly what he was doing.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jul 20, 2012 23:30:43 GMT -5
In that respect, I guess it worked. It was because of his open conversation with us brothers about sexual struggles that I felt he was was the one worker I could confide in. Hmmmm.... guess I was naive. Never occurred to me that 'grooming' was what was going on. Nor, I suspect, did that occur to him. Shall we try to put the pieces of the story together, or are you going to tell us straight out how it went? Open conversation about struggles Confiding in HB Inappropriate contact Contact reported (apparently) Restricted to gospel meetings only No, no, no - that makes it sound like I blame HB, and I don't. I met him when I was a young worker, and he talked with us about struggles. Many years later, after I had left the work and was struggling with my sexuality, I confided in him. That's when the inappropriate contact happened. It wasn't a big deal. I laughed it off, after I escaped his room on the convention grounds. It was proof to me that god didn't give a rat's ass about my sexuality! It never occurred to me to 'report him'. I did mention it to a few people, and by the time I came totally out of the closet (some years later) and Baer and I moved in together and I quit meetings, apparently word had gotten to the worker who told me HB had been 'spoken to' and I was going to hell. As they say, if all the gays are going to hell, it will be well-decorated, at the least.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Jul 21, 2012 0:30:07 GMT -5
Shall we try to put the pieces of the story together, or are you going to tell us straight out how it went? Open conversation about struggles Confiding in HB Inappropriate contact Contact reported (apparently) Restricted to gospel meetings only No, no, no - that makes it sound like I blame HB, and I don't. I met him when I was a young worker, and he talked with us about struggles. Many years later, after I had left the work and was struggling with my sexuality, I confided in him. That's when the inappropriate contact happened. It wasn't a big deal. I laughed it off, after I escaped his room on the convention grounds. It was proof to me that god didn't give a rat's ass about my sexuality! It never occurred to me to 'report him'. I did mention it to a few people, and by the time I came totally out of the closet (some years later) and Baer and I moved in together and I quit meetings, apparently word had gotten to the worker who told me HB had been 'spoken to' and I was going to hell. As they say, if all the gays are going to hell, it will be well-decorated, at the least. Thanks Gene! Which of you is the interior decorator?
|
|
|
Post by ts on Jul 21, 2012 0:47:20 GMT -5
No, no, no - that makes it sound like I blame HB, and I don't. I met him when I was a young worker, and he talked with us about struggles. Many years later, after I had left the work and was struggling with my sexuality, I confided in him. That's when the inappropriate contact happened. It wasn't a big deal. I laughed it off, after I escaped his room on the convention grounds. It was proof to me that god didn't give a rat's ass about my sexuality! It never occurred to me to 'report him'. I did mention it to a few people, and by the time I came totally out of the closet (some years later) and Baer and I moved in together and I quit meetings, apparently word had gotten to the worker who told me HB had been 'spoken to' and I was going to hell. As they say, if all the gays are going to hell, it will be well-decorated, at the least. Thanks Gene! Which of you is the interior decorator? Emy, what we have just heard is one overseer preaching a gospel that is powerless to save from struggles of the flesh that sows doubt of God's existence and then dying in the work with full honours from all his brethren. Then there is the other overseer also preaching a powerless gospel and condemning the one who did not receive help from the first powerless overseer. Meanwhile, the first powerless overseer is heaven bound while the one who was asking for help is hell bound(according to the second overseer). And then there is you, emy, and those countless ones like you in meeting who enable these overseers to practice their evil without question under the guise of being "non judgmental" and "forgiving". In fact, you are being apathetic and spiritually lazy. Where there should be disgust and indignation there is a calm justification and willing blindness to any number of red flags that would signal wide spread corruption in the ministry.
