Was Olin Moyle treated fairly by the Jehovah's Witnesses?

Posted in the Jehovah's Witness Forum

First Prev
of 4
Next Last

“Mystical Atheism for everyone!”

Since: Nov 08

El Cerrito California

#1 Apr 30, 2010
This is from the book "The Discoveries of Barbara Anderson" which can be found at http://www.archive.org :

"Before and during the time of the Moyle trial, Kelly and Reusch were closely associated with the Watchtower Society. They told me they had been curious to see how the author of the history book would present this most egregious episode where Watchtower leaders, specifically Rutherford, libeled their own in-house Witness attorney in the Watchtower magazine.

According to the trial transcript, Moyle‘s problems began after he wrote a personal letter to Rutherford in which he expressed his aversion to Rutherford‘s excessive drinking and extremely abusive behavior to others, behavior which he personally observed and heard complaints about.

And Arthur Worsley, a long-time Bethel staff member well-known to Kelly and Reusch, was one of the people who complained to Moyle about the indignities heaped upon him by Rutherford.

Rutherford was so incensed by Moyle‘s criticisms he dismissed Moyle and his wife from Bethel and placed their personal effects out on the sidewalk. Moyle was shocked by the treatment but the facts show he did not retaliate in any way. Not content with throwing Moyle out of Bethel, Rutherford and his associates viciously maligned the man‘s character in the Watchtower magazine, leading Moyle to file a libel complaint against all parties responsible.

I brought up the name of Arthur Worsley to Kelly and Reusch. We discussed Arthur‘s part in the Moyle trial and both men agreed Arthur testified falsely during direct examination. I told them, after reading the Moyle transcript, I spoke with Arthur, a good friend, about his testimony for the Watchtower defense. Olin Moyle alleged that one morning in the Bethel dining room Arthur had been unjustifiably publicly denounced without cause by Rutherford. Arthur complained to Moyle how humiliating the incident had been. However, in court Arthur said he thought Rutherford was justified in denouncing him for his actions.

He said the scolding wasn‘t out of order and, much to Moyle‘s amazement, Arthur said he did not complain to anybody.

Yet, Arthur told us about the dining room incident and condemned Rutherford for humiliating him. We also discussed why he testified under oath that he never heard any filthy language at the Bethel table, or why he denied that liquor was glorified at the table, when, in fact, he told us the opposite.

Clearly upset, Arthur sadly replied that Rutherford would have dismissed him from Bethel if his testimony had substantiated Moyle‘s allegations. And because he had nowhere else to go, he lied to the court.

No matter, after listening to extensive testimony, the court decided Rutherford and other Watchtower officials were guilty of libel. Arthur told us that Watchtower officials were so angry with Moyle they paid him the $30,000 damages he was awarded in silver coin, thereby labeling him a .Judas.."
WIZARD

Maryville, TN

#2 Apr 30, 2010
Olin Moyle was an honorable man for standing up against the satanic Watchtower Society's leaders.

“YOUR WT OVERLORD”

Since: Dec 06

Putingrad

#3 Apr 30, 2010
Grandpasmurf952 wrote:
...Watchtower leaders, specifically Rutherford, libeled their own in-house Witness attorney in the Watchtower magazine...Rutherford and his associates viciously maligned the man‘s character in the Watchtower magazine
As far as I can see from both Moyle's letter and Rutherford's comments in the WT, what you call "viciously maligning" seems to me to be no more than returning petty insult for a handful of unsubstantiated claims.

http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...
abrother

Milan, MI

#4 Apr 30, 2010
Moyle wrote a stupid letter to Rutherford and left it on a counter. Tt seems that Moyle was not man enough to approach Rutherford with thse so-call problems.

“Mystical Atheism for everyone!”

Since: Nov 08

El Cerrito California

#5 May 1, 2010
FH Chandler wrote:
<quoted text>
As far as I can see from both Moyle's letter and Rutherford's comments in the WT, what you call "viciously maligning" seems to me to be no more than returning petty insult for a handful of unsubstantiated claims.
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/jehovahs-...
I did not write the article. I just cut and pasted it from archive.org as indicated.

While I had nothing to do with writing the article I posted it in an attempt to show that the people running this organization are victims of the conditional love that is all they know.

The Jury did not agree with your assessment of Rutherford's claims.

I found it somewhat amusing that Rutherford payed the 30,000 dollar judgment in silver in expressing Rutherford's anger and implying that Moyle's actions were as Judas, treacherous to the organization.

