acrobat a.k.a. Marvin Shilmer

acrobat a.k.a. Marvin Shilmer

Posted in the Jehovah's Witness Forum

First Prev
of 14
Next Last

“the truth will set you free...”

Since: Nov 10

Spring, TX

#1 Nov 11, 2012
"Nope, sorry, not me! 100% in active attending you name it, that's me.:)"

Another apostate that attends meetings...

Do you sing songs, pray, give talks and go out in service?

This is no different than an atheist that goes to mass and eats wafers every Sunday.

How many of those do you know?

These types of weirdos are either compulsive liars or are legally insane.
Lol

United States

#2 Nov 11, 2012
Dream-weaver wrote:
"Nope, sorry, not me! 100% in active attending you name it, that's me.:)"
Another apostate that attends meetings...
Do you sing songs, pray, give talks and go out in service?
This is no different than an atheist that goes to mass and eats wafers every Sunday.
How many of those do you know?
These types of weirdos are either compulsive liars or are legally insane.
The ones I find to be insane weirdos are the ones spewing nasty, lewd language in defense of the JW's. Who do they think they are kidding when real JW's would cross the street to get away from them for fear of coming into contact with "bad association".

There are several of those on this forum.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#3 Nov 11, 2012
Oh wow, a thread devoted to me!:)

Or, wait..who is Marvin Shilmer? Is that the fellow with the blog?

Sorry to disappoint again, but not me.

And herein lies the biggest source of frustration for these apostates, exJWs, nonJWs and fringe lunatics like DruggyWeaver who revile me:

THEY HAVE NOTHING ON ME

Unlike them, I've never

been disfellowshipped
been reproved
been divorced
committed adultery or fornication
taken illicit drugs
drunk myself silly
been charged criminally
committed any crimes
accused of any crimes
openly reviled my true brothers
missed meetings or service unless bedridden and even then did a call in
been on other internet forums reviling
done anything to bring reproach on God or his organization

All this..stuff..that they are so guilty of themselves and they like to entrap others with because others were foolish enough to give out their personal information - they can never do to me!

I'm basically untouchable, my track record unimpeachable, and it irritates them to no end!

So now Dreamweaver, because I've thoroughly outed her to be the patent fraud she is, is furious and creates a thread dedicated to me.

Is this a sign that I've "made it" on this forum?:)
Lol

United States

#4 Nov 11, 2012
And, of course, the self-proclaimed JW's on here who pat them on te bac for their support. Weird.
MAMMON

United States

#6 Nov 11, 2012
I've done everything on that list and then some. I even use to let the air out of the tires when I was little on Friday night so we wouldn't have to go out in service Saturday. That was a hell of an ass beating when I got caught on that one.
Lol

United States

#7 Nov 11, 2012
Dream-weaver wrote:
"And herein lies the biggest source of frustration for these apostates, exJWs, nonJWs
Unlike them, I've never
been disfellowshipped
been reproved
been divorced
committed adultery or fornication
taken illicit drugs
drunk myself silly
been charged criminally
committed any crimes
accused of any crimes
openly reviled my true brothers
missed meetings or service unless bedridden and even then did a call in
been on other internet forums reviling
done anything to bring reproach on God or his organization"
So you say... But then again, you're simply an anonymous cyberghost. There's the burden of proof.
If you were to devulge your ideas into the congregation, sooner or later you'd be disfellowshipped. I know you don't attend meetings. There would be no point. It would be nothing but a ritualistic burden. You've lied about everyting else. Who knows who you are. For all we know, you were arrested for paying human traffickers for their services.
Geez!

And for all we know, you are one of the pedophiles hiding in the congregation!

Speculation must be a hobby of yours, huh?

