# Concerns about AF, Part 1

[ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by AP [AP] on November 17, 1999 at 08:26:06 {xx2d.1sWpQ0hi4VK0MIQMAe0EfOyQM}:

**NOTE: It is important that you read through all three posts, completely. Points made at one place, are frequently reinforced in another part of the repy, on purpose.**

Below I will address more of AF’s personal attacks, lies and misrepresentations. I have made these points about as clear as they can get, several times, and here I offer additional proof that AF has in fact been less than honest about the Travis posts, my comments about my relationship with Brother Schroeder, and he continues to misunderstand very basic arguments and biblical principles.

I realize that many on this board have a disposition that is agreeable with AF, as many (but not all) here have a strong dislike for the Society. To keep myself from getting involved in any more mud-slinging discussions, which I regret, I will not be replying to any follow-up posts, except for AF’s, if he apologizes. If he does not, then he has not shown himself to be one who is deserving of further consideration. His arguments are fallacious, one-sided and just plain bad in many respects, and he has been dishonest and misleading about a number of issues (see below and my six part reply).

I will receive, review and respond to his forthcoming reply to my six-part reply, but that is all, unless he apologizes for lying and for spreading lies. I realize AF has a lot of pride and that this will be practically impossible for him to do, but that is his problem. The facts are clear, and he has not only shown his one-sidedness in his discussion with me, but with others, also (see below).

In this three-part reply I also address comments made by Gedanken and others. But since I am involved in a number of projects at this time, I cannot keep posting to those who just do not see the point, or who just do not agree with it. I have said what I believe is true, and if the reader does not accept it, fine. Again, I know where I am, and what most of you are about. I am quite comfortable with what has been said thus far, as I believe any thinking person without a bias towards the Society can understand the issues. So, after this three-part post I will respond to AF’s forthcoming reply, and that will be that, unless he apologizes. I am not going to go any further with a dishonest person who only gives out bad arguments, anyway. Why should I?

To set the stage for this discussion, a few related matters will serve nicely for an introduction:

Posted by AF [AF] on November 10, 1999 at 07:09:06 {AAJB0ph6mYDjRmAxB/kMdaOt1gg/Zk}:
In Reply to: ** posted by AP on November 10, 1999 at 06:41:45:
: GREG_1
::: I have something that I will post a bit later that should put matters regarding AF's actions in perspective,
:: AF:
:: Why not just cut out the inflated verbiage and do it when you have what you claim?

: GREG_2
: Well, AF, might that be because I have not yet finished what I have?

: AF_2
Precisely my point. When you speak before you have anything to say, you tend to embarass yourself.

RESPONSE:
It is hard to imagine how one person could miss so many simple points.

I said: “Well, AF, might that be because I have not yet finished what I have?

Somehow, you extrapolated the following from the above: “When you speak before you have anything to say.”

COMPARISON:

GREG: “I have not yet finished what I have”;

AF: “you speak before you have anything to say.”

This shows that even on very basic issues your replies have no logical connection with that to which you are replying. Basically, you recreate the issue and try to make light of others in the process. It is a truly pathetic display of apologetics, and can be found in almost every post you make, as I have previously shown.

In case you do not understand, which is very possible at this point, I said I “have” something to say, but that it was not finished. I wanted the deleted posts that followed my “Introduction” post a few days ago. But YOU took my having something as though it meant not having “anything”! Here is where, if I were you, I would launch a wave of personal attacks against for being an utter idiot on such simple matters, let alone the more complicated ones. But I choose to limit my remarks to what you write, and as much as possible let you embarrass yourself, since you do a far better job at than I could.

: GREG
: Still, I also wanted to focus in on your attempt to get out of this one, and your deceit is quite obvious, I believe, even to your supporters.

: AF
I think that "it" is only obvious to you.

RESPONSE
Is that supposed to be a revelation? Do you think that I thought that you would think anything else?

: GREG
: I will respond to everything you said here, in the post about your lies concerning my relationship with Brother Schroeder.

: AF
Something new has come into the world, then.

