The Whole Boering Truth--Boer Vs Watchtower



In Canada, Vicki Boer brought a civil lawsuit against the elders of her former congregation and the WTBTS asking for $700,000 dollars concerning her child abuse at the hands of her father who was one of Jehovah's Witnesses claiming they were negligent, breached their duty, advised her against contacting the authorities, and against seeking professional help. What did the court find?

Presiding Judge Anne Molloy ruled that the WTS and elders were not at fault and did not contribute to or promote in any way the child abuse that took place. The court said, "There is no foundation on the facts to support an award for punitive damages. Most of the allegations against the defendants have not been established on the facts. The defendants who interacted with the plaintiff did not bear ill will toward her. They accepted the veracity of her account, were sympathetic to her situation and meant her no harm. The claim for punitive damages is dismissed."

As respects her findings as to whether the elders advised Boer not to tell the authorities and not to seek professional help the judge stated very clearly her findings: "The defendants did not instruct the plaintiff not to get medical help. She chose not to seek professional help herself against the advice of the elders and Mr. Mott-Trille. The defendants did not instruct the plaintiff that her father’s abuse should not be reported. On the contrary, the defendants directed Mr. Palmer (the abuser) to report himself to the C.A.S. and then followed up directly to ensure he had done so."

Furthermore Judge Molloy clearly ruled that Vicki Boer's 'memory' of what occurred did not coincide with the facts when she later stated in her ruling: "I have already ruled that I do not accept Ms. Boer's evidence that the elders told her not to seek medical assistance and not to report the abuse to the authorities. These were important points about which she was certain in her own mind. Her memory on those was inaccurate."

Judge Molloy also examined similar cases from the United States and candidly stated in her ruling: "I conclude that had Ms. Boer’s action been brought in the United States, it would likely be subject to summary dismissal based on these cases."

However, even though Judge Molloy also stated in her ruling concerning the elders that "They were sympathetic to the plaintiff. She understood they believed her story..... It was reasonable, and indeed appropriate in the circumstances for them to ensure that the plaintiff's voice was heard and that they not rely solely on Mr. Palmer's version of the events..." she still awarded Boer $5,000 for the trauma caused her in confronting her father at an investigative meeting with the elders stating, "There was, however, psychological harm to the plaintiff as a result of the December 29, 1989 meeting. She was in a very vulnerable state at the time as she had just begun to deal with the effects of her father’s abuse. I accept the evidence of the various experts, including Dr. Awad, that this confrontation made things worse for the plaintiff."

But the flip side of the ruling is that the same court ordered Vicki Boer to pay the WTS $142,000 dollars in legal fees. Thus netting the WTS a sum total of $137,000 dollars as a result of the civil suit brought against them. It seems the Canadian courts do not take lightly cases based on "frivolous charges" and forcing someone to defend themselves "against false or unprovable charges."

How much do you suppose that the Boer's spiritual counselor, Bill Bowen and his Silent Lambs organization, was willing to contribute to help the Boer's pay their own legal fees of over $90,000 that were incurred as well as the $137,000 that they were ordered to pay to the WTS? Apparently whatever they contributed, if anything, was not nearly enough because Vicki's husband, Scott Boer commented, "We've pretty much exhausted our finances pursuing the case this far, and now we're to the point where we simply couldn't afford an appeal. We going to simply have to accept the judgment and if we have to declare bankruptcy for a victory, then we have to declare bankruptcy."

It seems that Silent Lambs by encouraging such lawsuits are contributing to further financial victimizing of the already abused victims. We have to wonder if it is concern for the abused victims that motivates Bowen's organization or their obvious agenda to discredit the WTS that motivates and consumes them.

The self proclaimed E-watchman, Robert King, in his attempt at painting the WTS as a greedy, money-loving corporation,commented: "They do not have to impose the court's ruling upon her. Apparently, though, the Watchtower has every intention of collecting, down to the last penny of the court ordered judgment."

However, it should be noted that in contrast to Robert King's premature judgment, showing no ill will or lust for revenge the WTS agreed to generously call it even and did not insist that Vicki Boer pay the $137,000 awarded to them by the court. It seems that in the end the WTS actually helped out the Boer's financially more than the Silent Lambs organization.


Why Awarded 5000 Dollars?

In view of the judge's ruling given above just why exactly would the judge award Boer the initial $5000.00 dollars. Here were her reasons given:

"I will deal first with the first meeting on December 29, 1989. (This was the confrontational meeting). The plaintiffs position is that she only attended this meeting because she was advised by Sheldon Longworth that she was required to do so as part of the application of Matthew 18. Although Mr. Longworth is not named as a defendant, the plaintiff argues that the defendants Watch Tower and/or John Didur (Bethel elder) are responsible for the conduct of Mr. Longworth. I have found as a fact that Mr. Longworth told the plaintiff she was required to apply Matthew 18 in this situation. I have also found that Mr. Longworth’s advice in this regard would appear to be contrary to the official position of the church which is that Matthew 18 has no appplication to this type of sin.

John Didur (Bethel elder) is a personal defendant. He testified at trial that Matthew 18: 15-18 has no application to this type of situatuion and that he would never have told this to Sheldon Longworth. Mr. Longworth’s notes of one of his conversations with Mr. Didur indicate that Mr. Didur told him that Matthew 18 applied. It is also apparent from his notes that Mr. Longworth spoke to other advisers at head office and that at least one other elder told him Matthew 18 applied. Mr. Longworth’s specific memory of which elders provided which advice is not reliable, as he candidly acknowledged in his testimony. It is possible Mr. Didur gave such advice without fully appreciating the background circumstances. It is also possible Mr. Longworth was confused about the advice he received from Mr. Didur or that he inaccurately recorded the discussion as having been with Mr. Didur when it was in fact with someone else. I found Mr. Didur to be a convincing witness. I am not able to say on a balance of probabilities that he was the one who told Mr. Longworth to apply Matthew 18: 15-18. Therefore he is not personally liable in damages to the plaintiff in respect of the December 29, 1989 meeting.

( 1 ) The Defendant Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Canada

[181] Sheldon Longworth is not named as a personal defendant. However, Ms Boer contacted Mr . Longworth in his capacity as an elder of the church. Mr. Longworth consulted throughout with more senior advisers at the Jehovah’s Witness head office and passed on their advice to the plaintiff. He acted at all times as an agent of the defendant Watch Tower. The defendant Watch Tower did not seek to distance itself from the conduct of Longworth and the other elders who provided advice to Ms. Boer in Toronto or to disclaim any responsibility for their actions. Although the statement of claim could be clearer on this point, I believe that on a fair reading of the pleading and subsesquently delivered particulars, there is an allegation that Watch Tower is responsible for the harm suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the direction given to her to apply Matthew 18:15-18. Accordingly I find the defendant Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Canada liable to the plaintiff for the harm she sustained as a result of attending the Decemer 29, 1989 meeting."

In short, if Sheldon Longworth had followed the correct WT policy, Vicki Boer would not have even received that $5000 dollars. It was his failure to follow the WT policy that caused the judge to rule the way she did. And even though it was not proven that anyone at the WTS gave Brother Longworth that bad advice she still determined that the WTS should pay $5000 dollars in that regard because the WTS did not distance themselves from Sheldon Longworth and his advice to Vicki Boer. So the $5000 dollars was awarded because of the emotional suffering caused to Vicki Boer in confronting her father at the advise of brother Longworth.

Now ask yourself: Does this sound like some evil scheme or evil policy by the WTS or just a mistake by an imperfect human being trying his best to honestly and sincerely perform his duties as an elder in the best interest of others?


The Judge's View of Boer's Treatment

In awarding Vicki Boer the initial $5000.00 dollars did the judge in the case feel that the elders had been harsh and unloving to Boer that they did not have Vicki Boer's best interest at heart? Please take note of these comments from the judge in her ruling:

"However Mr. Longworth (an elder) was sympathetic to the plaintiff and did not act out of any self interest.

...there is no evidence that the people at head office (WT) advising Mr Longworth with anything but the best of intentions.

They (the elders) were sympathetic to her during the meeting.

They believed they were doing the right thing and they did not simply ignore the plaintiffs (Boer's) intersts. For example, in the second meeting, although they did review the allegations of abuse with the plaintifff, they did not require her to go through that exercise with her father present. Likewise the head office personnal advising the local elders did nothing that could be characterized as disloyalty or bad faith.

There is no evidence that they shunned the plaintiff nor that they instructed others to do so. Therefore even if the perception of others within the congregation was as Ms. Boer describes (which also is not proven), there is no basis for placing any blame for that at the feet of these defendants.

I do find as a fact that none of the personal defendants was motivated by any ill will towards the plaintiff nor bias in favour of her father. They acted sincerely and honestly in carrying our their tasks as elders of the congregation. There was no element of bad faith."

The judge did not believe at all that the elders or the WTS had been unloving or harsh to Vicki Boer.


An Honest Mistake

One opposers of JWs child abuse policy who calls himself the E-Watchman had this to say on the case:

"However, when Vicki went to the elders, which is what every good JW is supposed to do to report gross sin, the elders told Vicki that she had to take along two elders to confront her father, again. Obviously, the elders had had it drummed into their head by the WT that that was the proceedure...Matthew 18

But, alas, the elders were evidently on the wrong page of the elders' manual, as it should be apparent to anyone with common sense that the only reason Jesus advised a brother to take along one or two others was if the offender refused to listen to the offended. That wasn't the case with Vicki's father. He admitted his guilt and apologized. There was absolutely no justification for the elders to insist that Vicki confront him, especially because she told the elders how terrifying the prospect of confronting him again would be. The elders sould have simply confronted him with the knowledge that he had already confessed.

But the truth is that it is not the policy of the WTS that a victim should confront the perpetrater face to face. This is not a page from the elders manual. Contradicting what is alledged by King, the November 1, 1995 WT even when discussing accusing one who has not admitted child abuse, clearly states: "If the accuser is not emotionally able to do this face-to-face, it can be done by telephone or perhaps by writing a letter. "

So while King slyly attempts to deceive his readers, in one regard he is correct and it is true that there was absolutely no reason for the elders to insist that Vicki confront her father and the WT publications agree with this assessment. However King deceitfully mischaracterizes and slyly twists the WT policy to suit his agenda of discrediting JWs. And it was not the elders that insisted that Vicki Boer should confront her father nor was it the policy of the WTS, it was one elder that advised her she should confront her father. In fact, notice this from the judge:

"The defendants Steve Brown and Brian Cairns (elders at the investigative meeting in question) were completely unaware of the subject matter of the December 29, 1989 meeting prior to actually hearing it from Mr. Palmer and the plaintiff. They heard from the family members present, made some inquiries to satisfy themselves that the younger children were not in danger, and told the Palmers they would get back to them about what needed to be done. Neither Mr. Brown nor Mr. Cairns was responsible for the structure of the meeting. They had no knowledge that Matthew 18 was being applied. The plaintiff did not tell them that she did not want to be there and she did not ask, nor attempt, to leave. Under these circumstances neither Mr. Brown nor Mr. Cairns is responsible for any harm suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the meeting. I have already determined that there is no liability arising from any of their conduct subsquent to the December 29 meeting."

So you see according to the judge it was the one elder, Sheldon Longworth, who told Vicki Boer that she should confront her father face to face in the presence of the two elders. The elder made an honest mistake. There was no ill intentions involved, nothing evil or sinister about it. Although that is not what apostates like Robert King will lead you to believe.


What About that Out of Court Settlement Offer?

Didn't the WTS offer Vicki Boer $50,000 to settle out of court prior to going to trial? And doesn't that in itself prove the WTS knew that the elders were wrong and that they were guilty of covering up the child molesting? And then they spent over $100,000 dollars in legal expenses on the case. Wouldn't the WTS have much better spent their money by compensating a victim of child abuse rather than trying to bribe Mrs Boer into silence with a gag order, attempting to pay to shove aside the legal claim of a lowly victim?

Lets consider this reasoning in light of the truth. The WTS knew that the elders had seen to it that the proper authorities had been informed because no doubt there was a record of it at the Children's Aid Society since it had been reported there. The WTS knew that the elders had not told her not to seek professional help because the father of her close friend, Jonathan Mott Trill, was an elder and told her to seek professional help even setting up an appointment for her. No doubt that appointment was on record. Notice that the judge agreed with this assessment. She stated in her ruling:

"[10] Ms. Boer also testified that she discussed her distress with the situation with a long-time childhood friend, Jonathan Mott-Trille. His family were members of the Shelburne Jehovah’s Witness congregation. She said she was crying and hysterical as she told her friend Jonathon about having to confront and accuse her father. Jonathan told her he thought the confronation was wrong and promised he would discuss the matter with his father Frank Mott-Trille, who was a lawyer and also an elder in the Shelbourne congregation.

[11] The next day, Ms. Boer met with Jonathan and Frank Mott-Trille at their home in Toronto. Frank Mott-Trille told her there was no requirement that she confront her father. He also advised her that she should report the abuse to the Children’s Aid Society (“ C. A. S.” ) and recommended that she see a psychiatrist. Frank Mott-Trille actually arranged an appointment for Ms. Boer with Dr. Kaplan, a psychiatrist recommended to him by his daughter ( who is herself a doctor).

[12] In the meantime, Ms. Boer received a telephone call from her father stating that a meeting had been arranged for December 29, 1989 at the Palmer family home in Shelburne and that two Shelburne elders , Steve Brown and Brian Cairns would be attending. Ms. Boer testified at trial that she went to the meeting because Mr. Longworth had directed that she must attend and she had no choice but to obey the elders....

[14] Ms. Boer did not contact the C.A.S. and did not keep the appointment with the psychiatrist which Frank Mott-Trille had arranged for her. She testified at trial that she knew she needed help but did not seek it out because she had been told not to by the elders."

The point is this assuming that it is true that the WTS offered a settlement of $50,000: Contrary to what opposers may assume, the WT's settlement offer of $50,000 dollars was not made because they knew they were in the wrong. The money was no doubt offered because they knew that it would cost more than that to go to trial. And why shouldn't they insist on a gag order since they knew that Vicki Boer was making false accusations? Should they have simply forked over money thus allowing Vicki Boer to make claims that the WTS knew they were wrong and that is why they paid her money? Of course not. They were simply trying to offer a settlement as a way of curtailing expenses for a long drawn out court case. Not only that but Vicki Boer as a child abuse victim could have benefitted from that $50,000 dollars. But alas the greedy apostates were out to simply discredit JWs at the expense of Vicki Boer, encouraging her to continue her lawsuit. They apparently could care less about her situation.

Rather than being lambasted for their offer, the WTS should be praised for their generosity in helping a child abuse victim, even though she was making false accusations against them. As Jesus said, 'if your enemy slaps you on the cheek, turn the other cheek'. That is what the WTS attempted to do. But the spiritual advisors of Vicki Boer would stop at nothing short in their attempt at discrediting JWs. Who cares about Vicki Boer's plight, lets bring down the WT!

But doesn't this show that some of the money donated by the brothers and sisters in their congregations for the world wide work is being used for paying legal expenses? If so, is this not a misuse of funds and perhaps even a breach of trust?

Well, lets take the example of Vicki Boer Vs. WT. It was shown in court and the judge agreed that Vicki Boer made false allegations against the WTS or as the judge put it her 'memory' was 'inaccurate'. In view of her false allegations, what was the WT supposed to do? Were they wrong to defend themselves? Should they have just given her the $700,000 that she wanted? To those who object to the WT using donated funds to defend themselves, what is the alternative? Open up the bank accounts to one and all who have a dispute or who claim abuse? Is that being responsible with donations?


JWs Child Abuse Policy Vindicated

Bill Bowen and his silentlambs organization, Robert King, and other opposers have tried to use the Vicki Boer case as an example to discredit JWs. But a closer examination of the case and what actually transpired shows that it is just the opposite. It has exploded in their face. It has backfired against them. And rather than the case discrediting JWs and the WTS, it has proven that JWs child abuse policy is excellent and that it does indeed work. The facts show that it clearly worked in the Vicki Boer case. We have to wonder, how many other cases against the WTS are mere fabrications just like the Vicki Boer case.

Are Jehovah's Witnesses God's Spirit Directed Organization?

If Jesus inspected the Bible Students/JWs at the time in 1918/9, why would he pick them when they still had many teachings and practices that were wrong? This is often times brought up by opposers of JWs to discredit the claim that they are God's organization. But is this reasoning in accord with Bible prophecy? Indeed, why would Jesus pick them when they still had many things incorrect?

According to the prophecy in Malachi, when Jesus came to examine the temple he would find that the temple class needed to be refined and cleansed. Notice Malachi 3:2, "For he will be like the fire of a refiner and like the lye of laundrymen. 3 And he must sit as a refiner and cleanser of silver and must cleanse the sons of Le´vi; and he must clarify them like gold and like silver, and they will certainly become to Jehovah people presenting a gift offering in righteousness."

Question: Why would God's people need to be refined and cleansed? Surely God's organization would already be teaching all truths when Jesus arrived for inspection? While that is how some may reason that reasoning is not in harmony with the Bible prophecies. When Jesus arrived for inspection he found many flaws thus the need for refining. This is backed up by other scriptures as well. For example in Revelation, John is transferred into the 'Lord's day' (Rev 1:10) and it is during the Lord's day that he decribes the condition of the congregations in the seven letters. As the letters show, there was a need for changes in the congregation of Christ. Time and again he tells them that changes are needed and such changes need to be made before destruction comes. One example of this is Rev 3:3, "Certainly unless you wake up, I shall come as a thief, and you will not know at all at what hour I shall come upon you."

So you see, to believe that God's chosen ones would have all things right when he inspected the spiritual temple is incorrect. The Bible clearly shows that he would have a congregation of people and that congregation or organization of people would go thru a needed refining and cleansing during the Lord's day.
But which group would he choose to refine when he arrived at the beginning of the Lord's day?

Logically Jesus Christ would use the ones who were trying to do his will and who were trying to return to the ways of early Christianity. He found the Bible students, (later called Jehovah's Witnesses) to be the ones who had cast aside many God dishonoring Babylonish ideas and practices and he found them to be the ones teaching the basic doctrines of the Bible: no hellfire, no trinity, God's kingdom to restore paradise on earth, Christ's rule to be invisible from heaven, the importance of God's name, the importance of telling others these truths, etc. These are the people that he knew would humbly submit to a refining and cleansing process because they were already on the right path. And so the false teachings continued to be rooted out from the organization so that today JWs are clearly set apart from the other religions. That is why Malachi 3:18 says: "And YOU people will again certainly see [the distinction] between a righteous one and a wicked one, between one serving God and one who has not served him." The distinction is clear for those who are not blind.

But the claim is further made by opposers that Jehovah's Witnesses cannot be Jehovah's organization directed by His holy spirit and His son because they have in the past made interpretations, pointed to certain dates, and taught teachings that were proven to be wrong or were later corrected. Jehovah's spirit is never wrong. Jesus is never wrong. Then how can it be that Jehovah's Witnesses are directed by Jehovah and Jesus? 'Impossible!' opposers say.