“Surprised By Love”

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#8 Nov 11, 2012
TPMP thought Acrobat was me, now Dream-Weaver thinks Acrobat is Shilmer. What is it about you people that you are so paranoid and delusional?
MAMMON

United States

#9 Nov 11, 2012
much happier now wrote:
TPMP thought Acrobat was me, now Dream-Weaver thinks Acrobat is Shilmer. What is it about you people that you are so paranoid and delusional?
Its been my experience here in Topix land that those that scream people have multiple accounts are those that have multiple accounts themselves.

“Bustin' Myths”

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

#10 Nov 11, 2012
Lol wrote:
<quoted text>
Geez!
And for all we know, you are one of the pedophiles hiding in the congregation!
Speculation must be a hobby of yours, huh?
Why do they think they can lie and get away with it. The cold hearted bitch has been caught in a lie so many times, you think she would have learned not to keep lying already.

Here is where the cold hearted bitch, aka alice.in.wonderland, aka dw, aka christ illusion, aka too many to mention, admits to being disfellowshipped.

http://tinyurl.com/b48y2b8

Last post on the page. In fact, the entire thread is a comedy of errors committed by the CHB!

“New one man.”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#11 Nov 11, 2012
acrobat wrote:
Oh wow, a thread devoted to me!:)

Or, wait..who is Marvin Shilmer? Is that the fellow with the blog?

Sorry to disappoint again, but not me.

And herein lies the biggest source of frustration for these apostates, exJWs, nonJWs and fringe lunatics like DruggyWeaver who revile me:

THEY HAVE NOTHING ON ME

Unlike them, I've never

been disfellowshipped
been reproved
been divorced
committed adultery or fornication
taken illicit drugs
drunk myself silly
been charged criminally
committed any crimes
accused of any crimes
openly reviled my true brothers
missed meetings or service unless bedridden and even then did a call in
been on other internet forums reviling
done anything to bring reproach on God or his organization

All this..stuff..that they are so guilty of themselves and they like to entrap others with because others were foolish enough to give out their personal information - they can never do to me!

I'm basically untouchable, my track record unimpeachable, and it irritates them to no end!

So now Dreamweaver, because I've thoroughly outed her to be the patent fraud she is, is furious and creates a thread dedicated to me.

Is this a sign that I've "made it" on this forum?:)
You are in like Flint! Haha.

“New one man.”

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#12 Nov 11, 2012
much happier now wrote:
TPMP thought Acrobat was me, now Dream-Weaver thinks Acrobat is Shilmer. What is it about you people that you are so paranoid and delusional?
I think it's that they can't comprehend that so many people would agree about them, it has to be just one or two people surely. So I am about 11 different people now acro is two or three it changes daily. Whomever is the biggest thorn in their side at the time gets accused.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#13 Nov 11, 2012
Dream-weaver wrote:
So you say... But then again, you're simply an anonymous cyberghost.
Are you saying that I'm lying? Do you have proof otherwise? Everything I've let out about my personal life has been consistent, and can stand scrutiny by real brothers and sisters. You aren't one, period, so I owe you no evidence, period.
Dream-weaver wrote:
There's the burden of proof.
If you don't have proof otherwise, my reputation stands.
Dream-weaver wrote:
If you were to devulge your ideas into the congregation, sooner or later you'd be disfellowshipped.
Wait, what? The only "ideas" I have that differ from anything anyone remotely considered a real JW on this board has said, is whether or not elders should report child abuse. And you know what? In my capacity I actually *have* expressed that opinion to other elders, and actually *have* acted on it. Without any repercussion. Of course I haven't "devulged (sic) these ideas into the congregation", because those are judicial committee matters and are on a case by case basis, and we decidedly do not divulge every last detail of such matters "into the congregation". Are you this far removed from the truth that you don't know this??
Dream-weaver wrote:
I know you don't attend meetings. There would be no point. It would be nothing but a ritualistic burden.
Well your first sentence is a hoot, because you don't know squat about much, not to mention me, but I'll play along. Why would there be no point? I don't see meetings as a ritualistic burden. Is this why you left the congregation, because of this feeling of yours?
Dream-weaver wrote:
You've lied about everyting else. Who knows who you are. For all we know, you were arrested for paying human traffickers for their services.
What "everything else" did I lie about myself, exactly?