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on Jul 21, 2012 5:35:44 GMT -5
Or, it could be a clever way of grooming. Speak of the things openly to draw out the ones who were "struggling" with the same things he was (not) struggling with. I experienced the same sort of grooming when in the work. In that respect, I guess it worked. It was because of his open conversation with us brothers about sexual struggles that I felt he was was the one worker I could confide in. Hmmmm.... guess I was naive. Never occurred to me that 'grooming' was what was going on. Nor, I suspect, did that occur to him. If HB didn't think of the process as "grooming," what are your thoughts about his motives?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 21, 2012 7:36:45 GMT -5
In that respect, I guess it worked. It was because of his open conversation with us brothers about sexual struggles that I felt he was was the one worker I could confide in. Hmmmm.... guess I was naive. Never occurred to me that 'grooming' was what was going on. Nor, I suspect, did that occur to him. If HB didn't think of the process as "grooming," what are your thoughts about his motives? I see some homophobic bias in the use of the word "grooming" in this context. Just because someone is working or thinking about establishing an adult homosexual relationship is that "grooming"? Would 'ts' have used the word "grooming" if a male worker was trying to open up a conversation that might lead to intimate contact with a woman. Perhaps he would, I don't know. Regardless, neither usage is quite in the same league as the usual meaning of 'grooming' minors. Methinks 'ts' is using a sledgehammer to hit a tack here by calling this reference to the "wine of youth", "grooming". Very unusual tactic for him.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jul 21, 2012 8:31:50 GMT -5
In that respect, I guess it worked. It was because of his open conversation with us brothers about sexual struggles that I felt he was was the one worker I could confide in. Hmmmm.... guess I was naive. Never occurred to me that 'grooming' was what was going on. Nor, I suspect, did that occur to him. If HB didn't think of the process as "grooming," what are your thoughts about his motives? Motive is difficult to fathom - I'm not sure I'm qualified to comment (although I guess I already did in writing 'nor, I suspect, did that occur to him.'). I prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt and not entertain a conjecture of nefarious motive.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Jul 21, 2012 9:01:12 GMT -5
Strange. They all (well, most) seemed to be well-closeted while I was in the work. Who knows? If I had found a compatible companion, perhaps 'we' would still be in the work! I had been in the work about 10 years and had seen a few workers I knew had the tendency towards homosexuality. However, I did not think it were possible for a worker to be having sex at all while in the work. I did not think it would be tolerated in the least. That is how naive I was after ten years in the work. I can say that the workers were well in the closet. I also figured out that I pass for being potentially gay with my build and mannerisms, I guess. I also was sort of liberal in my thinking. Like, I would not just condemn a homosexual to hell. So, these sorts of things sparked discussions with a companion who was looking for an opportunity. I noticed in the discussions that he would ask me about people who I knew to be gay leaning. Also, he talked about gay men. Were I to go back in the work and wanted to find out who was gay and not, I would find someone on the staff or convention who was a seasoned veteran and who seemed to fit the profile of a gay person(don't ask me. I seem to have a feel for it). Then confirm the suspicions with a conversation that included inquiries about certain known gay workers. Talk about how spiritual they are...turn it into a spiritual discussion to legitimize it. That is the way to start. I suppose if someone were so inclined they would know how to carry the relationship to the next level. By the way, I am sure the process is much the same for heterosexuals who are sexually active. The know each other generally and support one another. If there is a particular place to go for thrills, they will know who and where and let each other know. Overseers know other overseers who are sexually active and help cover for each other. It happens all over the world. It isn't necessarily illegal. But for good reasons, they don't want to blow the mystique and let the friends know that they are just men and have no more mystical spiritual power to be celibate than the next guy. My angst about all of the sexual exploits of the workers whether straight or gay is far more that what they're doing is unjust in that they uphold the D&R rules in their areas to a T....now God hates fornication as much as adultery, as I recall, so where do they get off having their celibacy as a "show" and certainly not the "tell"?