But would anybody make the same argument about the seven congregations that John wrote letters to in the book of Revelation? Take a look at all their problems stated in the letters:

"you have left the love you had at first....

you have there those holding fast the teaching of Ba´laam, ... to eat things sacrificed to idols and to commit fornication....

you, also, have those holding fast the teaching of the sect of Nic·o·la´us likewise...

you tolerate that woman Jez´e·bel, ... and she teaches and misleads my slaves to commit fornication and to eat things sacrificed to idols....

I know your deeds, that you have the name that you are alive, but you are dead....

I have not found your deeds fully performed before my God....

I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were cold or else hot. So, because you are lukewarm and neither hot nor cold, I am going to vomit you out of my mouth.

you say: "I am rich and have acquired riches and do not need anything at all," but you do not know you are miserable and pitiable and poor and blind and naked, I advise you to buy from me gold refined by fire that you may become rich, and white outer garments that you may become dressed and that the shame of your nakedness may not become manifested, and eyesalve to rub in your eyes that you may see."

Someone could very well say of those seven congregations: 'Can you believe that this is God's organization? They certainly can't be spirit directed. They certainly do not have Jesus as their leader. There is no way that these congregations make up God's organization.'

But they would be dead wrong. Why? Take note of these verses which show who is in the midst of the congregations directing them:

Revelation 1:12 "And I turned to see the voice that was speaking with me, and, having turned, I saw seven golden lampstands, 13 and in the midst of the lampstands someone like a son of man, ...20 As for the sacred secret of the seven stars that you saw upon my right hand, and [of] the seven golden lampstands: The seven stars mean [the] angels of the seven congregations, and the seven lampstands mean seven congregations."

And take note that to each congregation it is said: "Let the one who has an ear hear what the spirit says to the congregations."

Obviously the seven congregations which were composed of God's people, yes, His organization, were directed by Jesus and God's holy spirit and yet they had many problems. How can this be? Jesus and the holy spirit can't make mistakes.

Just because a person or a group of persons are directed by God's spirit does not mean that they will always follow the leadings of God's spirit. Moses didn't. David didn't. The Israelites didn't. The apostles didn't. At times they failed to follow the guidance of God's spirit which led to incorrect thinking or actions. And so there is a difference in being spirit directed and spirit inspired. Persons who were inspired by holy spirit to write the Bible did not make mistakes in those writings. However, these same persons, who were spirit directed, did not always follow exactly the leadings of God's spirit and so they did make mistakes.
The Watchtower publications have not been written under inspiration of the holy spirit and so at times the things written may have to be corrected. By no means does this prove that Jehovah's Witnesses are not spirit directed. The very fact that they have made the changes and corrected wrong teachings or ideas is proof that they are directed by holy spirit. Other religions simply have not followed this example. They continue to teach the same old Babylonish falsehoods and follow the same old pagan practices. Not so Jehovah's Witnesses. Just look at the changes JWs have made! We can only conclude then that out of all the religious organizations on earth today, it is only Jehovah's Witnesses who are truly directed by Jehovah's holy spirit.

Please take note that the above is not based on my reasoning or the reasoning of Jehovah's Witnesses. It is firmly based on the Bible. As Malachi 3 shows, God's people or organization would need to be refined and cleansed. And as Revelation 1-3 shows, God's organization would have many problems when the Lord's Day began and would have to make many changes. And yet, those chapters show that Jesus was still in the midst of them, directing them and the holy spirit was still guiding them telling them what needed to be corrected. The fact that Jehovah's Witnesses have made corrections and discarded Babylonish teachings and practices is proof that they are indeed the only organization on earth that is directed by both God's son and spirit.

Now opposers or critics of Jehovah's Witnesses may feel inclined to make a long list of teachings that JWs have been wrong about or changed but what exactly have they really proven by doing this? They have proven that the Bible is being fulfilled and that JWs are being refined and cleansed just as prophesied. And they have proven that Jesus really must be walking in the midst of Jehovah's Witnesses because of the many changes made that have brought them more in harmony with the teachings of Jesus. And they have proven that God's holy spirit really is directing his organization of Jehovah's Witnesses because they have continuously discarded Babylonish teachings and practices as directed by God's spirit. This is what we should expect from God's organization since it was prophesied that God's congregation would indeed have problems and flaws that would need correcting and that his organization would humbly submit to the necessary refining and cleansing.

In essence all the reasonings by critics and opposers about JWs having things wrong in the past are made invalid since the Bible clearly prophesied that when Jesus arrived and inspected his temple he would then refine and cleanse them because they needed to be refined and cleansed due to mistakes and wrong teachings. The seven letters to God's congregations in the Lord's day show that there would be problems that would need correcting. So digging up wrong statements by the WT fifty or a hundred years ago in hopes of discrediting JWs is really just a waste of time since the Bible prophecies are what count, not any human reasoning. Such reasonings by enemies of JWs is unscriptural. There is therefore no need to respond to past inaccurate teachings of JWs that are pointed out that have been corrected as part of the refining work done by Jesus to his organization.

So everytime we see a list of the past inaccurate teachings of JWs, we can be happy that Jehovah has seen to it that those teachings and practices have been discarded and that Jehovah does indeed have an organization on earth that he is directing and refining and cleansing.

Does the Policy of the Watchtower Create a Safe Haven for Child Molesters

Many have accused the WTS of promoting child molesting? When I first began to hear what the Silent Lambs organization and Robert King were saying I really did not know the truth of the matter. I thought perhaps it was true. Maybe the WT did coverup for the sake of not bringing reproach on the congregation? But further research into this matter of the WTS and their child abuse policy has revealed the truth about our policy and just how opposers of Jehovah's Witnesses try to hide the facts and mislead others?


Does the policy of the WTS hide child molesters from the law?

According to Silent Lambs and other critics of the WT's child abuse policy the WT publications are full of double speak when it comes to the information that has appeared in the publications. They say while the WTS says out of one corner of its mouth that protecting the children takes top priority and not to keep child abuse hush hush their policy is actually quite the opposite in order to try to put on the appearance of a spiritual paradise and avoid bringing reproach upon the organization. For example, as far back as 1985 the January 22, Awake contradicts what critics say about JWs not putting child protection first. Notice:

First, the child and other children too must be protected from any further abuse. This must be done, whatever the cost. In many cases the accused molester will have to be confronted. But whatever it takes, it is important that the child should feel confident that the molester will never be able to get at her (or him) again.

Second, the child must be given a lot of love and emotional support. Parents must make it very clear that the little victim is not to blame. The crime and anything that happens as a result of it even if a close relative goes to prison is not her (or his) fault. But that reassurance will have to be given many times, so that the victim comes to believe it and to believe that the parents believe it too!

Then the October 8, 1993 Awake again contradicts the critics who say that JWs insist on keeping information about child molesters in house and out of the public eye. It states:

Tragically, adult society often unwittingly collaborates with child abusers. How so? By refusing to be aware of this danger, by fostering a hush-hush attitude about it, by believing oft-repeated myths. Ignorance, misinformation, and silence give safe haven to abusers, not their victims.

However, Time noted that this conspiracy is crumbling at last. Why? In a word, education. It is as Asiaweek magazine put it: "All experts agree that the best defence against child abuse is public awareness." To defend their children, parents must understand the realities of the threat. Don't be left in the dark by misconceptions that protect child abusers and not children.

Some legal experts advise reporting the abuse to the authorities as soon as possible. In some lands the legal system may require this. But in other places the legal system may offer little hope of successful prosecution.

"Its all a bunch of double speak.' say opposers. "In these publications they are speaking of non-JWs but they try to hide child molesting in the congregation because they do not want it to become public and smear the reputation of the organization. They feel this is more important than protecting the children."

Those making such statements are no doubt unaware or are simply trying to cover over and hide the comments found in the January 1, 1997 Watchtower, pp. 26-29 :

Depending on the law of the land where he lives, the molester may well have to serve a prison term or face other sanctions from the State. (The congregation will not protect him from this. )


Instructions to the Elders

But you may have heard from those who criticize the policy of JWs that the elders receive different instructions from the WTS that regular publishers are not aware of. These instructions tell elders to instruct publishers not to go to the police and to keep it within the congregation. But is this really the case or another apostate lie meant to mislead others. Lets see.

A 1988 letter to elders in Canada says:
When to report? There is a duty to report when one has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that there is abuse or a substantial risk of abuse and parents have failed to protect the child. The report shall be mane forthwith to the local child welfare authorities. Sexual offenders are notorious repeaters. Therefore, careful investigation should be undertaken to ensure that no other children are at risk from the same person.

Elders must be aware, however, that once they have knowledge, they have an obligation. They cannot just hope that someone else will report. They must follow through quickly and be sure that it is done.

Here is a 1992 letter to the elders:
As members or the community in which Caesar still acts as God's minister and hence still has a certain authority, all in the Christian congregation would want to consider their personal and moral responsibility to alert the appropriate authorities in cases where there has been committed or there exists a risk that there might be committed a serious criminal offence of this type (see ks91, page 138) In child abuse cases such authorities might include the family doctor, the Social Services, the NSPCC, or the police.


If this is the case why doesn't the Society publically make known their child abuse policy? Why keep it a secret and send letters only to the elders?

Actually they have made it public for anyone who wishes to read it. It is found here for the general public to read:
http://www.jw-media.org/newsroom/index.htm?content=background.htm


The Two Witness Rule

The child abuse policy of JWs states:
When any one of Jehovah's Witnesses is accused of an act of child abuse, the local congregation elders are expected to investigate. Two elders meet separately with the accused and the accuser to see what each says on the matter. If the accused denies the charge, the two elders may arrange for him and the victim to restate their position in each other's presence, with elders also there. If during that meeting the accused still denies the charges and there are no others who can substantiate them, the elders cannot take action within the congregation at that time. Why not? As a Bible-based organization, we must adhere to what the Scriptures say, namely, "No single witness should rise up against a man respecting any error or any sin . . . At the mouth of two witnesses or at the mouth of three witnesses the matter should stand good." (Deuteronomy 19:15) Jesus reaffirmed this principle as recorded at Matthew 18:15-17.

Opposers say this is bad policy since child molesters usually do not molest with others around. This protects the molester and not the child.

To this we say, The rule book is the Bible. Do we just throw that out. The two witness rule is actually a very good rule. In many cases critics do not realize just what the two witness rule entails. Others may know but they don't want you to know and so they try to hide just who or what can serve as two witnesses.

Notice what the WT policy further states along these lines: However, if two persons are witnesses to separate incidents of the same kind of wrongdoing, their testimony may be deemed sufficient to take action.

"Its about time they changed that rule," some may exclaim. "No doubt credit can be given to Bill Bowen and his SilentLambs organization for this change." But the truth is that this was stated as far back as 1981 in the Pay Attention to the Flock Book. It instructs on page 119: If there is another witness to the same type of sin on the part of the accused, this would be basis for forming a judicial committee.

Making application of this directive, given long before Silent Lambs even existed, we know that two different children who are molested on separate occasions by the same person would qualify as the two witnesses. Other information from the WTS has revealed that the two witnesses do not have to both be children who were molested or persons who saw the molesting. It can be the court evidence and the child. It can be the DNA evidence and the child. But how would it be right if someone was DFed on the word of only one person. The bottom line is that it is unscriptural to disfellowship someone at the mouth of one witness. Surely God's word should take precedent over the thinking of imperfect men.

But doesn't the November 1, 1995 WT, pp. 28-29 contradict this aspect of the two witness rule? Doesn't it say that "even if more than one person remembers abuse by the same individual", this would not be enough evidence to "base judicial decisions on them without other supporting evidence."? Isn't this just more double-speak by the WTS?

No, it is not. A reading of the entire article and taking note of the context and what is being discussed in that particular WT, we see that the article is talking about repressed memories. That is why at the start of the article there is a footnote which says, " “Repressed memories” and similar expressions are enclosed in quotation marks to distinguish them from the more typical memories that all of us have."

Experts agree that repressed memories cannot always be trusted and false memories are sometimes implanted in a person's mind. And that is why the WT article states, "It is noteworthy, however, that a number of individuals have been unable to corroborate their “memories.” Some afflicted in this way have had vivid recollections of a certain individual committing abuse or of the abuse being committed in a specific place. Later, though, legitimate evidence to the contrary made it clear that these “remembered” details could not be true."

Then later in the article the statement in question is made that is often taken out of context by opposers of JWs: "Even if more than one person “remembers” abuse by the same individual, the nature of these recalls is just too uncertain to base judicial decisions on them without other supporting evidence." It is only in the case of repressed memories, and not the typical normal memories, that this applies. There is absolutely no contradiction here with JW's stated child abuse policy.


Reporting the information to the WTS

The policy continues: However, even if the elders cannot take congregational action, they are expected to report the allegation to the branch office of Jehovah's Witnesses in their country, if local privacy laws permit.

Opposers critisize the fact that the WTS stresses the importance of reporting the allegations to the headquarters. But there is a very good reason why. The WTS wants to make sure that each case is handled correctly. They want to make sure that the body of elders do not disregard their policy and thus cause problems for all involved. Can you imagine the criticism that would be heaped upon the Society if they said please do not call Bethel in cases of child molesting? Elders should handle it themselves.

I talked to an elder not long ago and asked him what to do in the case of child molesting and he said the first thing to do is call the WTS about it. I ask him what he would say to the victims family about going to the authorities and he said that he would strongly recommend that the person don't go to the authorities. So the fact is that if he did not call the WTS he would have handled the case contrary to the instructions from the Society. That is why it is vital that the elders call the WTS before proceeding.

Some critics argue that elders should not waste time calling the headquarters of the WTS. They should go straight to the police. They make it appear that both cannot be done or that calling the WTS will somehow prolong their reporting it to the police. But really both can be done in the same day. Calling the WTS does not take much time at all. Perhaps an hour or two at the most. This argument of course is really an absurd argument. One that is used in an attempt to discredit JWs and our policy but really it has no merit whatsover.

Is the victim told not to go to the police?

Continuing with the policy: In addition to making a report to the branch office, the elders may be required by law to report even uncorroborated or unsubstantiated allegations to the authorities. If so, we expect the elders to comply. Additionally, the victim may wish to report the matter to the authorities, and it is his or her absolute right to do so.

You have no doubt seen the apostates false claims that a person can be disfellowshipped for going to the authorities with child abuse allegations. Clearly, this is not the case at all. Some opposers claim that if there are not two witnesses to the molesting then the WT policy is that it should not be reported to the authorities. But did you notice the phrase above: 'even uncorroborated or unsubstantiated allegations'. Yes, it is anyone's absolute right to report even uncorroborated or unsubstantiated allegations to the authorities, even if there are not two witnesses.

In fact, previously we showed a letter to the elders that said "all in the Christian congregation would want to consider their personal and moral responsibility to alert the appropriate authorities in cases where there has been committed or there exists a risk that there might be committed a serious criminal offence of this type..."


You Can't take a Brother to Court

But doesn't the WT publications say that we shouldn't take our brother to court because it might damage the reputation of the organization? Wouldn't this include pressing charges against an alleged child abuser who has not been disfellowshipped? "Its just more WT double speak,"opposers claim. They then may point to the November 15, 1973 WT attempting to show the contradiction: "And by dragging fellow believers before pagan judges, they would bring great reproach upon God’s name. As outsiders would be led to believe that Christians were no different from other people in being unable to settle differences, the interests of true worship would be injured. It would have been far better for individual Christians to take personal loss rather than to injure the entire congregation by bringing their disputes to public notice."

However, a reading of the context will show that this is just another way opposers try to twist the words of the publications to suit their own fancy. The fact is that this WT is applying the words of the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:7 where Paul counseled Christians, "Really, then, it means altogether a defeat for YOU that YOU are having lawsuits with one another. Why do YOU not rather let yourselves be wronged? Why do YOU not rather let yourselves be defrauded?" Both Paul and the WT publication are talking about civil lawsuits against one another not criminal cases.

There are civil courts and there are criminal courts. If, for example, a person were to sue another person for money this would be heard by the civil court. But if someone is accused of a crime it is the governmental authorities that decide whether or not to prosecute the accused. It would be the state versus the accused not the accuser versus the accused. Therefore anyone reporting abuse to the authorities would not be bringing a brother to court. Not at all. It would be the state government that would be bringing charges against the person in a criminal court.

However, even at that, this same 1973 WT does not say that a person would face a judicial hearing if he took his brother to court. It merely states,
"However, if any member of the Christian congregation, without regard for the effect of his action on the good name of the congregation, ignores the counsel from God’s Word on this matter, such one would not be "free from accusation" as a Christian. He would not be one who has "a fine testimony from people on the outside" of the congregation. (Titus 1:6; 1 Tim. 3:7) He surely would not be an example for others to imitate, so this would affect the privileges that he might have in the congregation." So not only are critics wrong in applying this WT to criminal cases, they are also wrong in saying that it could lead to disfellowshipping.


What About All Those Stories?

But you may say what about all the stories we hear where ones were disfellowshipped for reporting allegations to the police?

You will agree that there are many haters and opposers of Jehovah's Witnesses. They would stop at nothing to discredit us. No doubt, some of the stories are from those ones. Others may be based on truth but are exaggerated somewhat. Many times you will agree that there are two sides to the story. Sometimes a person will omit or forget some of the facts to make themselves look more believable.

Are we saying that all stories about elders mishandling cases are untrue? Of course not. As long as you are dealing with imperfect humans mistakes are bound to happen. Some elders may overstep the policy of the WTS and decide how to handle the case on their own resulting in serious mistakes and problems for those involved.

But by the same token there is no doubt that the numbers are greatly exaggerated by the Silent Lambs group because they apparently have a goal that is not readily seen by the ones who do not want to see it. Their statements and writings are misleading and twisted. They slant reality to fit their agenda. We will prove this later on. But for now ask yourself why should I believe every word they say? Am I willing to believe the words of ones trying to discredit the WTS but not believe factual documentation and the words of the ones who help me to see the truth of the Bible? Am I willing to believe their words but unwilling to believe the words of an organization that trys to stay clean by disfellowshipping fornicators, rapist, child molesters, and the like? What other organization disfellowships practicing child molesters and shuns them? If we want to boost our ranks all we have to do is allow the fornicators to remain or join. We could probably triple our membership in no time if that was simply the goal of the WTS.

There is no logical or reasonable explanation why the WTS would want molesters to be in the organization or be servants in the organization. They are simply trying to follow Bible principles in the policy they have in place. It is not sinister. It is not a cover up to try to show we have a spiritual paradise. If that was the case, why not cover up fornication as well. There are far more fornicators than child molesters. Why not keep fornication hush hush to give the appearance of an organization that lives in a perfect spiritual paradise with no wrongdoing whatsoever. It makes no sense. It is illogical. And it is nonfactual.

Can former molesters be servants?

