Jehovah`s Witness/Let's set some things straight
QUESTION: Hello Derrick, how are you?
Can you help clear my name? Is it true that I only sent you one question marked private and that was a glitch on my part?
How would it be possible to know that a person sent you a private question/questions unless you asked for permission to publish the question, therefore nullifying the privacy?
Am I you?
Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Do the scriptures say anything about making false accusations about people?
ANSWER: Hello, Brother. How are you?
Honestly, I'm trying to decipher what is going on here. I have read this, and I went back and read Ms. T's reply to you this morning, and her ridiculous question of whether you are me. Beyond that, I could not make much sense of what she was saying, as it seemed she was rambling on and on. But I'll try.
To begin with, NO, you are not me. Where did she get that idea?
Listen, I really wouldn't sweat what these people "think", because they don't "think". They get so upset for being exposed for their lies and multiple aliases, that they try to lash out and accuse everyone else of doing it. Not saying Ms. T has another alias, but her friends do. They're going to think what they want to think, no matter how ridiculous it is.
I am not really sure what you're asking me about "Private Questions, or what that has to do with her ridiculous allegations. But regardless, I went back and checked the records all the way to June of 2014, and I see 2 Private questions from you. Everything else you have sent me is Public.
I really don't know if you want me to publish the 2 Private ones, so I will hold off until I know that is what you want.
The dates of the 2 Private questions from you, are 9/25/14, and 9/30/14. The one on 9/30/, was only one short paragraph, and was simply a "thank you" for a previous answer, and telling me that you were going to relate some encounters with your JW co-workers. Like I said, it was very short, and basically just a "thanks again" message, so I can understand why that was Private. It was nothing that would have mattered to the public readers of the board.
The other "Private" question you sent, was on 9/25, and as I read that response, I believe that you sent it "Private" on accident. In fact, my answer stated that I thought you might not have meant to do this, as the question you wrote said....
"One of the reasons I wanted to write you was to share my experiences with the Jw community first hand"
When I saw that, I thought that perhaps you had accidentally marked it "Private", because I replied with....
"Good evening, Kevin. Thank you for following up. I noticed that the first writing from you was public, but this one is marked "Private". I wasn't sure if you meant to send it "Private" or not, but since I'm not sure, I will leave it as such. Its fine if you did....I just noticed you said about wanting to share your experiences with the JW community, and I thought maybe when you said that, you were hoping people could see it. If you want it public, just re-send it to me, and I will copy this answer and it will post in the forum."
It was marked "Private", but was a follow-up question to one that that was "Public", so that was another reason that I assumed the "Private" thing might have been a mistake.
Again, I'm not sure exactly what Ms. T is implying, or what her thinking is, but I can post those "Private" writings, if you wish me to. But I will hold off until you say so. I'm not sure if this is what you're wanting to know, or not.
But neither of those "Private" questions, nor the Public question that the "Private" (9/25) was a follow-up to, made any references to Ms. T whatsoever, or any of her statements.
You asked...."How would it be possible to know that a person sent you a private question/questions unless you asked for permission to publish the question, therefore nullifying the privacy?"
Again, not sure if I'm answering what you're asking, but I'll try. The only way another "expert" such as Ms. T, could know that you sent me a Private question, would be what you said....I asked you for, and was granted, permission to change it to "Public". Or, unless I told her, and I would have no reason to do that. There was nothing in those Private questions that even referenced her, or of any concern to her. And again, I think we established that you didn't even intend for the one to be Private, and the other was just a brief "Thanks again", note.
I have had a few Private correspondences with Ms. T. Mostly about calling her out on her hypocrisy, but the last one was about 2 filthy writings that I got, supposedly from "Pearl", and the other from "Linda". I wrote to her about it, to make her aware of this vile person, because they also wrote to her and made some remarks that could have had a dangerous undertone to them. I wanted her to be aware of that questioner, because of the filth they had sent me (the foolishly signed their name to one of their writings to me, and also to her, so that's how I knew it was the same person).
I let her know about that, because I felt it was the right thing to do. This person was making remarks to her that might not have raised eyebrows from most people, but because of what I had received from the same person, I felt it was cause for concern. She wanted to see copies of what that person sent to me, so I sent them, under the promise from her that she would not try to use it against me, and make it appear I was sending sexually explicit messages to her. So, I saved those correspondences, just in case I ever needed them.