This attitude is still within the big guys at the top of your organization today as evidenced by the many victims of sexual predators who are maligned while any who risk going forward with grievances are disfellowshipped!

“Mystical Atheism for everyone!”

Since: Nov 08

El Cerrito California

#6 May 1, 2010
abrother wrote:
Moyle wrote a stupid letter to Rutherford and left it on a counter. Tt seems that Moyle was not man enough to approach Rutherford with thse so-call problems.
Do you suppose if he were alive today that he would be man enough to register on topix and share a little bit about himself or would he hide with the rest of the greys out of fear of being disfellowshipped?
abrother

Grand Haven, MI

#7 May 1, 2010
Grandpasmurf952 wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you suppose if he were alive today that he would be man enough to register on topix and share a little bit about himself or would he hide with the rest of the greys out of fear of being disfellowshipped?
Are talking about Moyle?
abrother

Grand Haven, MI

#8 May 1, 2010
Grandpasmurf952 wrote:
<quoted text>
I did not write the article. I just cut and pasted it from archive.org as indicated.
While I had nothing to do with writing the article I posted it in an attempt to show that the people running this organization are victims of the conditional love that is all they know.
The Jury did not agree with your assessment of Rutherford's claims.
I found it somewhat amusing that Rutherford payed the 30,000 dollar judgment in silver in expressing Rutherford's anger and implying that Moyle's actions were as Judas, treacherous to the organization.
This attitude is still within the big guys at the top of your organization today as evidenced by the many victims of sexual predators who are maligned while any who risk going forward with grievances are disfellowshipped!
I found out somewhat amusing that Rutherford wasn't around while the suit was going on. So, how could Rutherford payed for it?

“YOUR WT OVERLORD”

Since: Dec 06

Putingrad

#9 May 3, 2010
GS: The Jury did not agree with your assessment of Rutherford's claims.

Reply: And the OJ jury didn't agree with Marcia Clark and Chris Darden's overwhelming evidence of OJ's guilt; chalk it up to racism and political pressure to prevent racial riots on the scale of Watts and Rodney King.

Juries can be manipulated and they can simply make bad decisions because they don't like a group or individual.

I believe that a combination of "slander" being something people took much more seriously when this suit was actually filed and general dislike for JW's is to blame rather than actual slander on the part of Rutherford.

Having actually read Rutherford's comments as well as Moyle's letter, I personally believe the more slanderous allegations came from Moyle - who didn't provide any evidence of his claims.

I can agree that Rutherford's reaction was petty and vindictive, but no one ever said Rutherford was a nice guy. He was, in fact, the exact opposite.

It seems to me that you're simply maligning all of the "leaders" of the JW organization based on Rutherford's behavior of many decades past.

GS: I found it somewhat amusing that Rutherford payed the 30,000 dollar judgment in silver in expressing Rutherford's anger and implying that Moyle's actions were as Judas, treacherous to the organization.

Reply: You've actually read Moyle's letter and seen what it alleges and what it (doesn't) prove? Basically it was a hit piece on Rutherford as an individual and the general character of everyone who was a part of the bethel organization at the time.

GS: This attitude is still within the big guys at the top of your organization today as evidenced by the many victims of sexual predators who are maligned while any who risk going forward with grievances are disfellowshipped!

Reply: Proof?

“Mystical Atheism for everyone!”

Since: Nov 08

El Cerrito California

#10 May 3, 2010
FH Chandler wrote:
GS: The Jury did not agree with your assessment of Rutherford's claims.
Reply: And the OJ jury didn't agree with Marcia Clark and Chris Darden's overwhelming evidence of OJ's guilt; chalk it up to racism and political pressure to prevent racial riots on the scale of Watts and Rodney King.
Juries can be manipulated and they can simply make bad decisions because they don't like a group or individual.
I believe that a combination of "slander" being something people took much more seriously when this suit was actually filed and general dislike for JW's is to blame rather than actual slander on the part of Rutherford.
Having actually read Rutherford's comments as well as Moyle's letter, I personally believe the more slanderous allegations came from Moyle - who didn't provide any evidence of his claims.
I can agree that Rutherford's reaction was petty and vindictive, but no one ever said Rutherford was a nice guy. He was, in fact, the exact opposite.
It seems to me that you're simply maligning all of the "leaders" of the JW organization based on Rutherford's behavior of many decades past.
GS: I found it somewhat amusing that Rutherford payed the 30,000 dollar judgment in silver in expressing Rutherford's anger and implying that Moyle's actions were as Judas, treacherous to the organization.
Reply: You've actually read Moyle's letter and seen what it alleges and what it (doesn't) prove? Basically it was a hit piece on Rutherford as an individual and the general character of everyone who was a part of the bethel organization at the time.
GS: This attitude is still within the big guys at the top of your organization today as evidenced by the many victims of sexual predators who are maligned while any who risk going forward with grievances are disfellowshipped!
Reply: Proof?
They are not my claims. I cut and pasted from a book by an insider at Bethel.