Do JWs allow former child molesters to be servants in the congregation? Isn't this just like the Catholic church in transferring their priests to a different diocese? The reality is that this is a falacy promoted by apostates to discredit our policy. Notice how the WT policy makes this very clear.

If, when confronted, the accused confesses that he is guilty of child abuse, the elders take appropriate congregational action. If he is not repentant, he will not be permitted to remain a member of the congregation. Even if he is repentant—is cut to the heart and is thus resolutely determined to avoid such conduct in the future—what was stated in the January 1, 1997, issue of The Watchtower applies. The article said: "For the protection of our children, a man known to have been a child molester does not qualify for a responsible position in the congregation. Moreover, he cannot be a pioneer [full-time missionary of Jehovah's Witnesses] or serve in any other special, full-time service." He would not qualify Scripturally. (1 Timothy 3:2, 7-10) We take such action because we are concerned with maintaining Bible standards and protecting our children. Everyone in our organization is expected to meet the same requirements, namely, to be clean physically, mentally, morally, and spiritually.—2 Corinthians 7:1; Ephesians 4:17-19; 1 Thessalonians 2:4.

The WTS now keeps the names of anyone who was convicted (even if it was before they were a witness) or DFed or reproved for child molesting. When they relocate the elders of the new congregation are informed so that they can see to it that the person is not allowed to put children in the new congregation at risk. Just further proof that the WTS is way ahead of other religions.

But doesn't the Society make exceptions for some child molesters and appoint them as servants? Again notice the only exceptions mentioned in the policy set forth:
"In a few instances, individuals guilty of an act of child abuse have been appointed to positions within the congregation if their conduct has been otherwise exemplary for decades. All the factors are considered carefully. Suppose, for example, that a long time ago a 16-year-old boy had sexual relations with a consenting 15-year-old girl. Depending upon the U.S. jurisdiction where he lived when this happened, elders may have been required to report this as an incident of child abuse. Let us say that 20 years have passed. The child abuse reporting law may have changed; the man may have even married the girl! Both have been living exemplary lives and they are respected. In such a rare case, the man could possibly be appointed to a responsible position within the congregation."

As we see the exception to the rule is both reasonable and loving and in no way would endanger children.

Do the WT's lawyers follow a different policy?

Some opposers still argue that the WTS is ran by lawyers and as such the policy set forth is just a smokescreen to mislead others from knowing the real policy that the lawyers follow. But consider this:

If lawyers run the WT corporation as is many times said by opposers, do you think that they would counsel the WTS to tell victims not to go to the authorities and threaten DFing anyone who did? Would they tell the WTS to appoint former child molesters to positions of authority in the congregations? That would be inviting lawsuits. Are the WT lawyers so stupid and incompetent in child molestation cases yet such brilliant lawyers in other legal matters such as gaining freedom and liberties for Jehovah's Witnesses? That defies logic.


Why not just let the authorities handle child molestation cases since elders have no training in this field?

Has there ever been a perfect justice system? Isn't it true that people have been getting away with crimes since the human race began. The justice systems in the US and around the world are by far not perfect. People get away with murder and rape all the time. A lot of it depends on what kind of attorney you can afford or who happens to be the judge presiding that day. Some crimes are very difficult to prove. In the case of rape many times you have a he said she said scenario. Since the advent of DNA however these sorts of crimes are easier to prosecute. And some who were convicted have later been proven innocent with DNA evidence. There have even been some who have been wrongly executed. So the justice system makes many mistakes.

So while the child molester, because he has money to hire the best lawyers or some other reason, may be found not guilty in court of law he should still face discipline in the congregation regardless of the courts failure to convict him. The congregation has the responsibility to keep the organization clean regardless of what the law of the land may conclude about an individual. Should the congregation elders stand idly by waiting for the courts to handle the cases before ruling on the matter with the evidence available? It might take years before the case is settled in the govenmental courts. Meanwhile the child molester is still be considered one of Jehovah's Witnesses. Shouldn't a proven practicing child molester be removed from the congregation as soon as the evidence comes out rather than waiting years for the courts to decide? Of course they should. This is both scriptural, practical, and reasonable. And serves as a protection for all in the congregation. By no means would it be prudent to wait for the courts to handle the case and then the elders make a ruling based on what the court decides. And of course if the elders do not have enough evidence initially and the courts bring forth evidence that can serve as another witness against the molester then the elders can act at that time.

If the WTS told elders not to handle child abuse cases but just let the authorities take care of it can't you just hear what the critics would be saying? "I can't believe that the WTS shirks their responsibility? They are quick to DF others for lesser offenses but they do not want to touch child molesters just passing the buck on to the authorities. How hypocritical!" And so they are damed if they do and damned if they don't by some. But we are sure that honest ones can see the scriptural reasons why the elders should handle cases of all serious wrongdoing, including child molesting, as soon as possible.

But isn't it true that everyone in the congregation is instructed to keep silent including the elders and not let anyone else know that a person in the congregation is a former molester? Wouldn't a person be disfellowshipped or reproved for gossip or slander?

This is another common apostate falacy put forth to mislead others. A 1997 letter to body of elders states:

What can the elders do to help protect our children? The elders should be alert to the activity of any who are known to have molested children in the past. Individuals who have manifested a weakness in this regard should be sensitive to their need not to be alone with children. They should refrain from holding children or displaying other forms of affection for them. It would be appropriate for elders to give kindly cautions to any who are doing things that may be a temptation or a cause for concern to others in the congregation.

It is pretty clear for any who want to be honest and consider the statement carefully. If others in the congregation are concerned about something the former molester is doing what should elders do? Reprove them for gossip? Df them for slander? No, that is not in the instructions from the WTS at all. It is quite the opposite. Any individual in the congregation who has 'cause for concern' for what a former molester may be doing would not be considered slanderous for bringing up those concerns and elders should handle those concerns according to the directives from WTS. The elders are not to just sluff the concerns off and call it gossip or slander and reprove or DF the person. And yet, that is what apostates will tell you.

This directive certainly makes it clear that persons could indeed be warned if a person was unknowingly putting children in harms way of a former child molester. It also makes it clear that anyone who had 'cause for concern' about what a molester was doing would not be reproved but rather the former molester as well as those he is coming in contact with would be warned and cautioned because of this 'cause for concern'.

A 1992 letter to the elders further states:
Therefore, the elders should not make disparaging comments regarding a Christian' s decision to obtain professional help. It is also a personal decision if the alleged victim chooses to report such accusations to the secular authorities. Elders should encourage the sufferer to use discretion if that one chooses to confide in a mature friend.

What does this show us? Please note that it is mentioned that it might be discussed with a mature friend and that professional help could be obtained if one choses to do so. Certainly that would show that a person would not be dfed for warning a friend of the dangers should they be allowing their children to spend the night etc in the home of the child molester or for telling a professional what took place. The WTS would not condone dfing someone for reporting it since they here in the letters are saying that it should or could be reported and even talked about to others. Any elders saying otherwise is overstepping their bounds and disregarding the letters from the WTS.

But finally we have this evidence from the November 1, 1995 Watchtower. Here the WT addresses the victim of child molestation and states: If there is some valid reason to suspect that the alleged perpetrator is still abusing children, a warning may have to be given. The congregation elders can help in such a case.

Here, contrary to claims of apostates, straight from the WT, we see that the victim can provide a warning to others and the congregation elders can help them to do so.


Who has a better policy?

"Below is just a sampling of the steps numerous religious institutions have taken to protect children from being abused. By clicking on the links provided any observer can see that the churches have gone to great lengths to openly discuss abuse issues and establish policies to prevent abuses from taking place.

Interestingly, by Googling each church along with "child abuse policy," or any similar phrase, the results are readily forthcoming. However, try Googling the Watchtower's child abuse policy and see what your search results turn up. For example, here is a link to a well defined child abuse policy for a Methodist church that requires criminal background checks for day care workers etc.

http://www.ltumc.org/pages/safetypolicy2.html Here is a link to a Methodist conference that discusses their child protection policies. They seem to have gone to great lengths to ensure that children are not abused.

http://www.txcumc.org/SafeSanctuaries/SafeHome.htm The Baptist church also has a well-defined policy that is aimed at preventing abuse.

http://www.baptist-atlantic.ca/articles/abusepolicy.htm The American Baptist Church has a similar detailed screening policy that is aimed at preventing abuse.

http://www.nationalministries.org/children/policy.cfm The Lutheran Church has a similar child abuse policy

http://www.synodresourcecenter.org/admin/personnel/background_checks/0001/abuse.html Here are the minutes of a Presbyterian elders meeting that lays out a very comprehensive child abuse policy.

http://www.opmh.org/sessionminutes/session040823.htm The Anglican Church in Ontario has a clearly defined policy that informs parishioners to call the police.

http://www.ottawa.anglican.ca/abuse.shtml Please take note of the Anglican policy that states: WHAT DO I DO IF THE VICTIM IS A CHILD? The protection of children is a matter of fundamental concern. In Ontario all professionals are bound by law to report suspected child abuse to the Children's Aid Society. The professional's duty to report overrides the privilege of confidentiality."

Those comments above in italics are the words of one of the biggest critics of the child abuse policy of the WTS. When looking at each link he provides what do we reallly find? Here is the truth about each one of them.

Methodist Policy: This policy and its provisions shall apply to all persons including all paid and unpaid leaders, whether lay or clergy who have any direct or indirect contact with children and youth who participate in any activities or events sponsored by the Texas Conference.

Only protects children against ones in charge. Not against Joe Methodist the child molester.

Baptists policy: Policy for Child Abuse Prevention All persons desiring to work with children/youth through any ministry (current or future) of this church, must first meet the following qualifications.

Does not protect child against Joe Baptist the child molester.

American Baptist Policy: the Board of Educational Ministries adopted a recommended policy for churches and regions to consider as they recruit and screen volunteers and staff who work with children, youth, and/or other vulnerable populations.

Does not protect children against Joe American Baptist the child molester.

Lutheran policy: it is prompted by awareness of problems in other churches that have allowed for the abuse of children by paid and unpaid child and youth workers in the church,

Does not protect child against Joe Lutheran the child molester.

Presbyterian policy: Employees and volunteers who undertake the special responsibility of working with the children of OPMH shall not violate the trust of the responsibility by engaging in acts of sexual misconduct.

Does not protect children against Joe Presbyterian the child molester.

Anglican Church Policy: In the Church, where people entrust their lives and their spiritual wellbeing to clergy and other employees and volunteers, the issues of sexual exploitation and harassment are of great importance. Church leaders are invested with the confidence of those who come to them. Sexual contact is a gross misuse of that power and a massive breach of a sacred trust that takes advantage of another's vulnerability

Does not protect the children against Joe Anglican the child molester.

You will note that in every link provided the policy is concerning those in charge of youths, the clergy, employees, volunteers, youth leaders and counselors. There is no policy to protect children against members of the church or their own parents. Their only concern seems to be to make sure that no leaders are accused of child molesting so that lawsuits may be avoided. They have no concern for protecting children from child abusers who are simply members of the church. They seem to not even have a policy for this. How much finer the policy of JWs to DF practicing child molesters and shun them.

Some try to compare our policy and the fact that some elders or ministerial servants have been found to be engaging in child molesting to that of the Catholic church. There is a huge difference between the Catholic Church and JWs.

1.JWs do not transfer known child molesters to different parts of the country to continue to serve as elders.

2. Known child molesters are never allowed to be servants in the congregation for the rest of their life.

3. JWs disfellowship practicing child molesters whether they are elders, ministerial servants, Bethelites, COs, DOs, pioneers, publishers, or whatever their position in the congregation. It does not matter. Catholics and other religions have no such policy to remove individual members from their organization.

Jesus Cano is an example of this fact. If Cano would have been caught by JWs before the police caught him, he would have been immediately kicked out of Bethel and DFed just as he was after the police caught him. If he were a Catholic Minister he would have been transferred to another parish and continued as a Catholic Minister or possibly now that such publicity has come to the Catholic Church for thier mishandling of these matters and money awarded to victims he may have been temporarily removed as a Minister but by no means would he have been excommunicated as a member of the Catholic Church.

4. Child abuse victims of Catholic priests have been awarded over $1.5 billion dollars by the courts of the land. Money awarded to those bringing lawsuits against the WTS concerning child molesting: -$137,000 dollars. That's right. That figure is a minus $137,000 dollars. The WTS has actually been awarded a net total of $137,000 dollars in cases of child abuse lawsuits brought against them. We will explain next.


Boer Vs. WT

In Canada, Vicki Boer brought a civil lawsuit against the elders of her former congregation and the WTBTS asking for $700,000 dollars concerning her child abuse at the hands of her father who was one of Jehovah's Witnesses claiming they were negligent, breached their duty, advised her against contacting the authorities, and against seeking professional help. What did the court find?

Presiding Judge Anne Molloy ruled that the WTS and elders were not at fault and did not contribute to or promote in any way the child abuse that took place. The court said, "There is no foundation on the facts to support an award for punitive damages. Most of the allegations against the defendants have not been established on the facts. The defendants who interacted with the plaintiff did not bear ill will toward her. They accepted the veracity of her account, were sympathetic to her situation and meant her no harm. The claim for punitive damages is dismissed."

As respects her findings as to whether the elders advised Boer not to tell the authorities and not to seek professional help the judge stated very clearly her findings:

The defendants did not instruct the plaintiff not to get medical help. She chose not to seek professional help herself against the advice of the elders and Mr. Mott-Trille. The defendants did not instruct the plaintiff that her father’s abuse should not be reported. On the contrary, the defendants directed Mr. Palmer (the abuser) to report himself to the C.A.S. and then followed up directly to ensure he had done so.

Furthermore Judge Molloy clearly ruled that Vicki Boer's 'memory' of what occurred did not coincide with the facts when she later stated in her ruling: "I have already ruled that I do not accept Ms. Boer's evidence that the elders told her not to seek medical assistance and not to report the abuse to the authorities. These were important points about which she was certain in her own mind. Her memory on those was inaccurate.

Judge Molloy also examined similar cases from the United States and candidly stated in her ruling: I conclude that had Ms. Boer’s action been brought in the United States, it would likely be subject to summary dismissal based on these cases.

However, even though Judge Molloy also stated in her ruling concerning the elders that "They were sympathetic to the plaintiff. She understood they believed her story..... It was reasonable, and indeed appropriate in the circumstances for them to ensure that the plaintiff's voice was heard and that they not rely solely on Mr. Palmer's version of the events..." she still awarded Boer $5,000 for the trauma caused her in confronting her father at an investigative meeting with the elders stating, "There was, however, psychological harm to the plaintiff as a result of the December 29, 1989 meeting. She was in a very vulnerable state at the time as she had just begun to deal with the effects of her father’s abuse. I accept the evidence of the various experts, including Dr. Awad, that this confrontation made things worse for the plaintiff."

But the flip side of the ruling is that the same court ordered Vicki Boer to pay the WTS $142,000 dollars in legal fees. Thus netting the WTS a sum total of $137,000 dollars as a result of the civil suit brought against them. It seems the Canadian courts do not take lightly cases based on "frivolous charges" and forcing someone to defend themselves "against false or unprovable charges."

How much do you suppose that the Boer's spiritual counselor, Bill Bowen and his Silent Lambs organization, was willing to contribute to help the Boer's pay their own legal fees of over $90,000 that were incurred as well as the $137,000 that they were ordered to pay to the WTS? Apparently whatever they contributed, if anything, was not nearly enough because Vicki's husband, Scott Boer commmented, "We've pretty much exhausted our finances pursuing the case this far, and now we're to the point where we simply couldn't afford an appeal. We going to simply have to accept the judgment and if we have to declare bankruptcy for a victory, then we have to declare bankruptcy." It seems that Silent Lambs by encouraging such lawsuits are contributing to further financial victimizing of the already abused victims. We have to wonder if it is concern for the abused victims that motivates Bowen's organization or their obvious agenda to discredit the WTS that motivates and consumes them.

The self proclaimed E-watchman, Robert King, in his attempt at painting the WTS as a greedy, money-loving corporation,commented: "They do not have to impose the court's ruling upon her. Apparently, though, the Watchtower has every intention of collecting, down to the last penny of the court ordered judgment." However, it should be noted that in contrast to Robert King's premature judgement, showing no ill will or lust for revenge the WTS agreed to generously call it even and did not insist that Vicki Boer pay the $137,000 awarded to them by the court. It seems that in the end the WTS actually helped out the Boer's financially more than the Silent Lambs organization.


Poissonous Lies

One of the most famous cases brought against the WTS is the one brought by the children of Sara Poisson at the behest of the Silent Lambs organization. You are no doubt aware of the case and have heard how the elders were told by her that her husband was sexually molesting her 2 children and the elders stood by and did nothing about it. But did you know that these statements are untrue, lies that can be factually documented.

You have no doubt read articles such as this about the case: "November 16. 2004 8:06AM "At issue are the claims of sisters Heather and Holly Berry, who allege their Jehovah's Witness congregation in Wilton ignored their mother's complaints that their father was sexually abusing them. After the police inadvertently learned of the abuse, Paul Berry was convicted of assaulting Holly in 2000 and is serving 56 to 112 years in state prison. According to court records, Paul Berry, formerly of Greenville, abused the girls sexually and physically in the 1980s, when they were between the ages of 3 and 10. In one case, he was accused of hanging Holly by her wrists from hooks on a barn wall. When their mother, Sara Poisson, reported the abuse to church elders between six and 10 times, they told her to "be a better wife" and to pray more, the records said."

But are you aware that the truth is that the elders were never told of sexual abuse by Paul Berry at this time by the mother, Sara Poisson. How do we know this to be the truth?

Note the testimony of the mother herself in the sentencing phase of Paul Berry. Sara Poisson testified: "A social worker visited me and informed me that I needed to have Paul removed from the home by 5 o'clock that day, or that she would take my children away from me. Before me now was the decision--the very real decision--to choose God, as I perceived him to be at that time, or to choose my children. And I chose mychildren. This decision resulted in years of extreme poverty. The entire congregation turned their back on us."

Then notice what happened much later after her daughter had grown to maturity. Sara Poisson continues her testimony: "I did not hear from Holly for 18 months. She called one day from Indiana and sa1d she wanted to come home. I sent her a bus ticket and picked her up in (Ascutney), Vermont. She was thin, she was sick, and she had parasites. When she dismounted from that bus, she asked me, "Why did you let that happen?" And I said, "Why did I let what happen?" And this was the first time that I heard about the sexual abuse that had happened to her.""

According to Sara Poisson's on testimony at the sentencing of Paul Berry, she found out about the sexual abuse for the first time at a much later date than her conversation with the elders. No, she could not have possibly told the elders about any sexual abuse by Paul Berry. Silent lambs is attempting to discredit the WTS by spreading untruths. No wonder the WTS in the complaint against them denied it: "The church disputes the sisters' claims, however, and its lawyer, Donald Gardner of Manchester, has said church elders didn't know about the abuse until long after it had stopped and police were investigating."

