TrueTomHarley

I changed “lecturing” to “enlightening.” It suits better. You are right. 28 words is not a lecture.

And he is just not sure whether your little cartoon is meant to offend JWs, as most of yours do. He doesn’t rubber-stamp every JW view of a century ago, but neither does he have the ax to grind that others clearly do, and accepts as a given that the players back then were upright persons of integrity.

7 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Don't let grief at losing a close friend destroy your sense of humor .... if any.

It's not a good survival trait, nor lend itself to good mental health.

 

Please don’t start enlightening B W with your folk ‘wisdom.’

On 5/13/2019 at 10:17 PM, TheWorldNewsOrg said:

via .ORG

World News

 

“If diners agree to let McDonald’s know who they are, menus could offer food based on their past orders”

This means that I will soon weigh 700 pounds. Only very occasionally do I eat at McDonalds these days, but when I did....

Did you know that if you eat at a fast food place and bow your head to give thanks for the artery-clogging stuff, God gets mad?

22 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Although I never commented on it, I read and kept up with the truth history blog on a fairly regularly basis in the last couple years.

Unfortunately, Rachael would have taken a dim view of that, I fear. She could get pretty critical of those who read regularly but did not comment.

I once expressed my opinion to her that not everyone saw it that way, and she thereafter took a dim view of me for a day or so.

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I'd love to read whatever else you publish.

Say, you have plenty of old stuff lying around. Maybe you two could collaborate. After all, you need a new project.

”The riot squad is restless; they need somewhere to go.” - Bob Dylan

From her sickbed, Rachael de Vienne stirred herself to tell me, through her daughter, that I was wrong. It was just on a tiny supporting fact of a book I was working on and I had only put the fact in so as to give her book a plug. I wasn’t even wrong on the fact—I was wrong on the inference I took from it, she said. I wasn’t even wrong on that, in my opinion. But that’s just it—it was my opinion. ‘Keep your opinions separate from the facts,’ she would have said. ‘There is nothing wrong with drawing inferences, conclusions, and educated guesses. Just label them as such.’ THAT is the kind of historian she was. Sigh—I changed the passage just to suit her, and it probably didn’t. 

She wouldn’t review my first book, either, or any of the other ones, though I just asked her to do the first, Tom Irregardless and Me. I mean, I had written a nice review for her book. Finally, with some nagging, she said that she might review mine and asked how I intended to submit it. ‘It’s not done that way,’ she retorted, when I told her. Tweeting with a co-blogger about it, as though on a private phone connection and not a social media platform broadcast to the whole wide world, the co-blogger told her that he wasn’t going to review it, either—‘the first chapter is about Prince, and then in places it is a little “preachy”—not pure fact at all.’ It was too much. I tweeted: “YOU GET ON THAT KEYBOARD AND REVIEW IT RIGHT NOW!” but then had second thoughts and deleted the tweet. See what sort of historians she hung out with?

During her final few months, she interspersed regular tweets with some detailing her illness, at times getting quite graphic, caring not about revealing the personal humiliation you must experience as your own body is betraying you. Imagine—chronicling your own suffering that way—true to her calling to the last. See what sort of an historian she was?

The book that she co-authored with the unwieldy title—as though to make clear that it is scholarly and not a specimen of pop writing—A Separate Identity—Organizational Identity Among Readers of Zion’s Watchtower: 1870-1887’: I admit, I skimmed it. Not through lack of interest—you will never find a more thorough history of non-mainstream events—but through lack of time. I wanted to write a decent and coherent review. I agreed with her (explicitly labeled) speculation that the the reason the Watchtower Society received her completed book without comment after being semi-cooperative in providing source material is that “they are incurious as to their own history.” Yeah. I agree. They are. So am I—I mean, I (and they) am not uninterested—it is just that I am interested in other things more. The ‘Society’ is not rooted in anything, I don’t think. They are progressive. They move on. 

Separate Identity is the not the only book that she wrote, and I look forward to curling up to it and others when (more likely if) I ever find the time, because it is excellent, universally praised, except occasionally by some hothead Jehovah’s Witnesses themselves because it does not adhere to the party line—it goes where it goes without regard to who has later been christened hero or villain. 