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Jul 21, 2012 9:06:59 GMT -5
In that respect, I guess it worked. It was because of his open conversation with us brothers about sexual struggles that I felt he was was the one worker I could confide in. Hmmmm.... guess I was naive. Never occurred to me that 'grooming' was what was going on. Nor, I suspect, did that occur to him. If HB didn't think of the process as "grooming," what are your thoughts about his motives? I don't get it, that HB was "grooming" Gene...Gene had already shared his struggles and that let HB know that Gene was ripe for seduction....nothing different then how it goes with straight workers/men trying to seduce a woman. I've never heard "it" called "grooming" before, always in straight sexuals it is called "flirting" and "seduction".....go figure!
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Jul 21, 2012 9:08:41 GMT -5
If HB didn't think of the process as "grooming," what are your thoughts about his motives? I see some homophobic bias in the use of the word "grooming" in this context. Just because someone is working or thinking about establishing an adult homosexual relationship is that "grooming"? Would 'ts' have used the word "grooming" if a male worker was trying to open up a conversation that might lead to intimate contact with a woman. Perhaps he would, I don't know. Regardless, neither usage is quite in the same league as the usual meaning of 'grooming' minors. Methinks 'ts' is using a sledgehammer to hit a tack here by calling this reference to the "wine of youth", "grooming". Very unusual tactic for him. I suspect that TS is not thinking of the right words....maybe he never knew what flirting and seduction were all about...
|
|
|
Post by emy on Jul 21, 2012 16:35:05 GMT -5
Thank you for the chastisement.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Jul 21, 2012 16:53:18 GMT -5
If HB didn't think of the process as "grooming," what are your thoughts about his motives? I see some homophobic bias in the use of the word "grooming" in this context. Just because someone is working or thinking about establishing an adult homosexual relationship is that "grooming"? Would 'ts' have used the word "grooming" if a male worker was trying to open up a conversation that might lead to intimate contact with a woman. Perhaps he would, I don't know. Regardless, neither usage is quite in the same league as the usual meaning of 'grooming' minors. Methinks 'ts' is using a sledgehammer to hit a tack here by calling this reference to the "wine of youth", "grooming". Very unusual tactic for him. I think "grooming" is the right word. I would use the same word if it were hetero or homo sexual. "Seduce" might work. Not sure. But "flirting" is NOT the word that applies. Not to say that workers do not flirt and have mutually consensual relationships. However, workers are also capable of grooming and this, in my opinion is what HB was doing. I say that based on what I have observed other workers doing and other stories I have heard. The grooming process has to do with getting a person accustomed to something that is unacceptable. In the meeting environment, homosexuality is unacceptable. Most of the friends would NOT agree to support openly gay workers. So if a homosexual overseer were to want to groom his staff, it is very conceivable that he would talk openly about the very real sexual struggles of being in the work. To begin with, the whole discussion is artificial and based on false doctrine. That is the beginning of the recipe for disaster and corruption. The celibate ministry deviates from God's plan and has nothing to do with what Jesus taught. So if an overseer is gay and looking for a partner, he might well find one on a staff of brothers. Just like a predator would get a victim accustomed to touch, he would start by getting them accustomed to talking about their homosexual struggles under the guise of "therapy" or "counseling" with his reputation for Godly understanding. Then he establishes himself as just an affectionate and kind brother who likes to hug after sharing personal details. So the unacceptable homosexual relationship has been gradually legitimized and a more intimate relationship can be established. And the thing is that it begins, to the victim, to feel like it was at least partly his/her own idea. That is one possible scenario. It is also unacceptable to most of the friends for the overseer to be messing around with sister workers. However, the same sort of scenario can and does happen. It is easy for a overseer to do this sort of thing if he is so inclined. In Gene's case, he laughed it off and doubted God's existence because of the incident. Harry Brownlee got a "talkin' to". The workers do not seem to see the seriousness of an overseer sowing doubt concerning God's existence or making homosexual advances on those he is entrusted to preach and live the truth before. Other people would be devastated by a sexual advance from the overseer(as if even one person doubting God's existence due to the actions of "God's supposed servants" is not a devastation to the kingdom). The "talkin' to" was really just a cowardly way of handling the situation. The overseer who did that is an enabler and just as guilty as Harry Brownlee. I am going to stick with "grooming" for what happened.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Jul 21, 2012 16:59:04 GMT -5
Whenever I have mentioned workers being married here, one of the arguments the friends have is that they could not be married because there might be children. That is when Bert posts his incredibly funny picture of a family of 12 kids showing up at one of the friend's homes with a moving van to stay the night.