Sara Poisson's testimony about her first suspecting sexual abuse at the sentencing phase of Paul Berry's trial is also contradictory: About this time, Heather, who was very young, began to act strangely. She refused to sleep in her bed, would only sleep in the bathtub. She threw things at her father and became very v1olent. Heather was the kind of little girl that brought wilted dandelions home for me. I suspected Paul was sexually abusing her, and began to ask questions of professionals and to take Heather to counseling. The situation went on for years. The abuse continued.

What does this reveal?

1. Lets assume that she is telling the truth when she says the elders told her not to report it to the authorities because we handle things in house. And so she listened to them and went against her better judgment. But then apparently she did not fully listen to the elders and ascribe to the notion that help from outside JWs organization should not be sought because here she acknowledges questioning professionals and taking her child to counseling. Yes, the fact is and we know it, that JWs do not condemn receiving outside help from professionals. Nor do they chastise or discipline members for reporting abuse to the authorities. This is a decision of each individual.

2. Heather received counseling and professionals were questioned. We have to wonder why didn't these counselors and professionals report the physical and sexual child abuse to the authorities? Why hasn't she brought a lawsuit against those counselors and professionals who surely learned of the abuse in questioning and counseling her child and Sara Poisson herself.

3. She admits the situation went on for years and she had no proof. It was not till much later that Holly told her. She did not and could not have told the elders that they were being sexually abused because according to her she did not know. If she did know about it then she allowed it to continue for years. I'm sorry. But these are the facts. I wonder if it bothers any of the opposers of JW's child abuse policy to realize that they have been duped into believing lies from silent lambs and Sara Poisson?

It is apparent from Sara Poisson's own testimony that she is the one who is the liar and not the WTS. At any rate the court dismissed the charges against the elders and the WTS and ruled the following: "We also disagree with the plaintiffs' assertion that special circumstances exist in this case such that an especial temptation and opportunity for Berry's criminal misconduct was created by Watchtower and Wilton Congregation. There is no allegation that the elders created any opportunity for Berry to abuse his daughters. As noted, there was no allegation that the alleged abuse took place on congregation property or at congregation-related activities. There is no allegation that the elders acted in any way other than by providing spiritual guidance and scriptural advice, at the request of the plaintiffs' mother."

You might take note of other lies by Sara Poisson: Concerning the teachings of JWs she said: "Women were not allowed to seek an education." We know that is a lie.

She said: "A social worker visited me and informed me that I needed to have Paul removed from the home by 5 o'clock that day, or that she would take my children away from me. Before me now was the decision--the very real decision--to choose God, as I perceived him to be at that time, or to choose my children. And I chose mychildren. This decision resulted in years of extreme poverty. The entire congregation turned their back on us."

Another lie. There is no judicial discipline against anyone separating from their husband. There was no decision to choose God or choose her children. She could easily choose both if she desired. Many have been duped by the lies of Sara Poisson and Silent Lambs.

Poissonous Interview

In 2002 BBC reporter Betsan Powys interviewed Sara Poisson and her daughter, Heather.

POWYS: Even after you had told them that her father was sexually abusing Heather, nothing changed?

POISSON: No, no. Well yeah, things changed, they got a lot worse, for me.

Notice the stammering. According to her own testimony that we showed above she did not know about the sexual abuse when she talked to the elders. How did she tell them about it? Either she lied under oath when she testified. Or she is lying in this interview. Notice how it continues.

POWYS: In the end the decision was taken out of her hands. In school bruises were noticed on her children. Social workers were told. They gave her a stark choice, leave your husband or we take your children. But if she left him, she knew the church would cut her dead.

POISSON: At that point I had to make decision between God and my kids. And I knew.. well at that time I knew that if I chose my kids, I don't have prayer, but I didn't care anymore. So we lost everything in one day.

POWYS: Sarah Poisson had no life outside the Kingdom Hall. When the congregation cast her out she had no choice but to move away. She didn't just lose every friend she had, overnight she was homeless, penniless, scraping a living to bring up her children. The friends they'd had openly shunned them.

Why was she DFed and removed from the congregation. Was it for separating from her husband? That is what we are led to believe. But any honest and reasonable person knows that she would not be Dfed for that reason. There is no dfing for separating from a mate or even divorcing them. The grounds for dfing would only come when remarrying without having scriptural grounds (fornication) for doing so.

POWYS: Heather Berry and her stepsister Holly Brewer have flown here from New Hampshire. The man who abused them has been gaoled for a minimum of 56 years. He was Heather's father. Now Heather and Holly are breaking new ground, they're taking the Jehovah's Witnesses to court.

HEATHER: I'm Heather from New Hampshire. I don't want to tell my story but I've heard the word 'victim' too many times today, and all of us are standing out here today and we're standing tall and proud and saying this happened and that it can't happen and we're survivors, and we're fighting and we're not victims.

POWYS: They're the first of those survivors to take their fight to court. They're claiming that not only did the church do nothing when they were abused, it ostracised and punished the family when they called the police.

HEATHER: I'm very glad I came, and like I said, I would do it again, and again, and again, and as many times as it takes to get a change in the policies and things that they hide constantly.

Can you believe that the church elders did this to them for simply going to the police? How terrible this WT organization must be to punish members for simply reporting crime? How courageous was Sara Poisson for finally ignoring the elders instructions at the risk of being ostracized and informing the police? Is that what really happened? Later on in the interview notice what is said about who really reported it.

POWYS: In the end the decision was taken out of her hands. In school bruises were noticed on her children. Social workers were told. They gave her a stark choice, leave your husband or we take your children. But if she left him, she knew the church would cut her dead.

POISSON: At that point I had to make decision between God and my kids. And I knew.. well at that time I knew that if I chose my kids, I don't have prayer, but I didn't care anymore. So we lost everything in one day.

Social workers were made aware of the situation by the school. The children were to be removed from the father's presence. The police would have had to be informed for this to take place and a criminal investigation would ensue. Sara Poisson would have absolutely no choice about talking to the police. How could she be ostrasized by the elders? She did not even initiate the contact with the police.

Questions:

1. Did she get ostracized by the elders for contacting the police or did the police get involved without any choice from her? Both cannot be true.

2. Was she ostracized and shunned for contacting the police or for separating from her husband? Since JWs do not judicially punish members for reporting crimes or for separating from their mate I submit that both accounts explaining how the elders ostracized her are lies.


Silent Lambs or Noisy Goats?

Would you like to see more outright lies by the Silent lambs people and their associates? Here are some of their statements. (Lies in italics)

In a letter from the Silentlambs dated August 8, 2001: The organization of Jehovah's Witnesses is a closed society that requires its members to turn inward to the organization with any problems, rather than seek outside help. This practice conflicts with laws requiring the reporting of suspected child abuse.

Outright lie. Anyone associated with JWs knows that help of outside professionals is up to each individual and is not condemned by the WTS and JWs. In fact, in Sara Poisson's own testimony at the trial she admits that she did obtain such outside help for her daughter from professional counselors while still one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

The letter continues: According to church policy, the proof can include two eyewitnesses to each act of abuse. Failure to present such proof can result in the victim being ostracized and shunned by elders and the congregation for false accusations against a member.

Outright lie. Two witnesses to 'each act of abuse' is not a requirement. Two witnesses to the same type of abuse is acceptable. Failure to present such proof does not result in ostracizing or shunning by the congregation for false accusations. Any victim is free to report child abuse to the authorities as they wish regardless of how many witnesses there are to the abuse.

The same letter states: The first lawsuit will be filed in Nashua, N. H., where Jehovah's Witness church member, Paul Berry is alleged to have repeatedly sexually molested his stepdaughter and his daughter, starting when they were three years old. When the girls' mother went to the church elders with her suspicions of abuse, the elders told her she should be a better wife, and to pray more about the situation, ignoring New Hampshire's mandatory child abuse reporting statute. The abuse continued and Berry was ultimately criminally convicted for the abuse of his stepdaughter and was sentenced to 56 years in prison.

Outright and misleading lie. Sara Poisson could not have told the elders about any sexual abuse because in her testimony before the court she tells that she was not aware of sexual abuse until years later.

Leader of Silent Lambs Bill Bowen states, "I felt compelled to resign as pastor of my local congregation in protest of internal policies that shield sex offenders and hurt children. When the church promotes child molesters to positions of leadership and requires them to call at the homes of the unknowing public that is bad policy."

Another outright lie. The policy of JWs is to not allow former child molesters to positions of leadership for the rest of their life. Furthermore former child molesters are not 'required' to call at homes of the unknowing public. But if they choose to do so they must do so in the company of another adult.

SilentLambs attorney Jeff Anderson states: "Child sexual abuse is not tolerated anywhere else. With the onset of the laws protecting children such as neighborhood notification laws and mandatory reporting statutes, the days when child molesters enjoyed a cloak of silence are past, except within the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses. This church seems to think they are above the law the rules do not apply to them. This case is simply about making Jehovah's Witnesses understand they have the same rules as everyone else when it comes to protecting our children."

Outright lie. The policy of JWs is that elders should report child abuse in accord with the laws of the land and that 'all' members of the congregation have a responsibility to report child abuse if they are aware of it or if they reasonably believe a child is in danger.

One of the most outspoken supporters of the Silentlambs organization, Robert King, said of the WTS: They have denied Jehovah by claiming before the courts that Christian elders have no responsibility before God to protect children from the crimes of a congregant.

That is not what the WT lawyers argued at all. The truth is this: They argued that the WTS and the elders do not have a 'legal' responsibility to protect the children. They were arguing that they should not be held responsible for children legally speaking. They were not the legal guardians of the children. They were not appointed as trustees over the children. They did not have a common law or fiduciary (trusteeship) responsibility toward the children. The parents have the legal responsibility over their own children, not the WTS or the elders.

And this is only logical and correct. It is common sense. They never argued that they had no responsibility to protect the children at all. In fact, that is not what the case was about. It was about their legal responsibility toward the children. The suit was dismissed by the court because the WTS was correct in their argument.

Can you imagine how apostates would respond if the WTS said that they had a legal trusteeship to the children of Jehovah's Witnesses? Can't you just here them saying, "Now they're trying to control our children. Is it not enough to control the adult members?"


The Very Best Child Abuse Policy

Notice how the WTS concludes their letter about their policy by humbly acknowledging that the organization is not perfect and that we are always looking for ways to make improvements.

Our procedures have been refined over time. Over the years, as we have noted areas where our policies could be strengthened, we have followed through. We are continuing to refine them. We do not believe that our system is perfect. No human organization is perfect. But we do believe that we have a strong, Bible-based policy on child abuse. Anyone in a responsible position who is guilty of child abuse would be removed from his responsibilities without hesitation. We certainly would not knowingly allow him to serve elsewhere, either because he moved or through a transfer. The Bible teaches that individuals can repent of their sins and "turn to God by doing works that befit repentance," and we accept what the Bible says. (Acts 26:20) Still, the safety of our children is of the utmost importance. We take it very seriously.

In light of the evidence, it is amazing that anyone would believe the lies coming out of the mouths of Bill Bowen and his noisy organization and other critics and opposers of JW's child abuse policy. To the chagrin of all apostates and enemies of JWs, JWs have the best child abuse policy of any religion, bar none. And after all, isn't that what you would expect from an organization directed by the God that is love and the Most High over all, Jehovah.

Timothy Kline Exposed--Vomit, Lies, and Double Speak


Timothy Kline, humble servant of Jehovah whose only wish is that slaves of the Watchtower Society could be freed. Honest and straightforward, his only concern is to save you from Watchtower theology. His intelligence far surpasses that of all of the rest of Jehovah's Witnesses for whereas we needed help and guidance to find Bible truths, like the Ethiopian Eunuch, he needed no such help. Notice his own statements about this:

For one, the Watchtower Society taught me nothing that I didn't already know about the Bible long before I had ever even knew that the Watchtower existed. What drew me to Watchtower theology was that many of its basic teachings matched what I had already come to understand. To say that the Watchtower Society taught me "the truth" is false, and just goes to demonstrate how much thirdwitness tries to bring glory to mere men when it is Jehovah that reveals truth.

This statement alone belies his humility. He deems himself so knowledgable and so wise that no one needs to help him understand scriptures. His Bible understanding far exceeds that of any others. Lets examine some of his insights that he has brought forth thru no help from others and whether this savior of 'Watchtower slaves' is really as sincere and honest as he would have us believe. Kline's words will appear in italics.


The Lies

Mr. Kline once made this statment concerning the book, The Report by TWMC: "Of course, there's plenty more to be discussed when it comes to the true identity of this "ThirdWitness," staunch defender of The Report."

I challenged him to provide any evidence that I was a defender of The Report. He never even attempted to bring forth one bit of evidence for making this statement because he knew when he made the statement it was an outright lie. He was purposely deceiving others merely trying to take the heat off Robert King for plagiarizing The Report.

Mr. Kline further said concerning the book, "Coaxed by what "ThirdWitness" describes as "Holy Spirit," he purchased the book and then miraculously was led to certain passages much like a certain Joseph Smith was led by angelic guidance to writings that led Joseph Smith to truth."

I pointed out that I never made the claim that holy spirit directed me to find this book quoting exactly what I said. Here it is:
"watcher - Unless holy spirit gave him the information? I guess we will all have to decide that for ourselves and time will tell. I am reminded of Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormons. He was given golden tablets written in Egyptian. He translated it into English. Amazingly, some passages he translated were exactly word for word with the King James Version, even including spurious scriptures which were later found not to be in the original text. And even though he spoke modern English, he translated into the same archaic English of the King James Bible. How did he do this? Did he have Holy Spirit in translating the passages and that is why they are the same as the KJV[?]? That is what a Mormon will tell you. I can make the same claim. I was not even looking for THE REPORT. I was just looking thru ebay at books on ebay published by the WTBTS[?] and lo and behold, I saw THE REPORT. I noticed the similarites in the book and in watchmans essays so I bought it. Did I know just how similar it was going to be? NO! Was I directed by Holy Spirit to buy it and then directed to notice the similar passages so that watchman could be exposed? So do you believe watchman has holy spirit but I don't? Or do you believe I have holy spirit and watchman don't? I much prefer to just look at the facts rather than try to guess? (Just for the record I do not make such a claim at all. I think it was merely a coincidence.) " End of quote. Posted atformatTime('1127230843');10:40 - 20/09/2005

When someone else also pointed out to Kline this: If you had bothered reading a couple of lines further you would have seen 3W's disclaimer that he believes Holy Spirit had nothing to do with finding "The Report".

Kline replied: An obvious insertion on his part, added later to cover himself.

Fortunately I had saved the entire thread in which I had made the quote above. When I posted the entire thread and proved that I did not edit my statement and change it did Kline apologize? Admit he was wrong? No instead his anger, pride, and true colors came forth as he went on the offensive ranting among other things:
you are a hypocrite...I am SO glad that I'm not like you...Be satisfied in your self-righteousness. You truly are having your reward. In the end, the anonymity which affords you free reign in pedanticism will be stripped away by Jehovah, so go for it.

But his lying goes much deeper than untruths toward individuals. As is so often the case with apostates, Kline wants to misrepresent what WT publications and JWs really teach. For example Kline says:

There have been countless times when Watchtower members have heard the Watchtower Society derail, castigate, and denounce Roman Catholicism as about the furthest thing from true Christianity as one can get.
But the irony rests in the fact that the Watchtower Society has so plainly modeled itself after the Roman Catholic Church.
One of the ways that the Watchtower Society has done this is through the doctrine of infallibility.

Any JW reading this knows that we do not teach the doctrine of infallibility. Over the years the WT publications have made this plain. Here are a few:

It is not claimed that the explanations in this publication are infallible. (Revelation Climax--p. 9)

Those who make up the one true Christian organization today do not have angelic revelations or divine inspiration. (Kingdom Proclaimers--p.708)

Although the slave class is defined as "faithful and discreet," Jesus did not say that it would be infallible. This group of faithful anointed brothers still consists of imperfect Christians. Even with the best of intentions, they can be mistaken, as such men sometimes were in the first century. (WT December 1, 2002--p. 17)

Even more misleading is this outrageous claim by Kline against God's people: If we are going to argue that one must follow God's arrangement, then we here must acknowledge the arrangement that our Grand Creator has put into place: Our King is Jesus until such time as his kingdom reaches its fulfilled purpose. If we want for anything, we are to go through him in asking for it. Plain and simple. Watchtower theology would have us believe that we bypass Jesus entirely, that our king is Jehovah--not Jesus...

This of course is nothing more than a blatant lie from an enemy of God's organization. JWs believe that Jesus is King and that he is the only way to Jehovah and the only way to salvation. It makes a person wonder if Kline was ever really a JW or is he all a sham, pretending, trying to mislead others by claiming he was once a JW thus leading others to believe that he has more credibility in understanding our teachings since once he was one of us. He has certainly shown that he does not understand what JWs teach at all. Perhaps his words quoted at the start of this commentary really are true when he said: To say that the Watchtower Society taught me "the truth" is false.

The Double Speak

Kline says on his recently revised pathways site: However, it is the view of Pathways-Online that an "apostate" is a person who once had dedicated their life to serving and worshiping Jehovah God and has since turned to serving a triune god. Such ones cannot realistically obtain posting privileges on this forum, since they hold to a fundamental belief which is contrary to that of Pathways-Online. end of quote.

Afterwards Kline said on h2o: I will not go so far as to say that those who hold the Trinitarian view, yet are very much Christlike in the rest of their life and spirituality are condemned, because they view God in a Trinitarian light. If we declare the "Trinity" teaching a false teaching, are we willing to equally go so far as to declare that those who hold a false teaching will be destroyed (Watchtowerism/judgmentalism) because they are not true Christians, because that is the road that we start down, is it not?

Again at Kline's own site he states: In any case, while I am personally opposed to the Trinity doctrine being taught as somehow Biblically based and "truth," I do not prevent others from believing it, should they decide to. However, I will continue to refuse allowance of the discussion of the subject on Pathways-Online, specifically.

Afterward Flowerchild said on Klines site: But since I began to have a personal relationship with Christ I have started praying to Jesus....afterall in Isaiah....He is called our Eternal Father...and in the Lords prayer He tells His followers how to pray.....and He says to pray to our Father in Heavan......I worship my Lord....as Scripture so plainly tells us to.....and as for the trinity....I feel its a way to explain the nature of the Father and the Son...also when you think about it......the HolySpirit is part of both the Father and the Son ....as they both use the HolySpirit.......and this feels so right for me......I know that Christ has shown me these truths.....we are blessed to get out from under the yoke ofthe WTS.....and put on the Yoke of Christ.....

Kline's reply: Deafening silence. No warning. No correction. Flowerchild's words went unchallenged by Kline.