She co-authored a book about Nelson Barbour, too, and this should interest me even more because I once lived about a hundred yards from where he did (also a hundred years). I had written a blog post about Barbour, a well-known “get-outer” preacher of the late 1800s that Charles Taze Russell for a time partnered with, and I observed that there must have been some relationship between he and a well-known Rochester Presbyterian preacher of the same surname, whose wife Elizabeth is listed as ‘excommunicated and expunged’ or words to that effect. Rachael told me that I was wrong on that, too—the two families were entirely separate. 

I am not even sure that she liked me, really, but we followed each other on Twitter, and she would occasionally respond to my tweets and even more occasionally initiate some to me. My non-religious semi-serious historical work she let pass with minimal comment. Maybe she was more like my 7th grade social studies teacher, who made everyone literally start every essay paragraph with the phrase in parentheses: “who, what, where, why, how,” so that we would learn to write with substance, and who would say things like ‘Don’t write “In my opinion.” Of course it’s your opinion—you wrote it!’ This doesn’t entirely square with Rachael’s urging, which just goes to show why you mull over all input, but each one must ultimately develop his or her own style.

I always liked it that she found such great comfort from her family, to offset her many years of illness—lifelong, it seems. I miss her. Here is her obit, and the blog lives on in other hands, I believe. You will never find a more rigorous example of niche history, digging up letters, notes, minutia and photos 100 years old.

https://truthhistory.blogspot.com/2019/03/our-princess.html

Let’s end with a review of Separate Identity that says it all. It is reproduced at truthhistory.

“Histories of the early Watch Tower movement tend to fall into two extremes, hagiography and polemic. This is because they are usually written from a range of widely differing theological perspectives, not that of a strict historian. Additionally, they tend to concentrate on the figure of Charles Taze Russell to the virtual exclusion of his contemporaries. This volume redresses that balance, written by two historians with an almost fanatical attention to detail as demonstrated by the voluminous footnotes. They appear to strive hard to keep any personal views out of the picture and go where the evidence takes them. The result is a detailed, even-handed history of Russell and his contemporaries - crucially in the context of their times. Many writers on this subject seem to try and graft 21st century attitudes onto 19th century people, not recognising that the beliefs of Russell and others in the second half of the nineteenth century were often far more mainstream than a modern reader might imagine. Even if one has no direct interest in Russell and what came later from his ministry, several groups today count people like Henry Grew, George Storrs, and John Thomas in their antecedents. These men all feature in this book and, certainly in the case of Storrs, you are unlikely to find as much detailed information on his life and work anywhere else. The writers have previously published a volume on Nelson Barbour: The Millennium’s Forgotten Prophet. That too is well worth reading, although the present volume (that takes history up to 1879) is a stand-alone book.”

1 hour ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

acting like the likes

I like it.

8 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

They decide, what we know about history, Jesus died on a TAU cross, not a Stauros. They have brainwashed themselves, they now believe the Watchtower to be in error.

You are right. We have paved the way in some areas, and this matter of Jesus dying on a cross, which some malcontents retreat from, is one of them. Here is an evangelical preacher who created a sensation by writing the same.

https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2010/11/did-jesus-die-on-a-cross.html

By the way, that brother who I wrote about who would move his hand up and down frantically across his breastbone when coming across something unexpected? That was not Tom Oxgoad, my own fictional character. That was Dave McClure, a circuit overseer who passed away some years ago. What a hoot he was. Everyone loved him.

I used to stick to these guys like glue back in the day when I was single. I even got to be his chauffeur in the afternoon, because he liked a break from driving. He had me stop in at one of those Photomat kiosks long ago in a parking lot—places that you dropped off film for developing. I pulled ahead slightly and from the back seat he spoke with the attendant, who couldn’t find his photos and so offered him a free roll of film. “There’s going to be blood in the sun if you don’t find those pictures,” he said, using some hillbilly expression that I had never heard before, “unless you want to take me on another vacation.” He made that girl turn her little kiosk upside down, searching each nook and cranny. “I understand that things happen,” he told me later. “It’s just that cavalier attitude that they should lose my pictures and think I will be satisfied with a free role of film that’s nettling.”