And is the human trafficking the only other thing you've done that I *didn't list, so this is why you've listed it? Are there any other criminal acts or enterprises that you've been involved with that I missed listing?

And for the life of me, I can't figure out why the average law abiding Witness would be "paying human traffickers for their services" - what services? Do you mean trafficking of people in or out of the country? What for? This wild stuff you dream up (or have possibly done, I guess) is a bit outside my normal realm of thought so you'll have to enlighten me a bit here.

“the truth will set you free...”

Since: Nov 10

Spring, TX

#14 Nov 11, 2012
Mythbusters wrote:
<quoted text>Why do they think they can lie and get away with it. The cold hearted bitch has been caught in a lie so many times, you think she would have learned not to keep lying already.

Here is where the cold hearted bitch, aka alice.in.wonderland, aka dw, aka christ illusion, aka too many to mention, admits to being disfellowshipped.

http://tinyurl.com/b48y2b8

Last post on the page. In fact, the entire thread is a comedy of errors committed by the CHB!
I was restated in 1996 when I twenty-one unlike the losers on that forum who feign their suicidal because they were disfellowshipped for committing adultery and wrecking their family. They got what they deserved.

That's why I don't use that forum. The idiots that sulk like a two year old have about as backbone as a slug.

“the truth will set you free...”

Since: Nov 10

Houston, TX

#16 Nov 11, 2012
acrobat wrote:
Wait, what? The only "ideas" I have that differ from anything anyone remotely considered a real JW on this board has said, is whether or not elders should report child abuse. And you know what? In my capacity I actually *have* expressed that opinion to other elders, and actually *have* acted on it. Without any repercussion. Of course I haven't "devulged (sic) these ideas into the congregation", because those are judicial committee matters and are on a case by case basis, and we decidedly do not divulge every last detail of such matters "into the congregation". Are you this far removed from the truth that you don't know this??
The elders have always been instructed to comply with the law. The fact that you're attacking Jehovah's Witnesses on this indicates you are a treacherous liar just like the other fools that make these types accusations and no, you don't go to the meetings. You never told the elders anything and even if you did they would simply direct you to official documentation.

http://www.jw-media.org/aboutjw/article23.htm

The latest letter to the BOE takes Jehovah's Witnesses child protection policy to a new level.

The letter October 1, 2012 letter can be read here:

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6rfWhSuXYnnN...

The legal department is to determine if an elder is a mandated reporter:

Paragraph 4: Most states have child-abuse reporting laws that, depending on the facts, mandate elders to report an accusation to the authorities. Thus, when elders learn of an accusation of child abuse, two elders from their congregation should immediately call the Legal Department for legal advice. If the individuals involved are in different congregations, each body of elders should arrange for two of their elders to call the Legal Department. A call should be made even when both persons involved in sexual misconduct are minors. The elders should not ask an alleged victim, the accused person, or relatives of the victim or accused to call the Legal Department. The elders should call the Legal Department even in the following situations:

The alleged abuse occurred many years ago.
The alleged abuse is based on the testimony of only one witness.
The alleged abuse is believed to be a repressed memory.
The alleged abuse involved perpetrators or victims who are deceased.
The alleged abuse is believed to have already been reported to the authorities by someone.
The alleged perpetrator or victim is no longer a member of the congregation.
The alleged abuse occurred before the alleged perpetrator or victim was baptized.
The alleged victim is now an adult.
The alleged abuse occurred in the past, and you are not certain whether the elders involved at the time called the Legal Department for direction.

“the truth will set you free...”

Since: Nov 10

Houston, TX

#18 Nov 11, 2012
Ninety-nine percent of the time, it’s adults with first hand knowledge, adults that are eyewitnesses, adults that are primarily responsible for making a report to the authorities that tell things to the elders. For example, note the following in the transcript of the Candace Conti case (jury trial day 2):

Mr. Schnack: And you said you did not report it to the police when she told you?