And this rule is put forth by Kline on his site as well: "Bashers" are not welcome at Pathways-Online for several reasons. First, it's like speaking to someone who has blinders on. If you look at the substance of their contributions to the forum, it is primarily negative, critical, and denigrating. We, as Christians, are to be balanced in all things. Unfortunately, some people have nothing to contribute except their "bashing." They love to talk about past faults, especially, and you can tell, because they devote so much of their time to it. Even in posts that they try to make "positive," they can't help but introduce a subtle snipe at their favorite target.

You might be laughing now if this wasn't so sinisterly deceiving. If you have ever examined his site do you find that bashers (of the WT) are not welcome there? The truth is that the owner of the board is one of the premier bashers of the WTS and not only is bashing allowed but it is encouraged by the owner himself. Where ever he posts on discussion boards you will find him bashing the WT. Most recent example of Kline's bashing:
"the Watchtower Society has so plainly modeled itself after the Roman Catholic Church..."

And who can forget the time that Kline tried to sabotage Al's site by taking over the domain that he and/or King had given him to use. If not for Al's good sense to register it under another name his entire site would have been lost. After Kline explained his position he then wrote how he would not speak of the controversy any longer, that he would take the high road. Read Kline's words for yourself:

Warm Christian greetings to everyone,I am writing to let everyone know that after much prayerful consideration and some very kind words that some have expressed privately through emails, I am not going to continue to be distracted by the likes of wolves who go by the name of "thirdwitness," "Al," ... and still others. If the "Future Judgment View" message board wants to continue to serve as sanctuary for these ones, then so be it. They can still cause their damage from afar, I'm sure, clawing and scratching with their endless barrages of empty speeches and contempt, ... I have posted my final, closing thoughts in response to the controversy they are trying to stir up against me. ...I wish I could say that this will finally put the matter to rest; however, I am fairly certain that the attacks, innuendo, and "theocratic warfare" will continue.

Shortly thereafter on the H2O site there appeared a parody of the 3 stooges where ones at Al's site were compared to the 3 stooges. Along with the parody there appeared a picture of the 3 stooges. Someone discovered that the picture was from Kline's site itself implicating Kline as the writer of the parody. Caught with his hand in the cookie jar in direct contrast to his humble 'I'll take the high road' rant he was forced to admit it although he gave the explanation that he had posted the picture on his site for someone else to use in writing the parody. You can read about the whole event here: http://www.aimoo.com/forum/postview.cfm?id=311102&CategoryID=2967&ThreadID=2268141&tolast=yes#bottom


The Vomit

Thirdwitness would probably say that Jehovah's name is Jehovah. This is, to put it bluntly, a nonsensical answer.

The disciples became apostles, yes. But they were never put in charge, they were never put into a position of authority.

It was not the "calling on the name of Jehovah" that salvation depended upon,
the early Christians were NOT a "people for his name" (that is, Jehovah),

He (thirdwitness) is also trying to argue that the name of Jehovah IS Jehovah. However, as I pointed out in a separate post from this topic, this is not necessarily the case.

Jesus clearly recognized that he was the name of Jehovah

Watchtower theology, and Thirdwitness of course, would have the reader believe that what Jesus is saying here is that Jesus went around saying "Jehovah!" all of the time, when this is not the case at all.

It isn't exactly clear to Bible scholars and historians today how Jesus, as a devout Jew, handled the Tetragrammaton,

And just as borne out by Acts 4:12, the name of Jehovah came to be Jesus.

You might be saying to yourself at this time, Why is he putting teachings of Christendom in this exposure of Timothy Kline? Surely Kline who supposedly was once one of Jehovah's Witnesses would not expound such unbiblical and unreasonable ideas. Yes, it is quite shocking and surprising but these are the actual words of Timothy Kline himself. Lets examine each claim and show how his words directly contradict God's word, something that any child of Jehovah's Witnesses could easily do.

In order to prove that the faithful and discreet slave found among Jehovah's Witnesses today has no authority in preaching and providing the spiritual food for Christ's household Kline stated:
The disciples became apostles, yes. But they were never put in charge, they were never put into a position of authority.

And thus with one swift stroke of his keyboard Timothy Kline has just negated all the writings of the Apostle Paul, Peter, Jude, James, and John since they were not in charge and had no authority to write anything further. Their writings are illegitimate. And here we all thought that the apostles and the first century Christian congregation was who Christ left in charge to carry out the preaching of the good news and feeding the sheep. But Timothy Kline has just informed us that this is wrong.

It was the apostle Paul who himself said, "Be obedient to those taking the lead among you and be submissive." (Hebrews 13:17) But Timothy Kline has overuled Paul by saying: But they were never put in charge, they were never put into a position of authority.

Notice other things that the Apostle Paul said about their authority:
1 Thess 4:1 Finally, brothers, we request YOU and exhort YOU by the Lord Jesus, just as YOU received [the instruction] from us on how YOU ought to walk and please God 2 For YOU know the orders we gave YOU through the Lord Jesus. But we exhort YOU, brothers, to go on doing it in fuller measure, 11 and to make it YOUR aim to live quietly and to mind YOUR own business and work with YOUR hands, just as we ordered YOU; 12 Now we request YOU, brothers, to have regard for those who are working hard among YOU and presiding over YOU in [the] Lord and admonishing YOU; 13 and to give them more than extraordinary consideration in love because of their work. 2 Thess 3:4 Moreover, we have confidence in [the] Lord regarding YOU, that YOU are doing and will go on doing the things we order. 6 Now we are giving YOU orders, brothers, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, to withdraw from every brother walking disorderly and not according to the tradition YOU received from us. 7 For YOU yourselves know the way YOU ought to imitate us, 10 In fact, also, when we were with YOU, we used to give YOU this order: "If anyone does not want to work, neither let him eat." 14 But if anyone is not obedient to our word through this letter, keep this one marked, stop associating with him, that he may become ashamed."

For ones without authority they certainly did speak with much authority even to the point of giving what is described as 'orders'. There are of course many other scriptures that could be used to show that the apostles were indeed given authority by Jesus and most definitely were left in charge of feeding, disciplining, admonishing, giving orders, and caring for the sheep.

In saying that the apostles were not left in charge Timothy Kline has also contradicted many of Jesus' illustrations. For example this one found at Matthew 25:14 "For it is just as when a man, about to travel abroad, summoned slaves of his and committed to them his belongings. 28 "?Therefore TAKE away the talent from him and give it to him that has the ten talents. 29 For to everyone that has, more will be given and he will have abundance;

Jesus most definitely give his disciples a charge and authority to take care of his belongings. It is oh so very clear that Kline's reasoning and understanding of scriptures are based on nothing more than his own agenda to discredit JWs as God's people.

Furthermore, in direct contrast to what the Bible clearly states Kline said: It was not the "calling on the name of Jehovah" that salvation depended upon,

Paul said exactly the opposite at Roman 10:13 "For 'everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.'

And so Kline makes this case:
To put it in simple terms, the question that the reader should be asking at this point is "What is the name of Jehovah?" After all, according to the NWT rendering, everyone must call on the name of Jehovah to be saved. So, what is Jehovah's name?
Thirdwitness would probably say that Jehovah's name is Jehovah.
This is, to put it bluntly, a nonsensical answer.

Yes, its true. He really said that to say Jehovah's name is Jehovah is nonsensical. The King James translation of the Bible here has replaced Jehovah with Lord as we know. But just how do we know that Paul originally wrote Jehovah instead of Lord?

Because Paul was quoting from Joel 2:32 where it is said, "And it must occur that everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will get away safe;" Any Bible will show you that it was speaking about the name of Jehovah. Paul also quoted from Isaiah 52 showing further what he meant. This says, 6 "For that reason my people will know my name, even for that reason in that day, because I am the One that is speaking. Look! It is I."7 How comely upon the mountains are the feet of the one bringing good news, the one publishing peace,..."

Kline's reply: Thirdwitness once again makes reference to Joel 2:32, and tries to make the argument that when it says "everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will get away safe," that it is literally saying that only by calling "Jehovah!" will anyone get away safe. He is also trying to argue that the name of Jehovah IS Jehovah. However, as I pointed out in a separate post from this topic, this is not necessarily the case.

I know it is unbelievable. But that is what he wrote. But believe it or not it only gets more absurd and ridiculous.

More words used by Kline in his quest to prove JWs incorrect: Jesus clearly recognized that he was the name of Jehovah, for we find him saying in John: "I have made your name manifest to the men you gave me out of the world." -- John 17:6

And as I noted before, it is not an untenable position to argue that when Jesus said "I made made your name known," that he was acknowledging fulfillment of his role as the Logos made flesh. We have to remember that the referenced scripture in Isaiah 52:6 and Joel 2:32 make reference to a name that Jehovah would provide in due time. And just as borne out by Acts 4:12, the name of Jehovah came to be Jesus.

Jesus clearly recognized that he was the name of Jehovah.

Even a two year old knows that Jehovah's name is not Jesus. Never did the Bible say that the name of Jehovah is Jesus. Proverbs 30:4 makes a very clear distinction between Jehovah's name and the name of His son when it says, "4 Who has ascended to heaven that he may descend? Who has gathered the wind in the hollow of both hands? Who has wrapped up the waters in a mantle? Who has made all the ends of the earth to rise? What is his name and what the name of his son, in case you know?"

Putting Bible scholars above the Bible Kline quotes: It isn't exactly clear to Bible scholars and historians today how Jesus, as a devout Jew, handled the Tetragrammaton, ...

Perhaps it is not clear to some Bible scholars and Timothy Kline but it is clear to honest readers of the Bible because Jesus stated very plainly at John 17:26, "I have made your name known to them and will make it known..."

Kline further says in conjunction with his foolish argument: Watchtower theology, and Thirdwitness of course, would have the reader believe that what Jesus is saying here is that Jesus went around saying "Jehovah!" all of the time, when this is not the case at all...

A better statement would be: Watchtower theology, and Thirdwitness and the Bible of course, would have the reader believe that what Jesus is saying here is that Jesus went around saying "Jehovah!" all of the time.

Since Jesus said in prayer, " I have made your name known..." we can without a doubt scripturally make the exact opposite statement of Mr. Kline: Apostates and opposers of JWs and some Bible scholars and Timothy Kline of course would have the reader believe that Jesus seldom if ever used God's name, "Jehovah!" instead choosing to follow the superstitions and traditions of men while at the same time condemning their traditions of men, when this is not the case at all. But Kline wants us to believe that Jesus Christ did not wish to upset the apple cart and pronounce God's name in keeping with the Jewish superstition that then existed or was beginning to take root at the time.

As repects God taking out a people for his name Kline comments: Contrary to what Thirdwitness claims, the early Christians were NOT a "people for his name" (that is, Jehovah), but became identified as Christians ("a people for Jesus' name, that is, as Christians).

But again the Bible directly in no uncertain terms contradicts the first half of his statement. Acts 15:16, "Sym´e·on has related thoroughly how God for the first time turned his attention to the nations to take out of them a people for his name. 17 in order that those who remain of the men may earnestly seek Jehovah, together with people of all the nations, people who are called by my name, says Jehovah, who is doing these things,..."

You may have realized already that Timothy Kline was disfellowshipped for apostasy but you may have thought that he was at least sincere about what he believed. It appears from his latest comments that he has lost lost all credibility as a sincere apostate. I am somewhat surprised that Robert King allows him to remain his moderator with such really blatant disregard for God's word and JWs since King does claim that he believes JWs are the true religion. But then again, I'm really not surprised on the other hand because he allows anyone at his site as long as they do not defend JWs.


The Dog Returns to Its Vomit


"For it would have been better for them not to have accurately known the path of righteousness than after knowing it accurately to turn away from the holy commandment delivered to them. The saying of the true proverb has happened to them: "The dog has returned to its own vomit, and the sow that was bathed to rolling in the mire."(2 Peter 2:21,22)

Like me, you may have wondered why anyone after knowing the truth would return to the vomituous falsehoods of Christendom. After reading Kline's latest comments I think I have finally come to understand why. They are so consumed with disproving and discrediting JWs that they can no longer look at things honestly, objectively, logically, reasonably, or scripturally.

For example, they are aware that it is only JWs who are preaching the good news and showing the importance of God's name and the sanctifying of it and the truth about the Trinity. Of this there is no doubt. Since that is the case, they must now prove that God's name is of no importance and that whether God is a trinity or not is a non-issue as respects truth and salvation. Thus they must return to the false teachings of Christendom in order to discredit JWs.

Kline's latest arguments have proven this. Kline and other apostates are so obsessed with discrediting JWs that they must out rightly deny overwhelming scriptural evidence in black and white. Honesty, objectivity, logic, reason, and yes even the scriptures must take a back seat to this obsession.

Kline proves that apostates must at all cost prove JWs wrong. Even if it means disregarding the Bible. Even if it means telling us that Jesus went along with the Jewish superstitions to some extent by not pronouncing God's name but condemed them on so many other traditions. Even if it means saying Jehovah's name is not Jehovah. Jehovah's name is Jesus. Even if it means contradicting Jesus when he said in prayer to his Father, "I have made your name known..." Even if it means putting forth the notion that believing the Trinity is ok and that God does not care as long as you live a good life. Even if it means returning to the vomit of Christendom. It is very sad that someone would be reduced to such illogical, unreasonable, dishonest, unscriptural thinking, blindly guided by his hatred for God's organization of people.

On Kline's pathways site he tells about his disfellowshipping for apostasy:
This site is provided by and maintained by Timothy Kline, a Christian who was excommunicated from the Watchtower Society for trying to find out why there are discrepancies and errors in what is taught to Jehovah's Witnesses worldwide.

Imagine this:
Kline sitting with 3 elders on his judcial committee as he explains to them the errors and discrepancies of Jehovah's Witnesses.

You would probably say that Jehovah's name is Jehovah. This is, to put it bluntly, a nonsensical answer.

The disciples became apostles, yes. But they were never put in charge, they were never put into a position of authority.

It was not the "calling on the name of Jehovah" that salvation depended upon,
the early Christians were NOT a "people for his name" (that is, Jehovah),

Are you trying to argue that the name of Jehovah IS Jehovah. as I pointed out ...this is not necessarily the case.

Jesus clearly recognized that he was the name of Jehovah

Watchtower theology would have the reader believe that what Jesus is saying here is that Jesus went around saying "Jehovah!" all of the time, when this is not the case at all.

It isn't exactly clear to Bible scholars and historians today how Jesus, as a devout Jew, handled the Tetragrammaton,

And just as borne out by Acts 4:12, the name of Jehovah came to be Jesus.

The elders were no doubt astounded at his way of teaching but not in the way that Jesus astounded his audience with clear truths from God's word.


Postscript:

After I had finished writing this blog and making it public an anonymous poster at H2O came forth with more information connecting Timothy Kline to the 3 Stooges Parody. The anonymous poster provided irrefutable proof that Kline had previously posted the 3 stooges parody at one of his blog sites. In light of this new evidence what would Kline do?

In a Jimmy Swaggart like manner (after being caught with prostitutes), Kline confesses that he sinned and did indeed write the 3 stooges parody. In his confession he compares himself to that of Abraham, Moses, David, and Peter who, of course, all made mistakes and sinned. But it must be pointed out that these persons did not make themselves enemies of God's people and thus enemies of God. They failed to live up to God's standards at times as we all do but this is far different from poking our finger in God's eye by attacking his people. (Zech 2:8 "for he that is touching YOU is touching my eyeball.")

As an opposer and enemy of God's organization and its representatives Kline has shown himself to be more like Korah and Balaam in both his words and attitude. It is not just his telling a lie or making some false step. Like Korah, he continues his downgrading and attacking of those that are taking the lead in God's organization and humbly submitting to the work that Jehovah has given them to do, that of preaching the good news and providing the spiritual food. Like Balaam he insists on cursing God's people with his lies, vomit, and double speak in order to lead persons away from the organization that Jehovah is using today to accomplish his will.

If he wants to really come clean he will realize this and turn from being an enemy of God and His organization. He will return to Jehovah and return to serving Jehovah along with and in support of his faithful anointed ones found only among Jehovah's Witnesses. I would be more than happy as would all of JWs to extend the hand of fellowship to him once again if he were to make such an about face.

Even Kline's close friend, Robert King, (Kline serves as a moderator and webmaster on his site) says concerning those who have followed a path like the path Kline has chosen: So, it is possible for some to become so deluded that they imagine that they are serving Jehovah by advertising the (Watchtower) Society's shortcomings, when in Jehovah's judgment such ones are merely scandal-mongers and fault-finders and working as partners with our many enemies to subvert our faith. In effect, those who are disfellowshipped for apostasy are guilty of calling down evil on Christ's brothers. So, at some point each will have to acknowledge their error or face the consequences.

Which will Kline do? Will he acknowledge his error in siding with enemies of God's people, trying to subvert our faith and calling down evil upon Christ's brothers or will he face the consequences like Korah and Balaam? Time will tell but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for an about face from Kline. Great humility would be needed and this is not likely coming from one who claims to have received Bible truths apart from the help of the appointed faithful and discreet slave and fancies himself an interpreter and expounder of scriptures far surpassing the abilities and wisdom of Jesus Christ's appointed servant class.

Why Doesn't the Watchtower Society Build Kingdom Halls in Poor Countries?


If you have visited certain internet sites supposedly for Jehovah's Witnesses you may have read comments to the affect that the WTS does not build Kingdom Halls for poorer congregations because the poorer congregations cannot pay them back. They would much rather spend their millions of dollars on lavishly decorating the Bethel homes in New York so that the governing body can live in shameless luxury. For example, here are some recent comments at a certain supposed e-JW site on the internet that we shall call for now, Village no. 10. You will see why later in this discussion.

The Watchtower seems to be saying that they would rather not have donations earmarked for disasters so they can use that money for other things other than disaster reflief.

Like building lavish 'retirement' complexes out in Patterson, Walkill, that reportedly cost upwards of $50 million. (and don't even have one printing facility!)

Compare this with the August 15, 1992 Watchtower which said about JW's in Maputo City, Mozambique:

"Today, there are more than 50 congregations in and around Maputo City. However, there is not a single Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses to be found. Why is that so? Because of poor economic conditions, the congregations have not been able to build even though some have owned land for a number of years....If a man is fortunate enough to find a job here, the average wage is from $20 to $30 per month".

That is one thing that really upset me when I started reading more about the WT. They have a "worldwide work" fund that can't even build Kingdom Halls for people in poor countries? Is that loving? What would Jesus say about that??? They won't build for them because those folks can't afford to REPAY them. The AUDACITY!!!! There are several scriptures floating through my head now.

I'm sure some will object to my using this Scripture, but to me it fits Bethel,
Revelation 18:7,8

7 To the extent that she glorified herself and lived in shameless luxury, to that extent give her torment and mourning. For in her heart she keeps saying, ‘I sit a queen, and I am no widow, and I shall never see mourning.’ 8 That is why in one day her plagues will come, death and mourning and famine, and she will be completely burned with fire, because Jehovah God, who judged her, is strong.
End of the quotes.