I have no idea her purpose for referencing that, as if it had anything to do with what you and she are talking about.
You asked...."Am I you?"
No Kevin, you are not me. She needs to worry about why her own fellow JW is such a hypocrite, so as to set up a fake alias and join the Baptist forum, all for the purpose of causing strife over there, like what we have here. She's the one that yaps about what is "immoral and dishonest", but in reality, could care less about what is "immoral and dishonest". Their hypocrisy is sickening.
And this remark of hers...."How convenient that you are from Illinois and Derrick's questions can generate from Illinois too!! He said so himself!"
Yeah, let me just address that one. As I've said several times now, this ONLY happens when I have sent questions from my work place, from my cell phone. It NEVER happens when I'm on my home computer.
And furthermore, I have no idea if it happens every single time I send one from work. I wasn't even aware that it was happening at all, until Rando came on here after I sent him a question from work, accusing me of being "deceptive" about my identity (even though I signed my name to the question), because it showed up from "Illinios".
So, I tried it the next day at work, after his accusation posted. I sent myself a question, and yes, it did show from "Illinois". But other times, it just shows "United States". I have no control over that, and didn't even know it was happening, until Rando's nervous breakdown over it. Its certainly nothing I was doing, unlike Rando, who DOES know how to change a location of a question.
But its interesting that Ms. T is talking about things being "different in public, than in Private". I find that a little hypocritical of her to say, since this very issue of my questions showing from Illinois, is something I discussed with her, and she herself ACKNOWLEDGED that it can happen from a cell phone.
Here, let me quote her....."That Jules person was from Chon Buri Thailand, when Linda apologized it just said United States....sometimes hers would say PA and sometimes just United States, which means she was probably on her cell phone or something like that"
She seems to be acknowledging here, that when a person sends a question from their cell phone, it can show a variety of locations. Or sometimes none at all.
But now, there is a strong implication in her comment in public, that this somehow proves that you are me, or is evidence of it.
Kevin, isn't Illinois a fairly populous state? I haven't been to Illinois since 2002, by the way.
But no, you are not me. Again, I'm not even sure what her point was there. I'm honestly reading her rant, and trying to figure out where she's getting it.
Kevin, let me tell you something from my own personal experience. Ms. T is an extremely high strung, emotional person, who cannot be reasoned with. You just can't let it bother you. She also has a completely different set of standards, which she holds non-JWs to, and which she holds her own people to. What is wrong for you or me, is perfectly fine for them.
Kevin, I was a little intrigued by this statement of hers, because it seems she was twisting your words, and putting words into your mouth. She said....
"So basically what you are saying is you believe everything you read on the internet?"
Try as I might, I cannot see where you ever said anything even close to "I believe everything on the internet"
. Was she referring to your referencing FACTUAL sites which give true information about JWs, that they themselves will never tell you, but which facts are completely verifiable?
Is THAT where she got that "So basically what you are saying is you believe everything you read on the internet"
What does a site that gives factual information about the history of the JW religion, information that people like Eddie G don't even KNOW THEMSELVES, have to do with "believing everything on the internet"?
You see what I mean about not being able to reason with her? There was simply no rationale behind that comment. Its about like the other week, when she made some dumb comment that I "can't go on vacation", when I actually take several vacations a year. In fact, my vacations are often a topic of discussion in this forum, in and of themselves. But she says I "can't go on vacation". Just a weird comment, with no sense or logic behind it.
Kevin, I honestly don't know everything that has been said between you and her, but I did notice something here that I wish to comment on, because again, it shows that her "thinking" is all over the place, with no sensible thought processes that can be comprehended.
She said..."Now this is quite interesting "Kevin" or whoever you are. You said you asked me a question concerning Rando's position and I said I don't read any other boards including you (DH) or Rando's.
I have NEVER said that to you as "Kevin" but I did say to Derrick Holland that I had not read Bro. Rando's post YET when Derrick Holland asked me a question concerning Rando's position! Because at the time he asked me I had not in fact read what Bro. Rando had written. I wasn't about to drop what I was doing to appease Mr. Holland. I read it when I got a chance to read it."