Clearly there are already homosexual workers and overseers. They are workers engaged in homosexual relationships and the friends really have no way of knowing unless some years later they find out that he got caught once or twice and had a good "talking to" about it. Clearly the friends and workers do not feel that homosexual relationships affect the gospel message that they are accustomed to hearing from the workers.
If Harry Brownlee's homosexuality did not affect his message, then why can workers not have an openly gay relationship. Wouldn't that be more honest?
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Jul 21, 2012 19:17:18 GMT -5
Yes, homosexual relationships in the work get the same treatment as heterosexual ones. They just cover them up and move the workers around. I was victim of one such homosexual companion. He was known to have assaulted his younger companions in another country and then sent home. Then put back in the work as an older companion with responsibility only to groom the next guy(me) that came along. I can easily see how Harry could do something like groom younger companions. I never knew the guy but I have no problem recognizing the grooming process. I have said before, from my experience being groomed in the work, that were I to be able to go back in the work incognito I could easily find those workers who are homosexual. I got a lot of insight into that. I also had a companion who informed me of how the homosexual workers in third world countries seek each other out. It is not as uncommon as the friends would like to think it is. Strange. They all (well, most) seemed to be well-closeted while I was in the work. Who knows? If I had found a compatible companion, perhaps 'we' would still be in the work! According to all the info regarding the Alberta Excommunications, the homosexual activity WAS really the impetus for the beginning of that mass excommunication...or so some thought.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Jul 21, 2012 19:27:01 GMT -5
Whenever I have mentioned workers being married here, one of the arguments the friends have is that they could not be married because there might be children. That is when Bert posts his incredibly funny picture of a family of 12 kids showing up at one of the friend's homes with a moving van to stay the night. Clearly there are already homosexual workers and overseers. They are workers engaged in homosexual relationships and the friends really have no way of knowing unless some years later they find out that he got caught once or twice and had a good "talking to" about it. Clearly the friends and workers do not feel that homosexual relationships affect the gospel message that they are accustomed to hearing from the workers. If Harry Brownlee's homosexuality did not affect his message, then why can workers not have an openly gay relationship. Wouldn't that be more honest? TS, I do not get the confirmation from the little discourse on this thread that we should be calling Harry an homosexual.....and I'm not saying that perhaps he might have checked out a potential partner here and there to see how welcome the advances might be....but who is to say that in his younger days he might have tried such moves on some of the sisters/friends and he got more then a talking to....so he might have decided to stick with the same sex just for safeties' sake! Kind of like RD learned to keep his exploits with the grown ladies.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Jul 21, 2012 20:48:04 GMT -5
Whenever I have mentioned workers being married here, one of the arguments the friends have is that they could not be married because there might be children. That is when Bert posts his incredibly funny picture of a family of 12 kids showing up at one of the friend's homes with a moving van to stay the night. Clearly there are already homosexual workers and overseers. They are workers engaged in homosexual relationships and the friends really have no way of knowing unless some years later they find out that he got caught once or twice and had a good "talking to" about it. Clearly the friends and workers do not feel that homosexual relationships affect the gospel message that they are accustomed to hearing from the workers. If Harry Brownlee's homosexuality did not affect his message, then why can workers not have an openly gay relationship. Wouldn't that be more honest? TS, I do not get the confirmation from the little discourse on this thread that we should be calling Harry an homosexual.....and I'm not saying that perhaps he might have checked out a potential partner here and there to see how welcome the advances might be....but who is to say that in his younger days he might have tried such moves on some of the sisters/friends and he got more then a talking to....so he might have decided to stick with the same sex just for safeties' sake! Kind of like RD learned to keep his exploits with the grown ladies. Well, we know of at least one time Harry Brownlee showed homosexual tendencies. We know that there are other workers who are the same. That is not really a secret. Workers are human. Any of the friends here on the board will admit to that. They are as prone to being homosexual and sexually active as any other cross section of population. So what is the problem with them just admitting that they are homosexual and just being open with it? Some overseers know of homosexuals in the work and do nothing about it.