What astute and wise people reside in this Village no. 10. They are expounding what they have come to call 'the truth about the truth'. And so they insightfully point out how the WT publication have inadvertantly demonstrated their greediness in failing to provide the poor brothers of Mozambique with places to worship.

But now, here is what you are not told. Here is the truth about the truth about the truth.

What they fail to point out is what the same Aug 15, 1992 WT tells us:
In 1991, Jehovah’s Witnesses were given legal recognition in Mozambique. Since then the preaching of the good news of God’s Kingdom has been making spectacular progress in this tropical country on the southeastern coast of Africa

Ah, now perhaps you understand why no KHs had been built in Mozambique at the time of the printing of that 1992 WT. The government of Mozambique would not allow KHs to be built in the country. When the restrictions upon JWs in Mozambique were lifted how did the WTS respond?

From the 1996 Yearbook of JWs:
Finally, in Maputo, as of September 1, 1992, in a large house acquired and refurbished by the Society, in an area with many embassies, the Mozambique branch began its work of overseeing this vast field. Starting with a small family of seven members, the recently appointed Branch Committee had a challenging job ahead of them. They would have to organize the work in the field, care for the spiritual—and even material—needs of the brothers, assist with the building of Kingdom Halls, and build the new branch facilities. A big job indeed.

The restrictions ended only in 1991. The WTS wasted no time and by Sept 1992 had branch facilities in place to oversee the work of, among other things.....building KHs.

The Aug 1996 Kingdom Ministry further reports:
Obviously, the increase of true worshipers in Jehovah’s organization calls for the construction of hundreds of new Kingdom Halls. It has also been necessary to plan for Assembly Halls and new or expanded branch facilities. Financing these projects as well as keeping the Kingdom work moving forward not only in Africa but also in other parts of the world has drawn heavily on the contributions to the Society’s worldwide work.

How are these KHs paid for. Does the WTS expect the poor Mozambique brothers to pay back every dime? No, it is paid for by monies from the worldwide work fund.

The December 15, 1996 WT:
“So Where Is Your Church?”

JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES in Mozambique are often asked this question. Frankly, until recently it has been a difficult question to answer. This is because Jehovah’s Witnesses did not enjoy legal recognition in this country until 1991. Hence, it was not possible to have clearly identifiable and established places of worship.

However, that situation changed on February 19, 1994. On that hot, sunny day, the first two Kingdom Halls ever built in Mozambique were dedicated. A total of 602 came to the dedication of these fine meeting places in the port city of Beira, about halfway up the coast of Mozambique. They will serve the needs of the three congregations in that city.

The entire project, from laying the foundation to completing the buildings, took a year and two months of hard work.

A great deal of planning and organizing went into the work. Unlike many other projects in this part of the world, where materials and resources are scarce, work on the Kingdom Halls never came to a standstill for lack of supplies. On one occasion, 800 sacks of cement were needed, and the only place that could supply it did not have the necessary sacks for holding the cement. The brothers contacted the Watch Tower Society’s branch office in the capital, Maputo; sacks were sent by air, taken to the cement factory, and filled. The work went on uninterrupted.

The new Kingdom Halls have truly proved to be a great blessing for the local Witnesses. Most had previously met in primitive places with a grass roof or a few tin sheets overhead, in a backyard, or in a small room of a private home. They often got wet when it rained; still they attended the meetings faithfully. For decades these were the only “Kingdom Halls” that Witnesses in Mozambique knew. Brother Caetano Gabriel, an elder in the Massamba Congregation, declared: “We are grateful to our brothers around the world who contributed toward the realization of this project.” One young Witness recalled: “When we were in Carico (“reeducation camps” where Jehovah’s Witnesses were interned for approximately 12 years), we used to say, ‘We will persevere faithfully, and Jehovah will reward us.’ The new Kingdom Hall is a reward from Jehovah.” Their words express their profound gratitude and their determination to praise Jehovah.

2002 Yearbook:
Community leaders in Mozambique are also favorably impressed by the Kingdom Hall construction program. A traditional chief was asked for property on which to build a Kingdom Hall. In granting permission, he replied: “I heard about the construction of Kingdom Halls in other areas and became concerned, since there are none in my area. Thank you, Jehovah’s Witnesses, for planning to build our Kingdom Hall!”

How could the leaders of Mozambique be favorably impressed if no KHs were being built in Mozambique? And how is it that one chief in a certain area was concerned that there were KHs in many other areas but not his area? Yes many KHs have been built in Mozambique despite the fact that the brothers there could not possibly afford to pay for them.

1997 Yearbook
Although the new Assembly Hall in Maputo, Mozambique, was not yet completed, it was used for a district convention during July, attended by 1,938, and for another convention in August, attended by 10,040.

It seems that it is not just KHs that the brothers are building in Mozambique. The WTS has also been concerned with providing them a place for their larger assemblies and conventions.

In fact did you know that almost 12,000 kingdom halls have been built in Mozambique and similar countries around the world in the last 6 years. That's about 6 kingdom halls per day. In Africa alone, 1,074 new Kingdom Halls were built in the year of 2001! With 13,000 more planned worldwide. Why aren't these other 13,000 already built? Is it because the funds are not available because the governing body wasted the monies on lavishly decorating the properties where they reside?

No! It takes time. Land has to be found and purchased, permission and permits have to be obtained from the government, and so on. Sometimes it takes over two years just to get the needed permits in some of these countries. And once obtained the KH is usually built in about 2 or 3 months, sometimes less. Getting the permits takes much longer than building the KHs.

Does the WTS require that these poor congregations pay them back. Again the answer is no. They pay what they can. And whatever they pay of course goes into the governing body's pockets so they can decorate there 2 room apartment lavishly right? Ridiculous. It goes right back into the fund to build more KHs. The only requirement to have a KH built is to have 30 publishers and 1 elder. Just 30 publishers! That is amazing. And of course if there is not an elder in the congregation many times the WTS will send an elder into that congregation in order that it can qualify.

There are more than 30 congregations being formed every day by JWs. It is almost impossible to keep up with all the KHs that are needed. But the WTS is trying very hard to accomodate our brothers in the poorer lands. Our organization is like no other. You would have to be a blind apostate not to see it.
Any honest hearted ones should be moved to shame for writing and believing that the WTS would not build KHs for our brothers in Mozambique because they were too poor to repay the WTS. Interesting is this account that took place in one village in Mozambique.

Yearbook of JWs 1996
Apostasy and Village No. 10

A movement that stirred up much trouble was started by an apostate group that called themselves “the anointed.” Originating mainly from the Malawian villages, this group claimed that the “time of the elders” had ended in 1975 and that they, as “the anointed,” should be the ones taking the lead. The material in the Society’s book Life Everlasting—In Freedom of the Sons of God was a great aid in helping some who had doubts to understand what was involved in the genuine anointing. But the influence of the apostates spread, and many who listened to them were led astray. As part of their doctrine, they said that it was not necessary to send in reports to the Society. They would simply throw these into the air after saying a prayer.

It is estimated that about 500 were disfellowshipped as a result of this apostate influence. They decided of their own accord, and with the permission of the authorities, to build their own village. This became Village No. 10. Later on, the leader of the movement was attended to by a train of young women, many of whom bore him children.

Village No. 10 and its group continued in existence throughout the remaining period of life in the camps. They caused many difficulties for the faithful brothers. Some who were initially influenced to join the group later repented and returned to Jehovah’s organization. The apostate community was finally disbanded when life in the camps came to a close.

Does this remind you of a certain internet village, an internet village claiming to be for Jehovah's witnesses, with a chief watchman presiding over them, full of all sorts of complaining and lying against God's organization and deviation from the Bible teachings that you have learned only thru Jehovah's Witnesses? If you find yourself a part of this complaining and faultfinding internet village full of many disfellowshipped ones claiming to be enlightened and anointed since becoming part of the village you would be wise to separate yourself from them. Or if you happen to stumble upon this e-village no. 10 in looking for other JWs to talk to on the internet it would be to your benefit to flee that village as quickly as possible. They are subtle and their purpose is to mislead you away from Jehovah's true organization. When this e-village no. 10 is someday disbanded you will be glad that you deserted it.

Who Really Is the Faithful and Discreet Slave?


Matt 24:45 "Who really is the faithful and discreet slave whom his master appointed over his domestics, to give them their food at the proper time?" The answer is given in the question. It is the ones who feed the domestics. Who was the faithful and discreet slave in the first century? It was the Christian Congregation of anointed followers who carried out and directed the assignment of preaching the good news thus feeding the sheep.

Remember Jesus told Peter to 'Feed my little sheep.' And remember Jesus said "Go therefore and make disciples." Who are doing those things today? Once you find the ones following these commandments of Jesus then you will be able to answer the question: "Who really is the faithful and discreet slave whom his master appointed over his domestics, to give them their food at the proper time?"

Is the FDS a class?

At Luke 12:42-44 the parallel account of Jesus' illustration of the faithful slave or steward is recorded. But lets begin with the illustration given by Jesus in the verses just before that.

"35 Let YOUR loins be girded and YOUR lamps be burning, 36 and YOU yourselves be like men waiting for their master when he returns from the marriage, so that at his arriving and knocking they may at once open to him. Happy are those slaves whom the master on arriving finds watching! Truly I say to YOU, He will gird himself and make them recline at the table and will come alongside and minister to them. ... 39 But know this, that if the householder had known at what hour the thief would come, he would have kept watching and not have let his house be broken into. 40 YOU also, keep ready, because at an hour that YOU do not think likely the Son of man is coming." 41 Then Peter said: "Lord, are you saying this illustration to us or also to all?" 42 And the Lord said: "Who really is the faithful steward, the discreet one, whom his master will appoint over his body of attendants to keep giving them their measure of food supplies at the proper time?"

First you will note that Jesus is speaking of the entire household of God as slaves. He says, "Happy are those slaves whom the master on arriving finds watching!" Then Peter asks as recorded at Luke 12:41, "Lord, are you telling this parable to us, or to everyone?" (New International Version The Living Bible). Peter is therefore asking if the illustration applies to 'us', the 12 apostles, an 'us' class if you will. Jesus answers, "Who really is the faithful steward, the discreet one..." Thus Jesus illustrates that the slaves collectively are known as only one slave, THE Faithful and Discreet Slave or Steward which is appointed over all the slaves.

Why does Jesus answer Peter's question the way he does? It is clear that Jesus was saying the one faithful and discreet slave is made up of all those slaves of the master's house who keep on the watch and supply spiritual food. The kind of spiritual food that you and I have received when we learned the truth about God's name, his son, the kingdom, the paradise, hellfire, trinity, etc.

But most importantly just a few verses before Jesus gives the illustration of the faithful and discreet steward in Luke 12 notice who Jesus is addressing. At Luke 12:32 Jesus says, “Have no fear, little flock, because YOUR Father has approved of giving YOU the kingdom." This proves beyond a doubt that the faithful and discreet steward are those slaves who will be kings in the kingdom of God.

It is only logical that the slave could not be just one individual because he was to provide spiritual food from when the Christian congregation began at Pentecost until the Master, Jesus, returned. Of course that would be impossible for any one human to do. The facts indicate that this faithful and discreet slave class is made up of all anointed ones as a group on earth at any given time. It is most definitely a class of people and not just one individual.

To illustrate how all of the slaves of the master act as one collective slave look at 1 Corinthians 3. It is an example of the feeding work of the faithful and discreet slave in the first century. Notice verse 8, "Now he that plants and he that waters are one, but each [person] will receive his own reward according to his own labor. 9 For we are God's fellow workers. YOU people are God's field under cultivation, God's building."

The ones dispensing the food while made up of individuals like Paul and Apollos were just one in their labor of feeding sheep. That faithful and discreet slave was being used by Jehovah to direct the preaching of His kingdom and the gathering of more sheep to be fed. The FDS made up of individuals worked together in feeding the sheep and the result was that God made it grow. It is the same today.

Does the faithful and discreet slave make mistakes?

The slave is only faithful and discreet, not faithful and perfect. Take note that Job was noted as faithful and meek yet he proclaimed himself righteous more than God. "Against Job his anger blazed over his declaring his own soul righteous rather than God."--Job 32:2. If you expect perfection you will never find the faithful and discreet slave. It is just as the WT put it:

What will our Master look for when he returns to execute judgment? He will take note as to whether those professing to be his servants are such in reality. Have they been faithful in obeying the command to "make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded"? (Matt. 28:19, 20) Do they have a fine record of works displaying active concern for the "least" of Christ's brothers? When seeing these brothers of Christ in need, did they feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, extend hospitality to strangers, clothe the poorly clad, give help and comfort to the sick and visit those who were unjustly imprisoned? (Matt. 25:35-40) Have they remained spiritually awake, untarnished by the degrading works of the flesh?

Should anyone who is of the anointed remnant, be it man or woman, be able to consult and have dialogue with those of the governing body?

Anyone including those of the anointed may write to the governing body. But it is impossible that all of the anointed could be consulted before making decisions. How could they possibly consult with 1000s of people? Did the apostles and older men in Jerusalem when deciding the issue of circumcision consult with all of the anointed? That is absurd and unreasonable. Who decided the issue? It was that governing body in Jerusalem that decided after listening to the evidence.

The governing body at Bethel often gives assignments to persons to review or research certain subjects. They then listen to their findings and make decisions. They cannot possibly research everything for themselves without help. They are following the example in the first century. If an anointed brother has ideas let him write Bethel. They can consider what he says. Just because they did not accept Robert King's ideas does not mean that they listen to no one. As it turns out Mr. King has shown from his beating of his fellow slaves that he is not truly anointed after all.

What happens if the ideas from the remnant not on the governing body are for the most part ignored and no one asks for their contributions?

A person who is humble will continue to preach the good news of the kingdom. He will understand that his views are not always correct and if they are correct then Jesus will change things in due time since he is walking in the midst of the congregations holding the stars in his hand directing them.

A person who thinks more of himself than necessary, who lacks humility, and believes he knows more than the brothers at Bethel or anyone else might proclaim himself a watchman of Jehovah and go on a letter writing campaign against his brothers and encourage others to do so. He might write a book, denouncing the hard working brothers in responsible positions among Jehovah's people. And he might call them names like liars, adulterers, supporters of child molesters, Baal worshippers, inspired by demons, false prophets, and so on. He might even try to gain a following to pass out his book to as many brothers as possible. If anyone disagrees with him he might pronounce them as operandi of the demons. In other words, in short, he will beat the FDS.

Did the marriage of the master take place yet?

The marriage as seen in the book of Revelation of Jesus to the bride did not happen yet. It is future. But this is a different illustration all together. In this illustration Jesus is highlighting not the marriage but of the marriage feast.
In the illustration the master Jesus is also the bridegroom and because of wedding festivities he is returning at an uncertain hour of the night or morning. We need to understand that marriage festivities were not the same in Bible times as they are today. It was not simply the case of attending a wedding at a certain location and that’s it. Here is what the insight book says about wedding celebrations in Israelite times:

"The people along the route would take great interest in the procession. The voices of the bride and bridegroom would be heard in exultation. Some, particularly maidens bearing lamps, would join the procession. (Jer 7:34; 16:9; Isa 62:5; Mt 25:1) The bridegroom might spend considerable time at his home and, then again, some delay might take place before the procession would leave the home of the bride, so that it would thus be quite late, and some who were waiting along the way might get drowsy and fall asleep, as in Jesus’ illustration of the ten virgins. The singing and exultation might be heard quite a distance ahead, those hearing it making the cry: “Here is the bridegroom!” The attendants were ready to greet the bridegroom when he came, and those invited to the marriage supper would enter the house. After the bridegroom and his entourage had gone into the house and closed the door, it was too late for tardy guests to enter. (Mt 25:1-12; 22:1-3; Ge 29:22) It was looked upon as a gross insult to decline the invitation to the marriage feast. The guests might be provided with robes (Mt 22:11), and their respective places at the feast were often designated by the one extending the invitation.—Lu 14:8-10."

With this in mind we can alleviate some of the confusion about the illustration in Luke 12. The wedding procession is proceeding along at this time but the actual marriage feast is yet to take place in heaven.

Since Christ is returning from the wedding in Luke 12 and since his bride is the anointed how can the slaves who welcome his arrival home also be the anointed?

The problem is that many are trying to combine different illustrations all together into one illustration. The anointed are illustrated in many different ways: A bride, slaves, brothers of Christ, sons of God, guests of the marriage feast, virgins, etc.

Notice this illustration for example. Matt 22: 1 "In further reply Jesus again spoke to them with illustrations, saying: 2 “The kingdom of the heavens has become like a man, a king, that made a marriage feast for his son. 3 And he sent forth his slaves to call those invited to the marriage feast, but they were unwilling to come. 4 Again he sent forth other slaves, saying, ‘Tell those invited: “Look! I have prepared my dinner, my bulls and fattened animals are slaughtered, and all things are ready. Come to the marriage feast.”’ 5 But unconcerned they went off, one to his own field, another to his commercial business; 6 but the rest, laying hold of his slaves, treated them insolently and killed them.
7 “But the king grew wrathful, and sent his armies and destroyed those murderers and burned their city. 8 Then he said to his slaves, ‘The marriage feast indeed is ready, but those invited were not worthy. 9 Therefore go to the roads leading out of the city, and anyone YOU find invite to the marriage feast.’
10 Accordingly those slaves went out to the roads and gathered together all they found, both wicked and good; and the room for the wedding ceremonies was filled with those reclining at the table. 11 “When the king came in to inspect the guests he caught sight there of a man not clothed with a marriage garment. 12 So he said to him, ‘Fellow, how did you get in here not having on a marriage garment?’ He was rendered speechless. 13 Then the king said to his servants, ‘Bind him hand and foot and throw him out into the darkness outside. There is where [his] weeping and the gnashing of [his] teeth will be.’ "

This is more in line with the illustration in Luke 12. Obviously in this illustration the chosen anointed are likened to persons attending the wedding feast, not to the bride. And so in Luke 12 it is also talking about those who are dining with the bridegroom. Remember how a marriage worked in olden times. The wedding procession is returning to the master’s house for the wedding feast after he has picked up his bride. Many times this would be late at night. The slaves just didn't know when the master might show up so they had to be on the watch. When the master arrives the wedding feast commences. The faithful slave has kept on the watch and opened the door when the Master knocks. And so because of their watchfulness and because they opened the door for the Master when he arrived, the good slaves are invited to recline at the table with the master at the wedding feast. Meaning they are there for that wedding feast which really of course takes place in heaven. But they must be on the watch and open the door before the wedding feast takes place. This they have done since early in the 20th century.

Luke 12:37 Happy are those slaves whom the master on arriving finds watching! Truly I say to YOU, He will gird himself and make them recline at the table and will come alongside and minister to them.
41 Then Peter said: "Lord, are you saying this illustration to us or also to all?" 42 And the Lord said: "Who really is the faithful steward, the discreet one, whom his master will appoint over his body of attendants to keep giving them their measure of food supplies at the proper time? ”

And so in this illustration it is not the bride who pictures the anointed but rather those slaves that await the arrival of the master.