Why the change of topic here, from the first paragraph to the second? The first paragraph, is about your saying that she told you she DOESN'T READ either my board, or Rando's. I remember you making that comment to me, in your last writing, I believe it was.
I myself have seen her say numerous times, that she doesn't read my posts, yet I've always thought it funny that she makes references to them. But yes, she has said that in PUBLIC, several times. And I can find the references, if need be. She may even have said it to me in our Private conversations. In fact, I believe she did, but I would have to check.
As for Rando's board, I always just assumed she read his. But I didn't dispute what you told me she had said about not reading it, because I would have no way of knowing if she told you that, or then again, maybe she was FINALLY STARTING to figure that phony out, and had stopped reading it. I simply took that comment at face value, although I expressed my opinion that she probably does read his board.
But in the 2nd paragraph, the subject completely changes....From her "reading Rando's board", to her READING A SPECIFIC POST on Rando's board, that I wrote her about.
That woman is unbelievable. She ties 2 completely unrelated topics, into the same discussion.
The post she is referring to, is when Rando came out public in DENIAL of Matthew 28:19, and in opposition to the Governing Body's teachings, and also in contrast with www.jw.org. As you know, Rando believes the NWT "bible" is wrongly translated in Matthew 28:19, and he believes the WT Society, or more specifically, the "Slave" (GB), is teaching it wrong.
So, I wrote and asked both her and Eddie, if they would still support him, since he now was deviating from the very "Slave" they're CLAIMING to follow.
And yes, she replied that she had not read his post YET. NOT that she didn't "read Rando's board"...Only that she hadn't read THAT SPECIFIC POST, AS OF THAT MOMENT.
She says...."I wasn't about to drop what I was doing to appease Mr. Holland"
Nobody asked her to. Again, completely irrational.
But I have no idea if she said that she doesn't read Rando's board. She hasn't told me that, but she may very well have told you that. But she HAS stated, in Public, NUMEROUS times that she doesn't read mine. And at least one of those statements from her, may very well have been in a reply to you.
She wrote...."And I said to Derrick Holland NOT to "Kevin" that I hadn't read his (DH) post. Which was in reply to him saying something about he had just spoke about a bus ministry and then I get a question regarding a bus tour and so forth. I had not read his (DH) post about a bus ministry. And at that time I had not been reading DH's posts."
Like I said, she's all over the place. The above comment was in reference to my mentioning in an answer to Rando, writing as "Pamela", who asked about how I get the Word of God out to people. I mentioned my church's bus ministry. Well, then she got a fake "question" from Rando using an alias, supposedly from someone who claimed to have been IN the "bus ministry" with me, and what an overall sorry excuse for a human being I am. I just laughed at that one, because it was so obviously a fake, with Rando's fingerprints all over it.
So, I wrote to her and simply asked her if she REALLY believed that question was on the level.
And her genius first statement in reply, was...."Here we go again, first as I said I don't read your post."
Her reading my post, was irrelevant. The person writing her that question, had read it. Her not reading it, had nothing to do with anything.
But she did say that she doesn't read my posts. And she has said that several times, and probably at some point, in response to you. I'd have to go back and search to be sure, but it wouldn't surprise me, because I've seen her make that comment many times.
Then she writes...."If I choose to read or skim over what someone posts it's my business. If I choose not to it's also my business and when I decide to read a post or not is my business."
Kevin, I don't recall seeing you tell her she was not allowed to read my posts, nor do I recall seeing you tell her that she had to read them. Do you see what I mean about her? Just stuff like that, that has nothing to do with anything. She is free to read or not read, whatever she wishes. She gets way too emotional about stuff that wasn't even said.
We were merely discussing how HONEST it is for her to reference things I write, but then claim she doesn't read my posts.
And finally, I HAVE to deal with this one. She says...."Yet Derrick acknowledged in a private question to me about a vile message he spoke about in a post and that the reason he sent the message to me in private was because I may not have read his post."
Yeah, so what? That still doesn't prove that she DOESN'T read my posts....Only that she may not have YET, or may not have read that SPECIFIC post. Just like she hadn't read Rando's post YET, that I questioned her about.