I was simply attempting to illustrate that the Governing body of the organization is simply human with human weaknesses and can not be viewed as divinely ordained by any stretch of the imagination.

I did not meticulously wade through all of the court documents but simply accepted the information of the lady who shared what she had experienced and witnessed which appeared to be in harmony with much that has been revealed about the organization by insiders.

“YOUR WT OVERLORD”

Since: Dec 06

Putingrad

#11 May 3, 2010
GS: They are not my claims.

Reply: You're hear repeating them as though they are absolute truth; they've become your claims.

GS: I cut and pasted from a book by an insider at Bethel.

Reply: Barb Anderson's JW Urban Legends?

GS: I was simply attempting to illustrate that the Governing body of the organization is simply human with human weaknesses

Reply: Which every single person here already accepts as fact?

GS: and can not be viewed as divinely ordained by any stretch of the imagination.

Reply: Probably not, but not because of an urban legend you read in a book by the morally bankrupt Barbara Anderson.

GS: I did not meticulously wade through all of the court documents but simply accepted the information of the lady

Reply: You took what some person saying what you wanted to hear as fact without bothering to check the facts?

GS: who shared what she had experienced and witnessed

Reply: The morally bankrupt Barbara Anderson did not "experience" or "witness" the Moyle trial, nor did she witness any of the activities he complained about.

GS: which appeared to be in harmony with much that has been revealed about the organization by insiders.

Reply: These "insiders" you speak of - did you bother to fact check any of them?- like Anderson, did not "experience" or "witness" the Moyle trial, nor did they witness any of the activities he complained about.

“Mystical Atheism for everyone!”

Since: Nov 08

El Cerrito California

#12 May 3, 2010
FH Chandler said "GS: and can not be viewed as divinely ordained by any stretch of the imagination.

Reply: Probably not, but not because of an urban legend you read in a book by the morally bankrupt Barbara Anderson."

I notice that anyone who questions the leaders of your church are discredited and slandered. It appears to be standard practice for your organization.

The practice is not unlike that of the Mormons who like your group have ruined many lives in an attempt to protect the organization.

I think most of those outside of your organization can clearly see where the moral bankruptcy is.

Urban legend? NO, it's in the court records, Court reporters don't create transcripts of urban legends.

Being born into the organization I was taught the importance of truth but was really shocked to find your leaders are no better than the morally bankrupt Mormon prophets when it comes to protecting the false authority of their positions with disinformation and hurtful personal attacks.

It appears that Olin Moyle and those who would come to his defense are still being slandered by your church only now it is simply revealing the problem of the false belief in a god of conditional love.

"By their fruits you shall know them"

“YOUR WT OVERLORD”

Since: Dec 06

Putingrad

#13 May 4, 2010
GS: I notice that anyone who questions the leaders of your church are discredited and slandered. It appears to be standard practice for your organization.

Reply: We're not talking about "anyone." We're talking about two specific individuals - one, Olin Moyle, who made vague, unsubstantiated claims about Rutherford as an individual, about untold numbers of bethelites as individuals and about the bethel organization as a group and one Barbara Anderson, a lying attention-whore and an ally of another lying attention-whore Bill Bowen.

If you believe I've made a "slanderous" comment about either of those individuals, please show proof of slander.

As far as "discrediting" them goes, you can't take away what one does not have...

GS: The practice is not unlike that of the Mormons who like your group have ruined many lives in an attempt to protect the organization.

Reply: Moyle is long dead, and simply speaking the truth about him - as inconvenient as that truth is for you - is not "ruining" his life. Barbara Anderson is a liar, plain and simple. If it "ruins her life" to correctly point out that she's played a part in the misleading activities of Bill Bowen, of Dateline and that she's personally liable (despite hiding behind a limited liability corporation) for presenting untruths about supposed "coverups" regarding child abuse, then too bad. As much as she has the right to speak (lie) publicly, others have the right to speak (truthfully) about her.

GS: I think most of those outside of your organization can clearly see where the moral bankruptcy is.