Evelyn Kendrick: Not initially.

Mr. Schnack: Okay. Why not?

Evelyn Kendrick: I thought it was an isolated incident. I thought maybe because he had been drinking. I wanted to try to save my marriage. And so I called the elders instead thinking that they could help us out.

Mr. Schnack: Did you call the elders in July of '93 or did you wait until November?

Evelyn Kendrick: I think I might have waited a bit.

Mr. Schnack: And, again, you were trying to deal with it within the family?

Evelyn Kendrick: Yes.

That's why paragraph 10 of the new letter states the following;

10. Regardless of whether the law requires the elders to report an accusation to the authorities, steps need to be taken to protect children. Elders should help the parents of the children involved to understand that they have the primary responsibility for protecting their children. Obviously, such parents will be keenly interested in taking precautions in this regard. Our publications contain helpful information on how parents can protect their children.—w10 11/1 p. 13; w08 10/1 p. 21; g 10/07 pp. 3-11; lr pp. 170-171; g03 2/8 p. 9; g99 4/8 pp. 9, 11; g97 4/8 p. 14; w96 12/1 pp. 13-14; fy pp. 61-62; g93 10/8 pp. 5-13.

The way laws are evolving, states are beginning to abolish any distinction between a “professional” and other adults when it comes to a legal responsibility to report child abuse. That’s the way it should be anyway.

http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_p...

In approximately 18 States and Puerto Rico, any person who suspects child abuse or neglect is required to report. Of these 18 States, 16 States and Puerto Rico specify certain professionals who must report but also require all persons to report suspected abuse or neglect, regardless of profession. New Jersey and Wyoming require all persons to report without specifying any professions. In all other States, territories, and the District of Columbia, any person is permitted to report. These voluntary reporters of abuse are often referred to as “permissive reporters.”

The elders are simply laymen that volunteer their time on a limited basis to the congregation. They’re not “professionals.” Unless, an elder is a witness to something, there’s nothing that distinguishes them from other adults when it comes to collaborating with the authorities. Evelyn Kendrick was a witness to an accusation from her daughter and confession from her husband four months before the elders were told anything.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#19 Nov 11, 2012
Dream-weaver wrote:
<quoted text>
The elders have always been instructed to comply with the law.
No they haven't. You're dead wrong.
Dream-weaver wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact that you're attacking Jehovah's Witnesses on this indicates you are a treacherous liar just like the other fools that make these types accusations and no, you don't go to the meetings.
The only liar here is you. I have physical copies of every directive from the GB. You do not. You get your information from the internet, from apostates who have leaked these, no less.
Dream-weaver wrote:
<quoted text>
The latest letter to the BOE takes Jehovah's Witnesses child protection policy to a new level.
The letter October 1, 2012 letter can be read here:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6rfWhSuXYnnN...
Again, you serpent and viper, why are you publishing confidential letters to the bodies of elders? You should be ashamed of yourself.

The letter is proof of nothing other than that the former policies were horribly misguided and that too many elders needed to have it spelled out for them, because they were not carrying out their obligations properly.

You have no clue what you're talking about. All you can do is quote from apostate leaks. You don't have the actual physical letter, and I do. Who's the treacherous one now, hmm?

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#20 Nov 11, 2012
Dream-weaver wrote:
The elders are simply laymen that volunteer their time on a limited basis to the congregation. They’re not “professionals.” Unless, an elder is a witness to something, there’s nothing that distinguishes them from other adults when it comes to collaborating with the authorities. Evelyn Kendrick was a witness to an accusation from her daughter and confession from her husband four months before the elders were told anything.
So your assertion is that the policy was fine all along, but now because of the way the "law is evolving", elders should report?

So the policy is changing because of Caesar's laws changing?

You're so far in over your head in this it's not even funny. You can't even construct a scriptural or spiritual argument, much less a logical one.