7 hours ago, Anna said:

I must admit, I agree with you. But then I wonder, maybe it's me who is seeing it "wrong". Attitude, after all, is everything...

It will not readily yield to change, if history is any guide. About the best I can hope for is some circuit overseer acting similarly as he did with another “crisis.” During a transitional lull from one main point to another, he will say that the expression “Now let us turn the platform over to the next speaker” is ridiculous because it evokes an image of turning the platform over. With that, I eventually heard the expression less, though it still pops up from time to time.

It is not easy to correct anyone on anything, especially on a triviality, though occasionally people jump instantly on the trivialities but ignore substantial things. Finding the right degree of emphasis is tough. One recipient will say “Thanks for the new RULE!” and his companion will say “Huh? Did you say something.”

There was a certain sister ages ago who enjoyed explaining things to others and eventually left the truth because not enough people listened to her. She had even begun to partake of the emblems. “What the Society is trying to tell us is....” she would often employ as a preamble. She is the inspiration (in this one regard only) for John Wheatandweeds, from Tom Irregardless and Me, who will not let the brothers go in field service in the morning because he insists as the conductor of rattling on and on about the day’s text, and he resists counsel  to shorten that part eventually to as short as 7 minutes, and he talks at such length, drawing out comments, that eventually nobody is in the mood to go out anymore. “What the Society is trying to tell us...” he responds to every bit of counsel on the subject. Finally, the Society interrupts him mid-sentence to say “We’re not trying to tell you anything—we’re telling you.” So he finally responds by getting everyone out the door in reasonably short order—not seven minutes, but neither seven years—however he makes up for it by chatting away in the parking lot.

I could be in serious trouble. They just finished remodeling the Kingdom Hall, and there are two quarter walls, one left of stage and one right. Gulp. Will the brother start entering and exiting the platform via those quarter walls, just like I saw them do in the other congregation?

https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/forums/topic/79559-you-don’t-enter-stage-from-behind-the-quarter-walls/

The circuit overseer was visiting, so I started pumping him on it. “‘Don’t let the brothers walk behind the quarter wall to go on-stage,” I told him. I was not too insistent, one mustn’t overdo it on these things. I mean, I don’t want to be the brother who meets him in the parking lot to tell him that all the brothers are no good, and they aren’t loving at all, and they are deadwood in the ministry, and come to think of it, they don’t even like God, and so he, the circuit overseer, has a lot of work to do here, and he says “Yeah, I think I’ve found the problem already.”

I did about as much as I could. He seemed to be sympathetic. “Yeah, I know,” he said. “You see them, then you don’t as they walk behind the wall, and then you do as they emerge from the other side—it IS a little funny.” So I gave it a good try. But he was just biding his time to get away from me. He is not going to do anything at all, I don’t think, other than tell the brothers to go on the platform when it is their turn to speak. What does he care how they do it? It doesn’t bother HIM any one way of the other. It’s ME it’s driving nuts, and then he will say “Well, you were mostly there already.”

I have always tried to stack the deck. Those elders way back in the day would have a meeting coming up and I would pump various ones separately over  multitude of picayune things, so that one of them said at their meeting (as I was told later) “Wait a minute. Who’s running this congregation? You, me, or Tom Harley?”

But lo! A miracle has occurred. Never never never NEVER did I think I would EVER agree with @Jack Ryan. But I do on something. Jack Ryan! who if a Bethel brother so much as farts, he starts a derogatory thread on it. Jack Ryan! who has been known to start as many as a dozen critical threads in a single day. Jack Ryan! who I think regards himself as some sort of a secret agent/freedom fighter. What is it with this character?

Yet, I saw, yes—I witnessed it while visiting another congregation, brothers clapping after each and every exchange that took place up front, whether li8ve or on video, just the way Jack was complaining about. Suddenly he becomes as a prophet from on high. That too, drove me nuts!—all that clapping. You don’t clap over every single skit of one sister offering a tract to another, who, of course accepts it a just little too eagerly, it seems to me, from what I recall in the actual ministry. You clap spontaneously when something really knocks your socks off. You clap when a child or even anyone gives his or her first talk on the school. You clap when the spirit genuinely moves you, for anything. You clap after the public talk, even giving the speaker the benefit of the doubt if it wasn’t that—um—good. But you don’t clap for every minor exchange of trivial words! It only cheapens the times that there really is something to clap for.