RESPONSE
No, it is really only a matter of your accepting the obvious, and showing humility in acknowledging your mistakes. Once you do that, THEN something new indeed will have appeared on the world scene.

: GREG
: You might want to save your insults for then; you will need them to distract others from the real issues.

: AF
If your past performance is any indicator, I'm sure the board will be mightily entertained.
AF

RESPONSE
It is always a bit entertaining to watch someone like yourself avoid facts and key issues, and instead miss the point and attack the person. But it is also, always very unfortunate. Let us proceed, then:

Posted by AF [AF] on November 02, 1999 at 23:09:06 {.c1iAaocfM1EwaxRomAMdaOt1gg/Zk}:
In Reply to: Introduction posted by Greg Stafford on November 02, 1999 at 11:49:18:

: GREG
: I strongly recommend that you read each of the following six responses BEFORE commenting.

: AF
This I have done.

: GREG
: I do not believe has presented a strong case for his claim to have proven deliberate deception on the part of the Society.

: AF_2
We'll have to let readers decide. Since I have some research to do to give a good answer, and my time is more limited than it was, my full response may take a couple of weeks.

RESPONSE
Readers like WW, JH, COMF and others like them, have already decided BEFORE reading anything. Of course, I provided excerpts from my six replies, and no one offered any comment, even though before I did so persons like those whom I previously mentioned, of course, sided with you. Again, when called to explain glaring errors and misquotes in your replies, their silence told the true story. This is primarily an anti-Witness board. Their response, and subsequent refusal to respond to examples, was typical and expected, as are most of yours.

: AF
In the meantime I'll comment that your response was, well, amazing.
Readers should also note that in any kind of historical research, proving deliberate deception in an absolute sense is impossible if the accused has died or refuses to admit it. However, we can apply the rule of "proved to the extent that a reasonable person will accept". This is the method used to convict criminals in court when a confession is lacking - it's a preponderance of evidence.

RESPONSE
Again, this is subjective, and depends on whom YOU consider reasonable. Your argument is inherently circular, since you already assume at the outset that ONLY an unreasonable person would not side with you. That is, if anyone on this board said, “AF, you have not proved such things to a reasonable extent,” your insult-laden reply would certainly not be accepting of that person. What you are doing is presenting your opinion about the Society’s motivation behind what they wrote in the Kingdom and Truth books (and in the Revelation book), and claiming that that opinion of yours is somehow superior to the way others view the situation. This is not something new for you, you have done it with members here on H2O, also:

Posted by Friend [Friend] on November 09, 1999 at 12:45:58 {4Hfg918T5gePXjHnUl.IOgnjR4Br/g}:
In Reply to: **Apology posted by AF on November 09, 1999 at 10:32:51:

AF:
Labeling a pile of words an apology does not make it so.
When Greg gives evidence of being sincere, he'll be taken seriously. Until then it's self-serving damage control. Surely a mature man like you can see this.

FRIEND:
It is your prerogative to take Greg’s words however you so desire. Your views should be respected as your views. I will point out, though, that you labeling his actions here as less than sincere does not make it so. It just makes it your opinion.
What you are attempting here is to read Greg’s motives. You have tried the same with me on past occasions and were wrong. You have even called me dishonest when I know I was/am not dishonest! I know that because better than you I know my own motivations. Whether you agree with them is beside the point.

END OF QUOTE

RESPONSE
Since neither AF nor myself can know for sure what motivated the Society to write certain things at certain times, particularly as it relates to those books that are part of the subject of our debate, his attempt to prove anything is merely his asserting of his opinion as fact. I have several times acknowledged the possibility of his conclusion, but that was NEVER an issue. The issue was what he thought he could prove, but cannot. The fact is, even though he would not allow momentary incompetence on the part of the writer(s), he acknowledged it as one of the possibilities. But having a momentary lapse into incompetence, or just making a terrible mistake, is not in line with AF’s intent to pound the Society. Such momentary incompetence or the potential for a severe error made in relation to a rather complicated situation involving material in what was then a new book, are just as possible as AF’s preferred conclusion, and AF cannot prove anything otherwise. But if you disagree with AF, JH and others of their ilk, then you might as well prepare for the insults and labels of dishonesty.