Tell me something: are you disfellowshipped, or not?
Lol

Phoenix, AZ

#21 Nov 11, 2012
acrobat wrote:
Oh wow, a thread devoted to me!:)
Or, wait..who is Marvin Shilmer? Is that the fellow with the blog?
Sorry to disappoint again, but not me.
And herein lies the biggest source of frustration for these apostates, exJWs, nonJWs and fringe lunatics like DruggyWeaver who revile me:
THEY HAVE NOTHING ON ME
Unlike them, I've never
been disfellowshipped
been reproved
been divorced
committed adultery or fornication
taken illicit drugs
drunk myself silly
been charged criminally
committed any crimes
accused of any crimes
openly reviled my true brothers
missed meetings or service unless bedridden and even then did a call in
been on other internet forums reviling
done anything to bring reproach on God or his organization
All this..stuff..that they are so guilty of themselves and they like to entrap others with because others were foolish enough to give out their personal information - they can never do to me!
I'm basically untouchable, my track record unimpeachable, and it irritates them to no end!
So now Dreamweaver, because I've thoroughly outed her to be the patent fraud she is, is furious and creates a thread dedicated to me.
Is this a sign that I've "made it" on this forum?:)
I just have a couple questions, you say "openly reviled my true brothers" How about not so openly and how do you decide if they are true brothers or not? also, how does a third generation Witness end up with a nonJW wife?

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#22 Nov 11, 2012
Lol wrote:
<quoted text>
I just have a couple questions, you say "openly reviled my true brothers" How about not so openly and how do you decide if they are true brothers or not? also, how does a third generation Witness end up with a nonJW wife?
I'm not sure what your first question is asking; are you asking if it would be ok to "not so openly" revile someone?

As for "true brothers", it's fairly plain to see, even in this little microcosm of the universe, who are bearing fruits that identify them clearly as one of JWs. Having said that, it wasn't my intention to draw a line between "true brothers" or "false brothers" in terms of who it would be acceptable or unacceptable to revile. I was merely using that as an example of the many things that faux JWs like Dreamweaver does, and yet has the nerve to call me an apostate. Truly, I don't believe that reviling - anyone - has a place in the new personality. However, if necessary, sometimes a scripturally based rebuke is in order. Especially if that one is bringing reproach.

I'm puzzled by your last sentence, though..it's partially correct but are you sure you aren't mixing me up with someone else?
Lol

Phoenix, AZ

#23 Nov 11, 2012
acrobat wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not sure what your first question is asking; are you asking if it would be ok to "not so openly" revile someone?
As for "true brothers", it's fairly plain to see, even in this little microcosm of the universe, who are bearing fruits that identify them clearly as one of JWs. Having said that, it wasn't my intention to draw a line between "true brothers" or "false brothers" in terms of who it would be acceptable or unacceptable to revile. I was merely using that as an example of the many things that faux JWs like Dreamweaver does, and yet has the nerve to call me an apostate. Truly, I don't believe that reviling - anyone - has a place in the new personality. However, if necessary, sometimes a scripturally based rebuke is in order. Especially if that one is bringing reproach.
I'm puzzled by your last sentence, though..it's partially correct but are you sure you aren't mixing me up with someone else?
Oh sorry, you said you don't openly revile your true brothers, i'm just asking do you secretly revile them (not openly)? And true or false, i mean you don't really sound like the Witnesses I know.

then you said on another thread that your grandparents were Witnesses but your wife is not. How does that happen? don't true Witnesses mary other Witnesses?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 14
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Jehovah's Witness Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The souls of those executed for the witness the... 2 min dlmacoop 42
Equal to God! 5 min rsss1 266
YES- People WILL get OUT of HELL! (Nov '15) 6 min Seentheotherside 4,674
Let's try this again, 144,000 ONLY? No jw has b... 10 min Jparkh81 3,186
New Today music thread 14 min Alank 1,813
"The soldier knew what he signed for" so said T... 19 min Alank 131
Who goes to heaven? 21 min pcloadletter 76
More from around the web