What she said above, is sort of a "loose" paraphrase of what I said. Not completely inaccurate, but not exactly accurate, either. What I really said to her, was....
"I thought about just letting you read it in the forum, but then I thought that if you didn't happen to read the post, then you might not be aware of him."
So, I'm OBVIOUSLY saying that I am sending it to her in Private, JUST IN CASE she hadn't read it, or didn't read that particular post. I believe my opening comment, though, implies my belief that she DOES read my posts....at least some of them. That's why I said "I thought about just letting you read it in the forum"
, but realized that she may not have read that particular post.
And again, the only reason I even contacted her about it, was because the same person wrote to her, as well.
And you know what JUST NOW happened, Kevin? I have 2 tabs open on my computer....The one with your conversation with Ms. T (so I can reference what she said), and the one I am replying to your question in. I have been gradually scrolling down slowly, paragraph by paragraph in the one between you and her, and then typing my reply in the other tab, and I JUST NOW realized there is a "follow-up". Ugh!! All that typing, and there's another one...lol!
But okay, after reading the follow-up questions, I think I am seeing things a little more clearly now.
I see you offering a sincere apology for perhaps mixing things up, and her continuing to be belligerent.
I also see where you addressed the "Private" question you had sent me by mistake, and that I had questioned if you meant for it to be Private....
"I also did not intend for my first apology to be private. I do not send private questions. I had a similar problem with a question that I sent Derrick that turned up as' private'.
He pointed out that my question was marked private and was wondering why."
That is the one from 9/25 that I had referenced earlier. So, I have no problem with verifying that a question from you did come in as "Private", but that you did not intend for it to be sent that way. Yes, that happened....And it was obvious you didn't want it Private, because you mentioned about wanting to share your experience "with the JW community".
So yes, I can vouch for you on that.
She certainly could have been much more gracious in your getting a post confused with something else, and offering an apology for that. Considering how many things THEY get wrong on a daily basis, and almost NEVER apologize for. Does Ms. T REALLY want to talk about all the times she has MISQUOTED me? I don't think she does.
And Kevin, I notice she seems to want you to provide proof that the WT taught that Jesus was worshipped. Check out Richard's post...It contained a wealth of quotes from WT literature.
Here it is....
And yes, the Bible does speak of false accusers....
Exodus 23;1- "Thou shalt not raise a false report: put not thine hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness."
Leviticus 19:16- "Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people:"
Luke 3:14- "And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages."
Romans 1:29-30- "Being filled with all unrighteousness....maliciousness...deceit...malignity....whisperers,
Backbiters....inventors of evil things...."
2 Tim. 3:3- "Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good"
Matthew 5:11- "Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,"
I am not sure if I answered what you wanted me to. I know I probably answered a lot that you didn't ask about. But I hope I also answered what you were asking me. If not, please follow up, and I'll try to help clear this up.
---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------
QUESTION: Thanks Derrick. I was just stupified that she had no idea that the WT published that worship to Jesus was proper at a time. I asked her several different ways about the thought process of the governing body and past presidents regarding how new light works. How could it come from Jehovah ect... I was floored that she taunted me with showing her proof from the WT. She obviously doesn't read Eddies or Richards board or she wouldn't have issued that challenge. I did see her rebuttal of Richard's sheol argument so she reads sometimes like she said.
My apology might have to be withdrawn as I confused rando with Robert King regarding the UN membership . I saw her link that she said she doesn't read your or Roberts board. Funny how she got upset about my comments about a person I left nameless out of respect then calls me a liar for saying I said she doesn't read your board.
My main question to her was about the worship about Jesus. She took it sideways as I often see jws do. I know she is reading this and a public apology is welcomed. After all Eddie had no problem admitting the WT talked about worshipping Jesus in the past. I have a feeling if I showed her the proof she requires she would just belittle me and address other things i didnt ask. The silence from rando is deafening on this topic.
Thanks for your time and if you have any insight about this new light and how they came to believe to no longer worship two gods I'd love to hear it.
Stay strong brother.
Yeah, the fact of the matter is, that is the VERY REASON that this board should have people from very different perspectives. I'm sure you have heard the common JW comment of "If you want to know about JWs, then ask a JW, because nobody knows our history better than we do"
. If I had a nickel for every time I heard that....