When AF puts himself in this impossible position, all that is left is for him is to go on and on and on about the very point he can never prove, masking his failure with insults and false conclusions. For examples beyond what I have elsewhere provided, let us consider more of his discussion with Friend:

Posted by Friend [Friend] on November 09, 1999 at 21:09:18 {4Hfg918T5ghxaL3hj3H2OgnjR4Br/g}:
In Reply to: ********Apology posted by AF on November 09, 1999 at 20:26:29:

AF:
I think you don't even know what you're talking about anymore. Just what do you think I'm doing?

FRIEND:
I think you have talked yourself in circles on this thread to the point that you have confused yourself about this issue between us. I don’t care one hoot whether you believe or accept Greg’s apology as genuine. But I do take umbrage at you holding your own conclusions of that genuineness (or not) above other’s conclusions. In so doing you show horrible disrespect to the maturity of other participants here. There are words for that particular habit.

END OF QUOTE

RESPONSE
Keep in mind, please, that Friend has shown respect for AF and his conclusions, and does so again below. But in his above remarks Friend hits the nail on the head: AF puts his opinions above those of others, but more than that he often asserts them as fact, not opinion. Of course, as in the above discussion with Friend, AF also frequently ‘talks himself in circles,’ and I believe that is deliberately done so as to confuse others and keep them from recognizing his faulty argumentation. But that is just my opinion :-) Notice how the dialogue with Friend evolves (NOTE: I have not included every post from their discussion. These can be read below, under my “Apology” post.):

Posted by Friend [Friend] on November 10, 1999 at 06:30:04 {AAJB0ph6mYrRIg7iiOekOgnjR4Br/g}:
In Reply to: **********Apology posted by AF on November 09, 1999 at 23:40:57:

FRIEND: ... But I do take umbrage at you holding your own conclusions of that genuineness (or not) above other’s conclusions. In so doing you show horrible disrespect to the maturity of other participants here. There are words for that particular habit.
AF:
On this I will agree. Of course I hold my conclusions above others' conclusions. Otherwise I would hold their conclusions.

FRIEND:
That is, I believe, a dishonest distortion of what I have said. You know I have not maligned your conclusion regarding Greg.

END OF QUOTE

RESPONSE
AF may “know” that but just as he ‘knew’ about my second Travis post from an email I sent him (see discussion below), he will, as you point out, Friend, dishonestly distort matters nonetheless. Friend continued:

QUOTE

FRIEND:
The aspect of your disposition causing umbrage is your own disrespect of other views of an issue that is subjective to say the least. And you are still showing it.

AF:
I also hope you understand that a good deal of what I've done here is to show by example that JWs don't like in individuals the very characteristics that they laud in the JW organization.

FRIEND:
I do not like arrogance regardless of who or what exhibits it. You should note that while I believe you have exhibited arrogance on this thread I can still honestly think of you as a friend. There is something in that for you to learn.

As for your little comparison between my own perspective of your actions versus the Society’s, you dishonestly leave off one tidy little detail. I have explicitly expressed (to you, repeatedly) that I do not agree with every manner in which the Society asserts their conviction. The same is true with you. And I have acted similarly toward both.
Friend

END OF QUOTE

RESPONSE
So, regardless of the arrogance and further dishonest handling of Friend’s position by AF, Friend is still a “friend.” Friend’s objectivity has been shown in both his acceptance and denial of things I have said, and this last observation of his about AF’s behavior, since it is right in line with the things I have seen and continue to see, from AF, in relation to what the Society has written. Let’s take am even closer look at AF’s disposition, as characterized by Friend:

Posted by Friend [Friend] on November 09, 1999 at 15:21:14 {4Hfg918T5ghxaL3hj3H2OgnjR4Br/g}:
In Reply to: ****Apology posted by AF on November 09, 1999 at 13:50:26:

FRIEND:
I can see that you only have regard for your own views. It is fine that you hold your own views in regard (I do the same thing), but holding the views of others with such disrespect as you are here demonstrates bigotry. Unfortunately you hold your own views of Greg’s apology in deference compared to others holding dissimilar views. Fortunately there are others who can say that they respect your views even though they disagree with them. One day maybe you can so same.
Friend

END OF QUOTE

RESPONSE
Therein lies the heart of the matter. Even though I have strong disagreements with AF’s illogical arguments, his disrespect for others and his “bigotry,” I have several times acknowledged good points from his perspective, but I just do not believe those “good points” support his ultimate conclusion. In my book I also acknowledge good points found in the arguments of those who disagree with me, such as Lynn Lundquist, Dan Wallace, and others. I have also acknowledged some shortcomings in part of the Society’s views, such as the extent to which they use the divine name in the NT, the age of those who should be accepted as anointed, and on some matters of translation. No one is perfect, and the defense or attack of a particular view should be objective. I don’t see this objectivity from AF.

Recall that AF said:

Posted by AF [AF] on November 02, 1999 at 23:09:06 {.c1iAaocfM1EwaxRomAMdaOt1gg/Zk}:
In Reply to: Introduction posted by Greg Stafford on November 02, 1999 at 11:49:18:

: AF
In the meantime I'll comment that your response was, well, amazing.
Readers should also note that in any kind of historical research, proving deliberate deception in an absolute sense is impossible if the accused has died or refuses to admit it. However, we can apply the rule of "proved to the extent that a reasonable person will accept". This is the method used to convict criminals in court when a confession is lacking - it's a preponderance of evidence.

END OF QUOTE

RESPONSE

I find it very interesting that you here invoke that which is used in a court of law when 1) we are not in a court of law, and 2) you yourself said:

Posted by AF [AF] on November 08, 1999 at 11:54:14 {Nq8EnQ8RVADjRmAxB/kMdaOt1gg/Zk}:
In Reply to: AF's "Witnesses" posted by GregStafford on November 08, 1999 at 07:54:49:

. . . [MATERIAL DELETED THAT WILL BE CONSIDERED IN FULL, BELOW]

Now let’s deal with your frothy objections to my use of the Biblical “two witnesses” theme. I’m not going to include much of the previous posts because it clutters things up, it bores most readers, and all of it is easily available by browsing the appropriate posts. You took issue with my statement,
I now have the testimony of two independent sources that my statement was correct. Have you ever heard of "at the mouth of two witnesses let every matter be established"?
Since you’re not on trial – after all, this is just a discussion board where we all freely choose to participate or not – my application clearly is to me and only me.

END OF QUOTE

RESPONSE
I will explain what you do not understand about what you say above, below. But here you deny the courtroom setting for discussion of issues that you placed in the setting of “two or more witnesses,” because of the problem that such a setting would present for you, and your misuse of a simple biblical principle that does in fact relate to trial issues.

On the one hand, when you are attacking the Society, you want to invoke principles used in a court of law, but on the other hand, when you yourself misuse legal, biblical principles relating to the trial of persons, then all of a sudden we are not in court and your misuse of the “two witnesses” can be excused. We will revisit this matter again, below. But your hypocrisy is duly noted.

:AF
I will also warn readers that Greg has used a number of questionable methods to sidestep direct questions and avoid giving answers. Instead he often writes a flurry of words, apparently thinking to confuse the reader with his eloquence, but no answer can be found within. Several people have already commented on this under "Part One".

RESPONSE
There were no credible examples given. Indeed, several of them were corrected by Cygnus and others, since those posting did not have an accurate view of my objection to your claims, as it relates to the views of the Society (such as who can be saved). Of course, I have several times reposted examples of your misquotes and false analogies. Since you offer no examples yourself, only “a flurry of words, apparently thinking to confuse the reader,” I have nothing else to say, here. When you actually give evidence to back up what you say, then I can comment. But you rarely do this, and I usually comment anyway, so others are not confused into thinking that you actually did say something relevant.