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Jul 21, 2012 22:10:11 GMT -5
Strange. They all (well, most) seemed to be well-closeted while I was in the work. Who knows? If I had found a compatible companion, perhaps 'we' would still be in the work! According to all the info regarding the Alberta Excommunications, the homosexual activity WAS really the impetus for the beginning of that mass excommunication...or so some thought. Should that be "According to little known allegations the ....."?
|
|
|
Post by ts on Jul 21, 2012 23:42:03 GMT -5
According to all the info regarding the Alberta Excommunications, the homosexual activity WAS really the impetus for the beginning of that mass excommunication...or so some thought. Should that be "According to little known allegations the ....."? No, I am sure that the overseers were and remain completely noble in that spat of excommunications in Alberta. But, hey, it is done and in the past and far be it for an overseer to actually repent and apologize. If folks can't forgive them for a little ol' mistake, then they must have a bad spirit as evidenced that they will not humble themselves and come back to meeting but would rather forsake the assembling of themselves together which validates the decision to excommunicate them in the first place...So...no need to apologize.
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on Jul 22, 2012 1:34:38 GMT -5
Strange. They all (well, most) seemed to be well-closeted while I was in the work. Who knows? If I had found a compatible companion, perhaps 'we' would still be in the work! According to all the info regarding the Alberta Excommunications, the homosexual activity WAS really the impetus for the beginning of that mass excommunication...or so some thought. Homosexual activity amongst the workers or friends? I thought the Alberta excommunications were about Willis Propp trying to hide the incorporation of the 2x2s in Canada, his monetary holdings (oil well interests), and/or Stanley Jordan's charges. This is a new one on me. Could you provide any more details?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 22, 2012 5:36:44 GMT -5
How, exactly, would excess cash in hand enable the intimidation of women? I have seen this claim made a number of times. In all the time I have been associated with the F&W I do not recall anyone asking "Where is 'X'?" and not getting a reply. How many times has a worker actually boarded a plane to fly off, unknown, to someplace, had a sexual encounter with another person, and returned home a day or two later? Could you give an example of this 'deep and lasting damage' this could cause? I am not actually trying to convince anyone of anything. I am speaking to those who have believed the deception of the workers and submitted to them trustingly only to be abused. They made themselves vulnerable to what they thought were God's true servants in all sincerity only to be taken advantage of. I do not expect anyone who does not have the fear of God in them(not even overseers or workers) to have any sort of understanding or sympathy towards these victims. To them it is impossible to even explain the deep and lasting damage that such betrayal does to a person. So I am not going to try. However, to those who have experienced it and are reading here, I know that THEY understand and I say what I do to validate their experience. I know that there are many people who have seen the same things that I have seen and they cannot PROVE what they have seen and heard because these men doing these evil deeds are just too clever. The questions I asked were not answered. Given the F&W obsession with the workers and where they are, do you actually know of anyone that flew off for a couple of days, unknown to anyone, to have a sexual encounter with some woman? You also stated: Don't wind this all up in some line of BS about me not being able to understand this because I do not believe in a paranormal being, Can you give an example of how this damage could be caused?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Jul 22, 2012 8:18:49 GMT -5
Whenever I have mentioned workers being married here, one of the arguments the friends have is that they could not be married because there might be children. That is when Bert posts his incredibly funny picture of a family of 12 kids showing up at one of the friend's homes with a moving van to stay the night. Clearly there are already homosexual workers and overseers. They are workers engaged in homosexual relationships and the friends really have no way of knowing unless some years later they find out that he got caught once or twice and had a good "talking to" about it. Clearly the friends and workers do not feel that homosexual relationships affect the gospel message that they are accustomed to hearing from the workers. If Harry Brownlee's homosexuality did not affect his message, then why can workers not have an openly gay relationship. Wouldn't that be more honest? How was the message of Judas while he was with the disciples? Perhaps he did not preach, but our ordinary words and walk speak also, right? It's just a question to ponder, I don't have an easy answer.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Jul 22, 2012 9:40:05 GMT -5