Reply: If you see it as morally upright to spread lies and unsubstantiated rumors pimped by anonymous individuals who don't have the courage to bring charge in the light of day I should say there is something deficient about your moral compass.

GS: Urban legend? NO, it's in the court records, Court reporters don't create transcripts of urban legends.

Reply: And what, pray tell, did Moyle prove in his letter?

What "slander" did Rutherford speak regarding Moyle?

The outcome of that ancient court proceeding notwithstanding (OJ was guilty too), Moyle was the one who made unsubstantiated allegations. Rutherford insulted Moyle. That case wouldn't even make it to trial today.

GS: Being born into the organization I was taught the importance of truth but was really shocked to find your leaders are no better than the morally bankrupt Mormon prophets when it comes to protecting the false authority of their positions with disinformation and hurtful personal attacks.

Reply: I don't care one bit about the "authority" of any position held by any individual in the JW organization. It's totally irrelevant to the fact that Molye (and Anderson) both made unsubstantiated claims that you want to believe are true for no other reason than that you don't personally like the "leaders" of the JW organization.

Talk about moral bankruptcy!

GS: It appears that Olin Moyle and those who would come to his defense are still being slandered

Reply: "Slandered" suggests that the claims I've made here about Moyle are untrue.

http://www.watchthetower.net/olin.html

Please show me any proof that exists that Moyle's claims in this letter are true. As far as I'm aware, not one of these claims was ever substantiated with any sort of evidence.

Please show me where you, or any other individual has been "slandered" because they chose to believe the unsubstantiated claims of Olin Moyle.

GS: by your church only now it is simply revealing the problem of the false belief in a god of conditional love.

Reply: "False" belief in a god of conditional love? From my reading of the bible its god's "love" is entirely conditional. You're welcome to a contrary opinion, but the facts of the scriptures would be against you. Of course, that too is a separate issue from any claim made by Olin Moyle or anyone else.
JJJ

Australia

#14 May 4, 2010
Hi Chandler ......how ya doin.

Mate the call of the umpire has to be accepted.

If we are disregard the verdicts of the courts.....then what's the point of going them in the first place?

Moyle made allegations. Like you....Rutherford thought that they were unsubstantiated and responed like the bully that he appeared to be.(even old Br. McMillian,'faith on the march' commented that Rutherfords attitude was better suited to run was to become the WTBTS Corp., despite the Russel's will).

As such the matter went to court.......the courts decided.

Now of course you are entitled to express your opinion that feel perhaps the jury was manipulated...... but that does not give you right to criticise someone as being biased or repeating falsehood just becuase they are echoing the court's judgment.

PS>.... Can't wait until the NFL starts.

“YOUR WT OVERLORD”

Since: Dec 06

Putingrad

#15 May 5, 2010
JJJ: Hi Chandler ......how ya doin.

Reply: All is well.

JJJ: Mate the call of the umpire has to be accepted.

Reply: Perhaps. That doesn't make it right.

JJJ: If we are disregard the verdicts of the courts.....then what's the point of going them in the first place?

Reply: The verdict of the court really isn't the issue. I'm putting the actual evidence before your eyes and asking those making claims to examine it.

You've seen the Moyle letter, as well as Rutherford's response... Tell me, please, where is the "slander" on the part of Rutherford? Where is Moyle's proof that any claim he made was true?

JJJ: Moyle made allegations. Like you....Rutherford thought that they were unsubstantiated and responed like the bully that he appeared to be.

Reply: I've already accepted as fact that Rutherford was not a nice person. I never claimed otherwise. The FACT is that not a single claim Moyle made was substantiated. If you believe otherwise, please put that evidence on the table.

JJJ:(even old Br. McMillian,'faith on the march' commented that Rutherfords attitude was better suited to run was to become the WTBTS Corp., despite the Russel's will).

Reply:??? I'm not sure what this has to do with showing how Moyle's claims were true or how what Rutherford said about Moyle was "slander" as opposed to an insult.

JJJ: As such the matter went to court.......the courts decided.

Reply: So they did. So did the first OJ jury. Neither one was right, but that's not really the point.

JJJ: Now of course you are entitled to express your opinion that feel perhaps the jury was manipulated......

Reply: I'm more interested in any existing evidence that substantiated Moyle's broadly worded criticisms of unnamed people and unreferenced instances of "wrongdoing" he claimed in his letter to Rutherford.

JJJ: but that does not give you right to criticise someone as being biased or repeating falsehood just becuase they are echoing the court's judgment.