Has the faithful and discreet slave already been appointed over all the master's earthly belongings?

That is what we as Jehovah's Witnesses believe. But understand that we do not believe that the faithful slave has been appointed over all the master's belongings, both heavenly and earthly. Nor do we believe or teach that the slave has received the same authority as the anointed will receive once becoming kings in God's kingdom. Apostates have attempted to shroud the truth and complicate what Jehovah's Witnesses teach in this regard but it becomes very simple and uncomplicated when examining what the Watchtower publications really say. The March 1, 2004 WT study article states,

"What are the belongings over which the newly crowned Master appointed his faithful slave? All the spiritual things that belong to Him here on earth. For example, two decades after Christ’s enthronement in 1914, “a great crowd” of “other sheep” was identified. (Revelation 7:9; John 10:16) ... In effect, they said to “the faithful and discreet slave”: “We will go with you people, for we have heard that God is with you people.” (Zechariah 8:23) These newly baptized Christians partook of the same rich spiritual food as the anointed domestics, and the two classes have shared this spiritual table ever since. What a blessing this has been for members of the “great crowd”!

20 The members of the “great crowd” gladly joined the anointed slave class as preachers of the good news. As they preached, the Master’s earthly belongings increased, adding to the responsibilities of “the faithful and discreet slave.” ...From approximately five thousand anointed ones in 1914, the ranks of God’s praisers have increased to more than six million today, the majority of whom are of the “great crowd.” Yes, indeed, the King’s belongings have increased manyfold since his coronation in 1914!

21 All of this shows that the slave has been both “faithful and discreet."

So you see it is only logical. All the earthly belongings that the slave has been appointed over are those same belongings that the slave increased for the master by being faithful to his appointment to preach the good news and to feed the body of servants or domestics. The faithful slave is merely following the example of the early Christian congregation in faithfully carrying out the preaching of the good news. The result of which has been an increase in the master's belongings and more responsibility is thus given to the faithful and discreet slave because of this increase.

Yes, the slave is in charge of all those earthly belongings of the master because he has proven himself faithful in taking care of and increasing the master's belongings in the first place. It is not some sinister plot that the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses have hatched up to gain control over all our lives by claiming they have been given some mystical authority by Jesus that they never really received. If not for the faithful slave increasing the belongings which includes all of us who have learned the truth, we would not even know about the faithful and discreet slave at all and the truths that we have been shown from the Bible by that slave unless Jesus made the rocks cry out. But this was not necessary because unlike other religions of the world the appointed slave faithfully carried out his commission to preach the good news and thus increased the master's belonging thereby receiving more responsibility.

In other words, to make this more understandable, just for the sake of argument, lets assume that the appointment over all the belongings takes place at the time when Jesus arrives for his final judgment and that being put in charge of all those belongings means his finally receiving his heavenly reward and ruling as king with Jesus. Would this really change anything?

Consider. The Master Jesus appointed a faithful and discreet slave to provide the food at some point before his coming. That slave would be easy to recognize just before the second coming of Jesus because he would be on the watch for the master, be providing the spiritual food just as he was appointed to do, and increasing the master's belongings by preaching the good news that Jesus commanded him to preach. Therefore, the appointment of that slave has already taken place for sure. Why did the slave receive that appointment in the first place? In order to understand the appointment of a slave over an entire household lets consider the Bible example of Joseph as a slave in Potiphar's house.

"But Jehovah proved to be with Joseph, so that he turned out a successful man and came to be over the house of his master, the Egyptian. 3 And his master got to see that Jehovah was with him and that everything he was doing Jehovah was making turn out successful in his hand.
4 And Joseph kept finding favor in his eyes and waited upon him continually, so that he appointed him over his house, and all that was his he gave into his hand. 5 And it followed that from the time he appointed him over his house and in charge of all that was his Jehovah kept blessing the house of the Egyptian due to Joseph, and Jehovah’s blessing came to be upon all that he had in the house and in the field. 6 Finally he left everything that was his in Joseph’s hand; and he did not know what was with him at all except the bread he was eating." --Genesis 39:2-6.

What you will notice is that after Joseph became a slave in Potiphar's house he proved himself to be very trustworthy. Potiphar's house prospered greatly as a result. You might call Joseph a faithful and discreet slave. Because of this Potiphar appointed him over all his household. Since being in charge of the master's household as the household prospered he would bring on more slaves as needed and likewise provide for the new slaves added to the masters house.

What do we learn from this example of Joseph? That a slave receives an appointment over the entire household only after he has proven to his master that he is trustworthy and faithful and discreet. Jesus, the master, is certainly wiser than Potiphar and would not appoint an unfaithful and indiscreet slave, would he? Of course not. He appointed a slave that had already proven himself to be faithful and discreet. That faithful slave can definitely be found before Jesus arrives the final time.

The reality is that even if the faithful and discreet slave has not yet been appointed over all of the master's belongings (as interpreted by some) he has still been appointed to provide the food because he has proven himself to be faithful and discreet. It is really only a matter of quibbling over a word or phrase and its perceived interpretation. The interpretation of 'all the belongings' as given to us by the faithful and discreet slave clearly shows us that they believe that they have only been appointed over the earthly belongings of the master because of the increase that their faithfulness has brought. So whether or not the faithful slave has been appointed over all the belongings as of yet as interpreted by someone else really changes nothing from our standpoint. We still are under obligation to find that faithful and discreet slave that has increased the master's belongings and take in the food that is provided if we want to to be sustained. Certainly it would not be worth leaving Jehovah's organization over such a minor point. Especially when considering all the basic truths that we have learned from Jehovah by means of that faithful and discreet slave.

So who really is the faithful and discreet slave? Where can the slave class be found?

All one has to do is ask a few simple questions: Who has helped us to learn the marvelous truths of the Bible about God’s name, the trinity, hellfire, paradise earth, God’s kingdom, and so on? Who is currently preaching the good news of the Kingdom throughout the earth following the example of Jesus and the first century Christians? Who has been used by Jehovah in building a worldwide and united brotherhood? Who has Jehovah used in providing us with so much spiritual food that it is difficult to even keep up with it all? When you have a Bible question, what publications do you turn to in order to find the answer? (Have you ever noticed that even apostates turn to the Insight book when wanting to find out certain facts about the Bible? Why? Because they have no better Bible source.) It is quite apparent to all who are honest with themselves and others that the faithful and discreet slave is found only among the people known as Jehovah’s Witnesses.

The Gentiles Times Reconsidered--Again but this Time By Using the Bible


We have shown previously how 607BCE not 587BCE is indeed the year that Jerusalem was desolated according to the irrefutable evidence presented in God's word the Bible. Even some of those who have previously tried to discredit Jehovah's Witnesses by saying 607BCE is the incorrect date of Jerusalem's desolation are now forced to admit that it may indeed be the correct date because they have no clear answer for the Biblical evidence presented in favor of 607 and against 587. In light of this, not wanting to admit that Jehovah's Witnesses indeed have the truth, they now have resorted to this view: 'So what. It doesn't matter if it was 607 or 587! This proves nothing about 1914. It is still an artfully contrived story with no basis in the Bible. There is no evidence that 607 began the Gentile Times and that 1914 was the end of those Gentile Times.'

So the question begs to be answered from a Biblical standpoint: did the 7 times begin in 607 and end in 1914? Did the 7 times begin when the ruler on Jehovah's throne in Jerusalem, Zedekiah, was cut down in 607 and end in 1914 with the rightful ruler, Jesus, the twig of Jesse, becoming the King in God's Kingdom in heaven?


How Long Are the Seven Times?

This has been discussed at length by the WT publications. Very briefly Revelation 12:6 tells us: "And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and sixty days." Later in verse 13 of the same chapter we read, "the woman, that she might fly into the wilderness to her place; there is where she is fed for a time and times and half a time away from the face of the serpent."

Clearly we can readily see that 3.5 times = 1260 days. By doubling both figures we can easily conclude that 7 times = 2520 days. Then by applying the day for a year rule we deduct that 7 times = 2520 years. Amazing as it may seem, it is 2520 years from 607BCE to 1914CE. Are the seven times of Daniel chapter 4 to be applied in connection with the Gentile Times and God's rulership?

Why Daniel Used the Word 'Times' not Years

The claim is made by many that the tree dream only applied to Neb and nothing more. That he would have his sickness for 7 years and then be restored after that 7 years. But it is most interesting that the word Daniel chose to use in Daniel 4 concerning the tree was not the same word used for the word 'year'. He used the word "iddan" which means epoch, age, seasons, or times . Iddan is not the word that would be used merely to describe one year if one year is what is meant. There is a different word used to describe the word 'year'. For example, the word for year in Hebrew is "shana". By using the word "iddan" it becomes evident that Daniel wanted to convey the thought that something was meant beyond a simple seven years otherwise why not just use the word for years?

What can we conclude concerning Daniel's use of the word 'iddan'? That Dalniel must have used that word for 'times' purposely or was at least directed by Jehovah to use the word. We have to wonder why? Why the use of the word 'times' instead of years? There must have been a reason. If the tree dream is only to be applied to Nebuchadnezzar then why didn't the prophecy simply say 7 years. Why 7 times? The only reasonable conclusion one can draw is so that it could later be connected to Revelation to show that 7 times does equal 2520. Apparently it was meant for 7 times to be deciphered as 2520 in order to show us that it has greater significance other than just the 7 years upon Neb? Otherwise, why the clues? Was it Jehovah's intention to mislead Bible readers?

There can be no doubt that the verses in Revelation were written to show us exactly the length of seven times so we can understand the tree dream in Daniel. Otherwise, John could have just been directed to write 1260 days and leave the cryptic 'time times and half of times' out all together since it is just repetition and does not help us in the interpretation of Revelation at all. In other words the seven times in Daniel do not help us to figure out what the 3.5 times are in Revelation. It is the other way around.

Think about this: If seven times mean only 7 years then Daniel could have simply said 7 years. Then Revelation could have simply said 3.5 years or 1260 days or 42 months. And nobody would ever even need to mention 'times' and everyone would be happy and understand it all. But because 7 times means 7 years with Neb but 2520 years in the great scheme of things then Daniel had to use a different term other than years. He had to use a word that could convey both the 7 years upon Neb and the hundreds of years spanning the Gentile times. That term he was directed by Jehovah to use was 'iddan' or 'times'. Since this needed to be understood, then John was directed to use the same terminology, 'times', to show the length of seven times and thus the book of Daniel could be understood by seekers of truth.

In view of the foregoing is it reasonable to think that Daniel 4 is only about Nebuchadnezzar? Why does Daniel specifically use the word 'times' rather than years? And why does Revelation then help us to see the length of 7 times? And why does Daniel tell of 7 times passing over until the lowliest one of mankind is set up. Dan 4:17, "to the intent that people living may know that the Most High is Ruler in the kingdom of mankind and that to the one whom he wants to, he gives it and he sets up over it even the lowliest one of mankind.” This cannot be mere coincidence, can it?

Could Seven Times Mean 70 Years?

Some make the claim that 7 times just meant 7 decades therefore concluding that it coincides with the 70 years of Babylonian domination. However, the question would need to be answered: In what way was a lowly one put on high in 537? No king of Judah was restored at that time.

We have a parallel in Neb. He was brought low only to be put on high after 7 times. God's rulership in the form of the Davidic Kings (the last one being Zedekiah) was brought low in 607. It would not be until someone sat on that throne again that the lowly one would be put on high. That lowly one of course is Jesus Christ. When would that lowly one be put on high? That is what the prophecy is answering. First it answers that question in regards to Nebuchadnezzar. Secondly, and most importantly, it answers that question as regards to God's rulership.

Others argue that a year is 365 days not 360 days. Therefore they conclude that 7 times should be 7 X 365. But the Bible interprets itself. The book of Revelation clearly shows that 3 and a half times equals 1260 days. Therefore 7 times equals 2520. We can't argue with that. We can't say, oh no , there are 365 days in a year. That doesn't matter. The Bible shows what 7 times equals. We can't change it. 7 times =2520 days. If it is a day for a year then 7 times is equal to 2520 years. You only have 2 choices. Either seven times = seven years. Or seven times = 2520 years. (based on a day for a year) It can't be 7 X 365 or 70 years or 7 months or 7 days unless we are going to totally disregard the Bible's explanation of times in Revelation.

What the Tree Pictures

Just why was the tree dream given to Nebuchadnezzar concerning the large tree that would be cut down and banded and that after seven times had passed over the bands would be removed and the tree once again would be able to grow? From the very outset of Daniel chapter 4 the theme is set. In verse 3 we read of Jehovah, "How grand his signs are, and how mighty his wonders are! His kingdom is a kingdom to time indefinite, and his rulership is for generation after generation." Continuing the theme the Bible explains the reason for the dream in simple terms at Dan 4:17, "to the intent that people living may know that the Most High is Ruler in the kingdom of mankind and that to the one whom he wants to, he gives it and he sets up over it even the lowliest one of mankind.” Yes, God's everlasting rulership toward the earth and his choosing of whomever he sees fit to place in the position of rulership is the centralized theme of Daniel 4.

As has been said before, the Bible interprets itself and so we do not have to guess about the meaning of Daniel chapter 4 at all. Incredibly, similar words of Daniel 4:17 are used concerning the kingship of Zedekiah. Ezekiel 21:25-27 reads concerning Zedekiah: "As for you, O deadly wounded, wicked chieftain of Israel, whose day has come in the time of the error of the end, this is what the Lord Jehovah has said, Remove the turban, and lift off the crown. This will not be the same. Put on high even what is low, and bring low even the high one. A ruin, a ruin, a ruin I shall make it. As for this also, it will certainly become no ones until he comes who has the legal right, and I must give it to him."

Most Bible scholars will readily agree that this prophecy does indeed apply to the last king of Judah, Zedekiah. Ezekiel 20:1 gives the time period that the prophecy was given, "Now it came about in the seventh year..." The seventh year being the 7th year of Ezekiel's exile. Ezekiel's 7th year of exile was during the rule of King Zedekiah. In fact a quick reading of the entire 21st chapter of of the book of Ezekiel will confirm that the prophecy is against Jerusalem and "against the soil of Israel," and verses 18 through 21 confirm that it is the "king of Babylon" who would come against Judah and Jerusalem. Ezekiel 21:25-27 must therefore apply to Zedekiah and only Zedekiah since he was the ruling king of Judah at the time when the prophecy was given, he was the last king of Judah, and he was in fact shortly thereafter conquered by the king of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar.

But there is even more evidence in Ezekiel 21 for connecting the kings of Judah including the last king Zedekiah with the tree in Neb's dream. In reading the entire chapter of Ezekiel 21 did you notice that Jehovah has a sword that he will unsheath upon Judah because of their rebelliousness. It is concerning that sword that the question is asked in verse 10, “Is it (the executional sword) rejecting the scepter (rulership) of my own son (Israel), as [it does] every tree?"
12 “‘Cry out and howl, O son of man, for it itself has come to be against my people; it (Jehovah's sword) is against all the chieftains of Israel." Amazing! Exactly paralleling Neb's tree dream, Jehovah's sword will even cut down the tree or scepter or rulership of Israel.

The cutting down of the tree or rulership of Israel is of great significance because those kings of Israel represented Jehovah's rulership in the earth.
1 Chronicles 29:23 tells us, "And Sol´o·mon began to sit upon Jehovah’s throne as king in place of David his father" From this we can see that the kings of Israel did indeed represent Jehovah's rulership on earth.

It is in this regard that Lamentations 4:20 written after the desolation of Jerusalem and the end of Zedekiah tells us, "The very breath of our nostrils, the anointed one (king of Israel) of Jehovah, has been captured in their large pit, The one of whom we have said: “In his shade we shall live among the nations.” By using the word shade in connection with the king of Israel we are once again reminded of the large tree in Daniel 4 that would provide protective shade covering for all. This is the same protective tree-like shade that God's rulership provided as represented by the kings of Israel.

So ask yourself this: Out of 'every tree' or scepter or rulership that Jehovah's sword would cut down by means of Babylon which tree would be unbanded and restored in the future, receiving kingship from Jehovah himself as he saw fit? Which one would provide the 'lowliest' twig that would shoot forth and become a majestic cedar in Jehovah's Holy Mountain put on high like no other? It could only be the tree picturing Jehovah's rulership as represented by the kings of Judah who were said to 'sit upon Jehovah's throne'. It could only be that Judean tree which for 7 times would remain banded but thereafter would bring forth God's chosen ruler of all the earth.

Ezekiel 19 provides us with even more amazing similarities in comparing the rulership of Judah with the tree of Neb's dream in Daniel 4. After comparing the rulers of Judah to young cubs of a lioness notice the similarties of the tree in Daniel 4 with what is said of that mother lion comparing her to a vine in verses 10-14, “‘Your mother was like a vine in your blood, planted by waters. A bearer of fruit and full of branches she became because of abundant water. 11 And they came to be for her strong rods, meant for the scepters of rulers. And its height gradually became tall up among branches, and it got to be visible because of its tallness, because of the abundance of its foliage.

Compare that description to Daniel 4:11 "The tree grew up and became strong, and its very height finally reached the heavens, and it was visible to the extremity of the whole earth. 12 Its foliage was fair, and its fruit was abundant, and there was food for all on it. Under it the beast of the field would seek shade, and on its boughs the birds of the heavens would dwell, and from it all flesh would feed itself."

And just as the tree was chopped down notice the similar outcome of the vine/tree in Ezekiel 19:12 "But she was finally uprooted in fury. To the earth she was thrown, and there was an east wind that dried up her fruit. Her strong rod was torn off and became dry. Fire itself devoured it. 13 And now she is planted in the wilderness, in a waterless and thirsty land. 14 And fire proceeded to come forth from [her] rod. It devoured her very shoots, her very fruit, and there proved to be in her no strong rod, no scepter for ruling."

And so it was that finally the high one, Zedekiah, the last ruler of Israel, was 'devoured' by fire, brought low as it were, and the Pagan gentile ruler of the time was put on high even above the kings that had sat on 'Jehovah's throne' in Jerusalem. And the kingly representative of Jehovah on earth ceased for a time. The tree was banded until he who had the legal right would come and once again 'sit upon Jehovah's throne' as king. This lowly one with the legal right would be put on high when the tree was unbanded. How do we know this to be the case? Amazingly once again, we have the Bible explaining itself in no uncertain terms. Again the book of Ezekiel explains it.


The Riddle of Ezekiel 17

The whole 17th chapter of Ezekiel describes the end of Zedekiah by means of Nebuchadnezzar and thus the end of that tree. Notice it: 17:1 "And the word of Jehovah continued to occur to me, saying: 2 Son of man, propound a riddle and compose a proverbial saying toward the house of Israel. 3 And you must say, This is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah has said: The great eagle (nebuchadnezzer), having great wings, with long pinions, full of plumage, which had color variety, came to Leb´a·non (Jerusalem) and proceeded to take the treetop (Jehoiachin) of the cedar. 4 He plucked off the very top of its young shoots and came bringing it to the land of Ca´naan; in a city of traders (Babylon, Ezek 17:12) he placed it.