: GREG
: I also believe he has misquoted my first edition, and some of the Society's literature,

: AF
Interested readers will note that Greg makes this claim a number of times in his responses, but does not actually show where I've supposedly misquoted anything. Instead he uses innuendo and insinuation. Of course, we see this regularly from JW defenders. "It's all lies" they shout, but rarely can they give a specific example.

RESPONSE
That is a lie, plain and simple. I gave examples in my six replies, and I even reposted some of them in my “Enter Reality” post, to which you gave no critical reply whatsoever, and neither did any of your supporters. Indeed, I invite the “interested readers” to take a look at my “Enter Reality” post, and look at the initial replies by AF, JH and Gedanken. I believe what you read there will tell you more than you need to know. But, AF, since the examples I there gave were obviously too much for you to explain, I will make it simple for you. Instead of giving several examples, as I did in my six replies, and again in my “Enter Reality” post, here I will just give you one. Surely you can spare the time to explain yourself:

FROM PART TWO, OF MY SECOND REPLY TO AF

ALAN_2
:: In fact, your own argument presented on page 281of JWD1, along with the above Watchtower quote, proves that Watchtower leaders do in fact claim for themselves something far beyond a good ability to understand the Scriptures - for all practical purposes they claim inspiration. Here's what you wrote:
It cannot truthfully be said that to be inspired by God to produce flawless information is the same as being guided or lead [sic] by a flawless source, whether that source be the Scriptures or an angel sent by God. Why? Because in the former case the person is taken over by God, given a vision, revelation (sometimes in a dream), or put into a trance. The person then receives God's thoughts and will, which are then channeled through the individual, providing information he or she would otherwise not have known. However, in the latter case one could simply misunderstand or ignore the directions given, which would make the accuracy of what they do or say dependent upon whether or not they correctly understood the inspired source.
Note the bolded phrase above: "providing information he or she would otherwise not have known". An inspired person certainly receives such information. Conversely, anyone who receives such information is inspired.

GREG_2
It is hard to imagine how you could read the above, and even quote it for all to see, and then offer such a horribly inaccurate conclusion. Alan, were my remarks on what constitutes an inspired person limited to receiving “information he or she would otherwise not have known”? It is so transparently obvious from the above quote from my book that what constitutes an inspired person is one who “is taken over by God, given a vision, revelation (sometimes in a dream), or put into a trance.” So, you have not followed the simply logic of what I wrote, which would be, “anyone who is taken over by God, given a vision, revelation (sometimes in a dream), or put into a trance, and who under such conditions receives information he or she would otherwise not have known, is inspired.”

Notice also how the end of the bolded portion of your quotation of my book connects with the next sentence: “The person THEN receives God's thoughts and will, which are then channeled through the individual, providing information he or she would otherwise not have known.” You are so hopelessly out of touch with my arguments that I regret having spent five minutes going over this with you.

END OF QUOTE

RESPONSE
Since I am the author of the book you misquoted, I would very much like to hear your explanation of your terrible misuse of my book. Again, MANY other, similar examples can be and have been given.

: GREG
: and presented extremely one-sided opinions as if they were established facts.

: AF
That is a matter of opinion.

RESPONSE
What else did you think I thought it was? I am not the one who confuses his opinions with facts. YOU are, as even others on this board have observed.

: GREG
: In addition to viewing assumptions and opinions as facts, he has also presented hearsay as fact.

: AF
That's not quite true. Let's see:

RESPONSE
Not “quite” true? Is it partly correct, then? Just what do you mean, AF?

: GREG
: Consider what he wrote on H2O back on 10-18-99:

QUOTE

:: ... Greg has a personal relationship with Albert Schroeder, and I've been told that he clears his manuscripts with Schroeder before publishing them. Schroeder, of course, has long been known for setting forth his own opinions without getting the approval of the rest of the GB, but his long-standing position and unquestioned loyalty to the Society protects him. While I wouldn't describe Greg as a protege of Schroeder, their relationship gives him a measure of protection.
AF

END OF QUOTE

: AF
I'll admit that my wording was poor, but it should be obvious that what I meant was this: "I've been told that Greg has a personal relationship with Albert Schroeder, and that he clears his manuscripts with Schroeder before publishing them."