Reply: I didn't criticise GS for "echoing the court's judgment." The court judgment is what it is and that's a long LONG time in the past. However, the FACTS remain that Moyle's claims were not substantiated.

GS accused me of "slandering" and "ruining the lives" of Moyle and others who support(ed) him. I've done neither.

JJJ: Can't wait until the NFL starts.

Reply: Nehhhh... Honestly, I'm a little bit disgruntled with the NFL - the commissioner and the fanbase, specifically, over the whole Roethlisberger fiasco. It's just another example (sort of an apt one given one of the primary topics around here) of our culture being washed down the tubes. We are supposed to be a society that cherishes the principle that people are innocent until PROVEN guilty. And yet without being convicted, without evidence of guilt being offered, without a trial or even charges filed, Roethlisberger is basically assumed to be guilty for no other reason than that someone made an accusation. So of course, the Commish swoops in with the "personal conduct policy" (which, if you've been following the news doesn't really get specific) and suspends him for six games.

Why? Because he has no balls to stand up to the PC police who demand "action" be taken for no other reason than that an accusation was made. I know there's a little more to it than that; there's a lot of criminals in the NFL (who were actually guilty and probably deserved worse than the NFL met out, but that's another debate), but Roethlisberger wasn't even charged. If you read some of the case documents it becomes clear early on that there are as many different stories about that whole event as there were people who gave testimony.

I know it sounds cliche', but I've given up on football before and I may again - this time for good. After all, there are better ways to spend those four hours a week!

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#16 May 5, 2010
FH Chandler wrote:
...Barbara Anderson, a lying attention-whore....
Wow.

Marvin Shilmer
Topsy Crett

Houston, TX

#17 May 5, 2010
Oh, Chandler you will get interested in it again after teh fourth to sixth week.

Now honestly, if it were Schaub who had this happened to him, would you be as upset about it?

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#18 May 5, 2010
FH Chandler,

I am not an Olin Moyle history enthusiast, and it appears you may know more about the incident at issue than I. My question is, did Moyle publicize his letter containing accusations or was it sent privately? Do you know?

Marvin Shilmer

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

#19 May 5, 2010
Slander?

I don't see how Moyle's letter to Rutherford could properly be construed as slander on Moyle's part since, based on Watchtower statements, Moyle offered his letter privately for Rutherford.

More properly I think it to characterize Moyle's remarks in this letter as accusation.

Moyle's letter was not offered to convince Rutherford of Rutherford’s own actions. Presumably Moyle left Rutherford to decide however he wished about accusations he made of Rutherford. Hence Moyle had no need to offer Rutherford evidence. Moyle had an opinion of Rutherford and Moyle shared that opinion of his with Rutherford. This is not slander and it needs no evidence. Moyle accused Rutherford. Moyle did not slander Rutherford. At least, not in relation to the letter he wrote privately to Rutherford.

Marvin Shilmer
abrother

Milan, MI

#20 May 5, 2010
Marvin Shilmer wrote:
Slander?
I don't see how Moyle's letter to Rutherford could properly be construed as slander on Moyle's part since, based on Watchtower statements, Moyle offered his letter privately for Rutherford.
More properly I think it to characterize Moyle's remarks in this letter as accusation.
Moyle's letter was not offered to convince Rutherford of Rutherford’s own actions. Presumably Moyle left Rutherford to decide however he wished about accusations he made of Rutherford. Hence Moyle had no need to offer Rutherford evidence. Moyle had an opinion of Rutherford and Moyle shared that opinion of his with Rutherford. This is not slander and it needs no evidence. Moyle accused Rutherford. Moyle did not slander Rutherford. At least, not in relation to the letter he wrote privately to Rutherford.
Marvin Shilmer
Moyle LEFT the letter on a counter and NEVER gave it privatley to Rutherford!!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
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
Reconciliation with God 12 min Omega 32
Did God send...HIMSELF? 25 min Maravilla 17
Candace Conti/WT Update 30 min little lamb 184
Do 'two' REALLY mean ONE? Seriously! 38 min Maravilla 5
What are the new heavens and the new earth? (Mar '13) 1 hr joe 2,219
Did God become a son of Himself? 1 hr the Mad JW 2
What JESUS said about his God 1 hr the Mad JW 12
News How to Witness to a Jehovah's Witness Ray Comfo... 1 hr little lamb 1,128
YES-Jesus WAS once known as Michael (Sep '14) 2 hr dee lightful 3,195
Jehovah's Witnesses are the most loving people ... 4 hr Remnant 134999 49
More from around the web