The fact is, NOBODY who has studied them, knows LESS about their history than the average JW does. I know that some JWs do know their history, but what has been shown on this very board, is that many of them do not. Again, remember the 1874 thing? Rando didn't know the correct history, and neither did Eddie, until he had to do some research. Just think if no born again Christians who are knowledgeable in the history of this religion, were here. If someone came along and asked a question about 1874, they would have gotten false information. If they asked about the WT once worshipping Jesus, they would have gotten false information.
And they complain about people asking us questions, when half the time they either reject tough questions, insult the questioner for asking them, or just give outright INACCURATE information.
Like you, I was surprised that she issued that challenge, as well. I do believe she reads Eddie's posts, but very possibly missed that particular one.
But Kevin, if she wants proof from the WT, then give it to her....there's certainly plenty of it.
You said..." Funny how she got upset about my comments about a person I left nameless out of respect then calls me a liar for saying I said she doesn't read your board."
Yeah, it sure is. And again, she has said SEVERAL times on this board, that she does not read my posts.
Here's one we referenced earlier, which she said directly to a question I sent to her....
Ms. T: "Here we go again, first as I said I don't read your post."
Ms. T: "With that said I will not read any of your novels about your beliefs, because that's not what this forum, as I incessantly have said is for."
And there have been many more. Again, she is free to read, or not read, whatever she so chooses. That isn't the issue. But why even claim that she doesn't read my posts, and then talk about them? Why not just say that she doesn't read them all, but reads some of them? I mean, I don't read all of hers, either. Unless something catches my eye in them. And then I read them. What's the big deal that she thinks she has to deny reading them?
You said...."I know she is reading this and a public apology is welcomed."
Don't hold your breath, Bro. Its VERY hard for these people to apologize to the likes of us. Their mind has been programmed to actually believe that we are enemies of God and hate them, and this warped mindset gives rise to the very unchristian acts that we see here daily. If they can convince themselves that its "us against them", then they believe that certain tactics are permissible in "theocratic warfare". Its the only way to explain the lies distortions that we see here every day.
You said...."After all Eddie had no problem admitting the WT talked about worshipping Jesus in the past."
I still think you're being most generous to Eddie. I mean, this is the guy who gets nothing correct, and only admitted what he did (after telling you first that it was from "apostates", and had "no merit"), because Richard's post left him with no choice in the matter. Its not like he actually decided to just do the research, because he thought you were deserving of an honest answer.
I'm pretty certain he didn't want to go through another pounding like he did that 1874 debacle. He stuck his neck out for Rando on that one, and that proved to be very embarrassing for him.
You said...."I have a feeling if I showed her the proof she requires she would just belittle me and address other things i didnt ask."
Lol...Now Brother, why would you think that? Just because that's the USUAL course of action, when you give ask them what they can't answer?
Yeah, I'd say that's a pretty safe bet.
You said...."The silence from rando is deafening on this topic."
Yeah, isn't it, though? I don't think Rando wants to go through another 1874 debacle, either. Plus, he has his hands pretty full right now, trying to cover his tracks on 2 forums.
And what, with all the "moving" from country-to-country, that he's doing.
As for their "new light" on the worship of Jesus, I really do not know what prompted the change. Except that their denial of the Trinity and Christ's nature as God, would lead them to a logical conclusion that a created Being should not be worshipped. I actually agree....If Jesus isn't God, then He shouldn't be. But He is, therefore, He should. In fact, the Father Himself is the One Who commanded all the angels in Heaven to worship Jesus, in Hebrews 1:6. And this would certainly include Michael the Archangel, as well. It DOES say "ALL God's angels"
So, I'm not really sure just who came up with the idea of the change of teaching, but it certainly wasn't "new light". It was just one more example of them moving further and further away from giving Jesus the honor that He is worthy of.
Well, I'm sorry again that she strongly implied that you are me. This seems to be a game of theirs. I'll tell you what, though....When she can produce evidence of this, that is anywhere CLOSE, to the evidence that we have seen that Rando is Baptist "expert" Jay Barns, then I'm willing to listen.
Until then, all I can do is say I'm sorry that she created that diversion.
Take care, Kevin, and God bless.