According to all the info regarding the Alberta Excommunications, the homosexual activity WAS really the impetus for the beginning of that mass excommunication...or so some thought. Should that be "According to little known allegations the ....."? I think I remember that one of the first visits that ended in excommunication for an elder and his wife, the wife tried to get some answers about the "Practicing of homosexuality" but that was completely shut down and all that was said "Do you support the workers in this....whatever was the issue at that time." And since the couple ahd already said no, there was nothing but the axe to fall.....I think that some of the top workers in that issue knew all about the homosexual actions in the workers and some were actually guilty of it. I have NO problem with homosexuals having their sexual congress any more then I am that heterosexual workers that claim their sacrifice enables them to stand in the place of at least mediator between the friends and God, but have sex on the sly.....my issue with all of it, is the "forbidding to marry" and that IF celibacy has to be maintained, then it needs to be completely maintained, but we know even by Jesus' words that is not entirely possible, so the forbidding to marry is against the laws of God...as Jesus said there are some who can make themselves eunuchs for the sake of the gospel, but then again some cannot.....
|
|
|
Post by Greg on Jul 22, 2012 11:26:12 GMT -5
Should that be "According to little known allegations the ....."? I think I remember that one of the first visits that ended in excommunication for an elder and his wife, the wife tried to get some answers about the "Practicing of homosexuality" but that was completely shut down and all that was said "Do you support the workers in this....whatever was the issue at that time." And since the couple ahd already said no, there was nothing but the axe to fall.....I think that some of the top workers in that issue knew all about the homosexual actions in the workers and some were actually guilty of it. Sharon, do you recall if you read that or heard that or reasoned that?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2012 11:53:16 GMT -5
Several issues came to a head about the time the Jim Knipe tapes were made. Gwen Fipke told something to someone that was false. Willis Propp's financial activities and the incorporation of the Truth in Alberta were other issues. One guy makes a reference to homosexuality activities in his comments to Jim Knipe. I don't have a link to the tapes for those who haven't heard them. Seems like there was a growing schism in the fellowship around 1999.
|
|
|
Post by ts on Jul 22, 2012 12:21:29 GMT -5
I am not actually trying to convince anyone of anything. I am speaking to those who have believed the deception of the workers and submitted to them trustingly only to be abused. They made themselves vulnerable to what they thought were God's true servants in all sincerity only to be taken advantage of. I do not expect anyone who does not have the fear of God in them(not even overseers or workers) to have any sort of understanding or sympathy towards these victims. To them it is impossible to even explain the deep and lasting damage that such betrayal does to a person. So I am not going to try. However, to those who have experienced it and are reading here, I know that THEY understand and I say what I do to validate their experience. I know that there are many people who have seen the same things that I have seen and they cannot PROVE what they have seen and heard because these men doing these evil deeds are just too clever. The questions I asked were not answered. Given the F&W obsession with the workers and where they are, do you actually know of anyone that flew off for a couple of days, unknown to anyone, to have a sexual encounter with some woman? You also stated: Don't wind this all up in some line of BS about me not being able to understand this because I do not believe in a paranormal being, Can you give an example of how this damage could be caused? If you do not believe in God or the spirit, then you do not believe in spiritual damage. You do not believe that a loss of faith in God is a bad thing. You also do not recognize spiritual damage to a group of people when the leaders are being controlled by other spirits besides the Holy Spirit. These leaders are do not have a fear of God in them. Their righteousness is the law of the land. They are as compassionate as the best lawyer they can afford.
|
|