RESPONSE
Once again, AF changes his story. He has had to do this several times on a variety of issues, and each time he claims he did not really mean what he said, and he then proceeds to reword his comments so that he ends up claiming something entirely different. But in the process he tries to make you think he has claimed this new view all along.

COMPARE:

AF_1: Greg has a personal relationship with Albert Schroeder.

AF_2: I've been told that Greg has a personal relationship with Albert Schroeder.

You may also notice that he separates his claim in AF_1 above from what others have told him, namely, “that he [Greg] clears his manuscripts with Schroeder before publishing them.” He did not include what is provided after AF_1 above in what ‘others have told him.’ Of course, now he does. AF also claimed that “their relationship gives him [Greg] a measure of protection.” This is also completely false, as I will explain below.

: AF
The statement about Schroeder is well known among Bethelites and is documented by Raymond Franz in Crisis of Conscience. If you want to label that as hearsay, then take it up with the Bethel community and Franz. Note that hearsay evidence is not necessarily bad evidence.

RESPONSE
I have nothing to say about the comments relating to Schroeder “setting forth his own opinions without getting the approval of the rest of the GB.”

: AF
My last statement is obviously an opinion, not a statement that I could prove as an established fact. Do keep in mind that my comments were a hurriedly written, informal response to a question, not a studied response suitable for publication in a refereed journal.

RESPONSE
I think we all realize that, AF. But what is written on boards like this is often spread as fact, since few anti-Witnesses on this board do any real investigation of their own, PRIOR to spreading the hearsay. HOWEVER, since you were not very forgiving to my “hurriedly written, informal response” to a situation concerning my future participation on this board, then you will get little sympathy from me. You have spread lies and falsehoods about me, and all you keep trying to do is justify yourself. You should just apologize, as I did. Of course, you are responsible for deliberate lies and spreading lies, which is a much bigger issue than mine (which you also misrepresented [see below]).

: AF
I assume you know that there are differences in styles of writing for various audiences, which require different standards of documentation.

RESPONSE
Yes, I do. But that does not really excuse a person from spreading lies and misinformation about someone, when that someone is readily available for comment. The different “styles” of writing have nothing to do with this. If that “style” of writing misleads people with false information, it does not matter where or how it is presented. Again, this another terrible attempt to excuse your wrong doing.

END OF PART ONE

Follow Ups:

- *Concerns about AF, Part 1 WorldlyWitness 19:33:25 11/17/99 (0)
- *Concerns about AF, Part 1 Rick 15:28:53 11/17/99 (1)
  - **Concerns about AF, Part 1 Farkel 21:49:27 11/17/99 (0)
- *Concerns about AF, Part 1 Cygnus 14:07:20 11/17/99 (0)
- *Concerns about AF, Part 1 Ernest 09:07:55 11/17/99 (2)
  - **Concerns about AF, Part 1 Gedanken 09:27:16 11/17/99 (1)
    - ***Concerns about AF, Part 1 Gedanken 09:32:08 11/17/99 (0)
- *Concerns about AF, Part 1 Farkel 09:03:48 11/17/99 (1)
  - **Concerns about AF, Part 1 Lobo 11:52:18 11/17/99 (0)
- *Concerns about AF, Part 1 Mod101 08:54:54 11/17/99 (0)
- *Concerns about AF, Part 1 Beaver 08:46:20 11/17/99 (5)
  - **Concerns about AF, Part 1 AP 08:55:48 11/17/99 (4)
    - ***Concerns about AF, Part 1 Please explain 12:13:30 11/17/99 (1)
      - ****Concerns about AF, Part 1 JF 13:25:44 11/17/99 (0)
    - ***Concerns about AF, Part 1 Beaver 11:27:49 11/17/99 (0)
    - ***Concerns about AF, Part 1 UJustLiedAgain! 10:14:49 11/17/99 (0)

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject: *Concerns about AF, Part 1

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ FAQ ]