5 Furthermore, he took some of the seed of the land and put it in a field for seed. As a willow by vast waters, as a willow tree (Zedekiah) he placed it. 6 And it began to sprout and gradually became a luxuriantly growing vine low in height (Just a mere vassal king of Babylon, not lofty. Ezekial 17:13), inclined to turn its foliage inward; and as for its roots, they gradually came to be under it. And it finally became a vine and produced shoots and sent forth branches. 7 And there came to be another great eagle (Egypt's Pharoah. Ezekiel 17:15), having great wings, and having large pinions, and, look! this very vine stretched its roots hungrily toward him. And its foliage it thrust out to him in order [for him] to irrigate it, away from the garden beds where it was planted. 8 Into a good field, by vast waters, it was already transplanted, in order to produce boughs and to bear fruit, to become a majestic vine. 9 Say, This is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah has said: Will it have success? Will not someone tear out its very roots and make its very fruit scaly? And must [not] all its freshly plucked sprouts become dry? It will become dry. Neither by a great arm nor by a multitudinous people will it have to be lifted up from its roots. 10 And, look! although transplanted, will it have success? Will it not dry up completely, even as when the east wind touches it? In the garden beds of its sprout it will dry up."

11 And the word of Jehovah continued to occur to me, saying: 12 Say, please, to the rebellious house, Do YOU people actually not know what these things mean? Say, Look! The king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and proceeded to take its king and its princes and bring them to himself at Babylon. 13 Furthermore, he took one of the royal seed and concluded a covenant with him and brought him into an oath; and the foremost men of the land he took away, 14 in order that the kingdom might become low, unable to lift itself up, that by keeping his covenant it might stand. 15 But he finally rebelled against him in sending his messengers to Egypt, [for it] to give him horses and a multitudinous people. Will he have success? Will he escape, he who is doing these things, and who has broken a covenant? And will he actually escape? 16 As I am alive, is the utterance of the Sovereign Lord Jehovah, in the place of the king who put in as king the one that despised his oath and that broke his covenant, with him in the midst of Babylon he will die. 17 And by a great military force and by a multitudinous congregation Phar´aoh will not make him effective in the war, by throwing up a siege rampart and by building a siege wall, in order to cut off many souls. 18 And he has despised an oath in breaking a covenant, and, look! he had given his hand and has done even all these things. He will not make his escape."

19 Therefore this is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah has said: As I am alive, surely my oath that he has despised and my covenant that he has broken I will even bring it upon his head. 20 And I will spread over him my net, and he will certainly be caught in my hunting net; and I will bring him to Babylon and put myself on judgment with him there respecting his unfaithfulness with which he acted against me. 21 And as regards all the fugitives of his in all his bands, by the sword they will fall, and the ones left remaining will be spread abroad even to every wind. And YOU people will have to know that I myself, Jehovah, have spoken [it]."

The remaining verses describe the return of a twig as God's ruler. 22 "This is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah has said: I myself will also take and put some of the lofty treetop of the cedar; from the top of its twigs I shall pluck off a tender one (Jesus) and I will myself transplant [it] upon a high and lofty mountain. 23 On the mountain of the height of Israel I shall transplant it, and it will certainly bear boughs and produce fruit and become a majestic cedar. And under it there will actually reside all the birds of every wing; in the shadow of its foliage they will reside."

Especially notice the final verse. 24 "And all the trees of the field will have to know that I myself, Jehovah, have abased the high tree, have put on high the low tree, have dried up the still-moist tree and have made the dry tree blossom. I myself, Jehovah, have spoken and have done [it]."

Did you notice? The high tree is abased, dried up. The rulership ends. But at a later date a twig from the royal tree will return. For a twig will be planted in Jehovah's Holy Mountain and it will become a majestic tree.

Did you see the connection that the Bible makes between Daniel 4 and Ezekiel 21 and 17? Compare Daniel 4:17 "that people living may know that the Most High is Ruler in the kingdom of mankind and that to the one whom he wants to, he gives it and he sets up over it even the lowliest one of mankind"

And compare Ezek 21:26,27 about the end of Zedekiah's rule and the beginning of Jesus' rule, "Put on high even what is low, and bring low even the high one. 27 A ruin, a ruin, a ruin I shall make it. As for this also, it will certainly become no [one's] until he comes who has the legal right, and I must give [it] to him."

And Ezekiel 17:24 "And all the trees of the field will have to know that I myself, Jehovah, have abased the high tree, have put on high the low tree, have dried up the still-moist tree and have made the dry tree blossom. I myself, Jehovah, have spoken and have done [it]."

In all 3 Bible texts it is mentioned that the low will be put on high and that Jehovah is the one giving the rulership to whomever he chooses. There can be no doubt that the tree pictures God's rulership. The end of Zedekiah ends that rulership and is replaced by gentile rulership. The rulership continues once again when the one who has the legal right returns, the twig of Jesse if you will, and once again takes over that rulership.


Trees, Stumps, Roots,Twigs and the Kingship of Jesus

Notice the correlation between scriptures as regards to trees and stumps and twigs and roots and Christ's kingship:

Isa 10:33 "Look! The [true] Lord, Jehovah of armies, is lopping off boughs with a terrible crash; and those tall in growth are being cut down, and the high ones themselves become low. 34 And he has struck down the thickets of the forest with an iron tool, and by a powerful one Leb´a·non itself will fall. 11 And there must go forth a twig out of the stump of Jes´se; and out of his roots a sprout will be fruitful. 2 And upon him the spirit of Jehovah must settle down, the spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the spirit of counsel and of mightiness, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of Jehovah; 3 and there will be enjoyment by him in the fear of Jehovah. 10 And it must occur in that day that there will be the root of Jes´se that will be standing up as a signal for the peoples. To him even the nations will turn inquiringly, and his resting-place must become glorious."

Jer 23:5 "Look! There are days coming,' is the utterance of Jehovah, 'and I will raise up to David a righteous sprout. And a king will certainly reign and act with discretion and execute justice and righteousness in the land."

Ezek 17:22 "This is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah has said: 'I myself will also take and put some of the lofty treetop of the cedar; from the top of its twigs I shall pluck off a tender one and I will myself transplant [it] upon a high and lofty mountain. 23 On the mountain of the height of Israel I shall transplant it, and it will certainly bear boughs and produce fruit and become a majestic cedar. And under it there will actually reside all the birds of every wing; in the shadow of its foliage they will reside. 24 And all the trees of the field will have to know that I myself, Jehovah, have abased the high tree, have put on high the low tree, have dried up the still-moist tree and have made the dry tree blossom. I myself, Jehovah, have spoken and have done [it]."

Zech 6:12 "And you must say to him, 'This is what Jehovah of armies has said: 'Here is the man whose name is Sprout. And from his own place he will sprout, and he will certainly build the temple of Jehovah. 13 And he himself will build the temple of Jehovah, and he, for his part, will carry [the] dignity; and he must sit down and rule on his throne, and he must become a priest upon his throne, and the very counsel of peace will prove to be between both of them"

Rev 22:16 "I, Jesus, sent my angel to bear witness to YOU people of these things for the congregations. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright morning star."

All of these Bible verses confirm that the twig that comes forth from the tree is the rulership of Jesus Christ as king of God's kingdom. However the defining scripture that tops it all off and leaves us no doubt is found at Isaiah 6. Here at Isa 6:11, notice what is said in conjunction with the desolation of Jerusalem and the restoration of the seed that will come forth: "At this I said: 'How long, O Jehovah?' Then he said: 'Until the cities actually crash in ruins, to be without an inhabitant, and the houses be without earthling man, and the ground itself is ruined into a desolation; 12 and Jehovah actually removes earthling men far away, and the deserted condition does become very extensive in the midst of the land. 13 And there will still be in it a tenth, and it must again become something for burning down, like a big tree and like a massive tree in which, when there is a cutting down [of them], there is a stump; a holy seed will be the stump of it."

While this scripture had fulfillment when Jerusalem was restored in 537BCE it would also certainly apply to the holy seed which is to rule God's Kingdom, the foremost of who is Jesus Christ himself. Yes the big, massive tree was chopped down when Jerusalem was destroyed in 607BCE but there was a stump left and that stump is comprised of the holy seed, those who rule in God's Kingdom. Again further proof that the tree dream does indeed have direct bearing on God's Kingdom and His rulership.

The Prophecies of Daniel Point to Jesus as Ruler

Another thing to consider: Have you noted that every prophecy of Daniel concludes with Jesus arriving in God's Kingdom. Except the one in chapter 9 which concludes with the arrival of the Messiah who is the King of God's Kingdom.

Dan 2:44, "And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinite;"

Dan 7:27 "And the kingdom and the rulership and the grandeur of the kingdoms under all the heavens were given to the people who are the holy ones of the Supreme One. Their kingdom is an indefinitely lasting kingdom, and all the rulerships will serve and obey even them."

Dan 8:25: "And against the Prince of princes he will stand up, but it will be without hand that he will be broken."

Dan 12:1 "And during that time Mi´cha·el will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of your people."

How about Daniel 4. Does it also conclude with God's Kingdom? Dan 4:17 "By the decree of watchers the thing is, and [by] the saying of holy ones the request is, to the intent that people living may know that the Most High is Ruler in the kingdom of mankind and that to the one whom he wants to, he gives it and he sets up over it even the lowliest one of mankind."

Here is something else to consider. Since one of Daniel's prophecies foretold the arrival of Jesus Christ on earth, wouldn't it be expected (or at least not surprising) that it would also tell about his heavenly arrival as king. Daniel 4 accomplishes that very purpose. Does it make sense that all the prophecies of Daniel point to the Messiah/King either coming on earth (once) or ruling in heaven (the rest), but that this one prophecy in Daniel 4 does not have anything to do with the Messiah/King but only Nebuchadnezzar?

The WT put it well when it said: "examination of the entire book of Daniel reveals that the element of time is everywhere prominent in the visions and prophecies it presents; and the world powers and events described in each such vision are shown, not as isolated or as occurring at random with the time element left ambiguous, but, rather, as fitting into a historical setting or time sequence. Additionally, the book repeatedly points toward the conclusion that forms the theme of its prophecies: the establishment of a universal and eternal Kingdom of God exercised through the rulership of the 'son of man.'

In view of the above, it does not seem logical to evaluate the vision of the symbolic 'tree' and its reference to 'seven times' as having no other application than to the seven years of madness and subsequent recovery and return to power experienced by one Babylonian ruler...The time at which the vision was given: at the critical point in history when God, the Universal Sovereign, had allowed the very kingdom that he had established among his covenant people to be overthrown; the person to whom the vision was revealed: the very ruler who served as the divine instrument in such overthrow and who thereby became the recipient of world domination by divine permission, that is, without interference by any representative kingdom of Jehovah God; and the whole theme of the vision, namely: 'that people living may know that the Most High is Ruler in the kingdom of mankind and that to the one whom he wants to, he gives it and he sets up over it even the lowliest one of mankind' (Da 4:17) all of this gives strong reason for believing that the lengthy vision and its interpretation were included in the book of Daniel because of their revealing the duration of 'the appointed times of the nations' and the time for the establishment of God's Kingdom by his Christ. The fact is evident that the key point of the vision is Jehovah God's exercise of irresistible sovereignty in 'the kingdom of mankind,' and this provides the guide to the full meaning of the vision.

The tree is shown to have an application to Nebuchadnezzar, who at that point in history was the head of the dominant World Power, Babylon. Yet, prior to Nebuchadnezzar's conquest of Jerusalem, the typical kingdom of God ruling out of that city was the agency by which Jehovah expressed his rightful sovereignty toward the earth. It thus constituted a divine block or impediment for Nebuchadnezzar in attaining his goal of world domination. By allowing that typical kingdom at Jerusalem to be overthrown, Jehovah permitted his own visible expression of sovereignty through the Davidic dynasty of kings to be cut down. The expression and exercise of world domination in the 'kingdom of mankind,' unhindered by any representative kingdom of God, now passed into the hands of the Gentile nations. (La 1:5; 2:2, 16, 17)

In the light of these facts the tree is seen to represent, beyond and above its application to Nebuchadnezzar, world sovereignty or domination by God's arrangement.

Should We Apply the Day for a Year Rule?

If a day for a year is not applied then that means that the 7 times lasted from 607 to 600. Did a ruler of God's Kingdom come forth then? Logical reasoning will lead a person to believe that the day for a year rule must apply otherwise the prophecy is meaningless. We have as an example the seventy weeks prophecy of Daniel chapter 9. The day for a year rule must apply in Daniel chapter 9 or the prophecy is meaningless and is of no value.

As we have already shown Daniel used the word for 7 times instead of 7 years. Therefore it must mean more than 7 years. Otherwise he would have said 7 years not 7 times. Do you think that Jehovah was trying to trick us by using the terminology of 7 times and then explaining the length of 3.5 times in Revelation only to merely mean that the 7 times that pass over are 7 years and that is all? AT the same time he supplied the rule ' a day for a year ' when Ezekiel laid on his side for so many days (which by the way pointed to the destruction of Jerusalem in 607). He also supplied the prophecy of the 70 weeks which also needs the rule of 'a day for a year' for it to have value. The 70 weeks from 455 brings us to 453.5. Nothing happened. So surely it must be a day for a year.

With that said, is there any other reason to apply the day for a year rule to the dream? For a moment lets reason why God wanted us to know exactly how long 3 1/2 times are. In one place he calls it 42 months, in another place he calls it 1260 days. If it only meant 42 regular months then why be so specific about it. What difference does a few days here or there make? Why not just 3½ years or 42 lunar or solar months? The only time a few days does make a big difference is when you are dealing with a prophecy that has a day for a year rule applied. In this case every day makes a big difference. When you combine this with the fact that every prophecy of Daniel either concludes with Jesus arriving in God's Kingdom or with the arrival of the Messiah who is the King of God's Kingdom, then you have a pretty strong reason to apply the day for a year rule.

Jerusalem Will Be Trampled On by the Nations

Here are the words at Luke 21. 20 "Furthermore, when YOU see Jerusalem surrounded by encamped armies, then know that the desolating of her has drawn near. 21 Then let those in Ju·de´a begin fleeing to the mountains, and let those in the midst of her withdraw, and let those in the country places not enter into her; 22 because these are days for meting out justice, that all the things written may be fulfilled. 23 Woe to the pregnant women and the ones suckling a baby in those days! For there will be great necessity upon the land and wrath on this people; 24 and they will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations, until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled."

Please take note that these words are different from the words of Matthew and Mark. In Matthew and Mark he does not specifically mention the Roman armies. He refers to the disgusting thing that causes desolation. But here he is without a doubt talking about the Roman armies and what they will do to the literal city of Jerusalem. And he is showing in verse 24 how those Jews in Jerusalem will die by the sword and be led into captivity. Then the statement is made that "Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations, until the appointed times of the nations are fulfilled."

Remember that Jesus is talking to his disciples who believe that in the very near future Jesus will restore the nation of Israel and reside as king over it. In Acts 1:6 we read, "When, now, they had assembled, they went asking him: 'Lord, are you restoring the kingdom to Israel at this time?'" From this question it is clear that they are expecting Jesus to save Jerusalem and become the king. And so when Jesus is telling them exactly what will happen to the literal city of Jerusalem he then makes it clear to them that Jerusalem and its rulership, contrary to what they expect, will be trampled on by the nations until the appointed (seven) times of the nations are fulfilled. Only then will it truly be restored and he become king. Although they could not grasp that at the time, we can. Of course it was not to be the literal Jerusalem that was restored but the heavenly one.

We must not forget that Jesus is answering the question: "what will be the sign of your presence and conclusion of system of things." Then in Luke 21 he is telling what the near future holds for the literal city of Jerusalem and its people. But Jesus has not forgotten the big question: When is his presence? So after telling of the literal outcome of Jerusalem, he no doubt knows that his disciples are logically thinking, 'then Jerusalem will be restored and Christ's presence as king will begin,' just as they had previously ask in Acts 1:6. So he is letting them know that their thinking is Wrong. Jerusalem will not then be immediately restored.

Thus he reminds them that the Daniel prophecy said that 'Jerusalem will be trampled on by the nations, until the appointed times (or seven times) of the nations are fulfilled.' And only then will his presence and kingship commence. Only then after the appointed seven times of the nations have been fulfilled will Jerusalem be restored. While they did not understand at the time we do understand. And so his words were not just for his disciples living then but also for people living in the last days of this system of things.

Matthew and Mark said the 'disgusting thing' so that definitely had two fulfillments: 1. The roman army and 2. the UN. But Luke 21:20-23 is specifically and directly speaking about the literal events that would happen in the first century. Those events do not have a specific fulfillment in the last days although the parallel is similar. So after Jesus tells us literally what would happen to Jerusalem and the Jews he then explains to them that Jerusalem will be trampled until appointed times have ended. The Kingdom will not be restored until then. So they would come to recognize after holy spirit was poured out at Pentecost that God's Kingdom would not be established literally in Jerusalem as they had thought but it would be a heavenly kingdom that would come but not until the appointed times of the nations had ended.

To use an illustration: You go to an Elvis concert. He is older and has gained weight and is popping pills. He is not the King he use to be. A fire breaks out at the concert hall. Everybody begins scrambling for the doors. Elvis gets caught up in the crowd and falls down. He is being trampled on. After about 30 seconds a prophet appears to him and says to Elvis. "7 minutes will pass over you until you know who the real King is" Well after another 2 minutes passes another prophet appears and says, "Elvis' neck will be broken and the King will be trampled until the appointed minutes of the crowd are fulfilled." Finally after the 7 minutes have passed the King stands up. He is young, thin, good looking, and rejuvenated just like at the beginning of his career. Notice that the phrase used is 'the King will be trampled'. It works.

Elvis = Jerusalem

Crowd=nations

7 minutes=7 times.

Beginning of trampling=607BCE

fat druggy King=Israelite rulers until 607

Elvis' broken neck = Jerusalems destruction in 70CE

end of trampling=1914, true King restored

607 to 1914--The Gentile Times

What does all this lead us to? That the Gentile Times began in 607 BCE with the end of the king of Judah who sat on Jehovah's throne and ended in 1914CE when Jesus, the twig, who had the legal right to rule took over kingship of God's throne in the heavens. The events that took place on earth in 1914 and since then also confirm this. I submit that the artfully contrived story is not 1914 but rather those with the artfully contrived false story are those that contend that 607 is not the date of Jerusalem's destruction and 1914 is not the end of the Gentile Times. Those promoting this artfully contrived story that Jesus did not began his rule in 1914 are the same ones who fulfill the prophecy by saying, "Where is this promised presence of his?"