I know where this comes from, just like I know where walking behind the quarter walls came from. Some pious brother doubtless wanted to “show appreciation” for everything under the sun and so started up the habit, thinking he was setting a ‘good example’ and that others would follow, and those others, not wanting to seem unappreciative, did follow, even some half-heartedly. 

However, it is possible that it is not the pious brother at all who is responsible, but rather the one who is too swayed by the new-agey mantra that you have to lavish praise on children non-stop just for showing up, for the sake of building self-esteem, and so they clap if a brother so much as clears his throat. I mean, don’t go pinning this one on “theocracy,” Jack—it could just as well be that trendy “world” that you are so enamored with.

This will not the easiest habit to break. I mean, you can hardly sit there and scowl, so as to provide the counter-example. The best strategy is just to contain it, as you might strive to do with a measles outbreak. Don’t send speakers to that congregation for awhile, until the illness passes. I doubt I can even enlist the circuit overseer in any serious capacity on this one. He will probably just roll his eyes when I meet him about it in the parking lot. C’mon, DO IT RIGHT, BROTHERS!

4 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Tom, needs all the intelligent opinions from factless people for his next book.

I am scribbling away like mad, taking notes. It is hard to keep up.

20 hours ago, Witness said:

And have made us kings and priests to our God;
And we shall reign on the earth.”  Rev 5:10   

Does it really make any significant difference? Mostly you are quibbling over words, while not addressing the actual point.

The point is, that after a single year as a Witness, you become convinced of your anointing, with all its implications that you will be a messenger to everyone else, as well as a future (and in some respects present) king and priest.

Now, I would be nettled at the GB assuming that role, too, except that they have given serious evidence of their qualifications: They are the spiritual descendants of those who brought the truth to me in the first place, they are “jealous with a godly jeolousy” over those they have promised to hand over to the Lord in an approved state, they make every effort to shelter me from the storm, barring compromising on scriptural things, they are unafraid to discipline me in accord with scriptural principles if needed, and most have served for years of full-time service in assignments more lowly than most of those whom they ultimately lead. I do not expect perfection of them, just as I do not expect the bus driver to avoid every pothole on a dilapidated road.

Have you done any of these things? No. Or at least you’ve pointed to no evidence. Am I “impressed with great things?” Not unduly. But neither am I in a hurry to buy snake-oil that offers no evidence of its efficacy.

And here you rail about them being where their immediate needs are met. It is hard not to see this as sheer envy on your part. Theirs is no more than not muzzling the ox while it is threshing—and thresh they do. Are they amassing wealth for themselves, say in 401Ks? The day they leave Bethel, if they do, they find their circumstances very modest indeed. When R Franz left Bethel, he took away a lifetime settlement of 10K. For a time, he went back to being a handyman to support himself—and you probably railed about that, too.

On 5/1/2019 at 11:39 AM, Witness said:

It is not as small as the organization claims it is.  It is clear that the number “144,000” is symbolic, represented by “24” elders Rev 4:10,11  The word “thousand” in Hebrew specifies a large, innumerable amount

So. The role of the anointed that you are among is to rule as kings over the earth, per Revelation 5:10.

And yet 144,000 (which I always thought was a lot) is but a drop in the bucket? The true number of kings is innumerable?

Just how many kings to you think the earth needs? Do they outnumber those they rule over? (Will you end up being mine?)

And your qualifications so that I should accept this future (and present) rulership?

Two, that I can see.

1) After a year as a Witness, you said that you were a king by partaking of the emblems.

2.) You tell us day and night that the Governing Body are frauds.

With them, I can look at their track record. It is substantial. And what track record of yours have you pointed to? Let us quote the house sage @James Thomas Rook Jr.: “Zip, zero, nada.”

Am I missing something here? It is one thing to be critical of the GB. Many do it here. But to hold yourself up as a preferred substitute? Really?

32 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

For though I am free from all people, I have made myself the slave to all, so that I may gain as many people as possible. 20

That’s not very many people.

3 hours ago, Witness said:

“Listen, you leaders of Jacob,
    you rulers of Israel.
Should you not embrace justice,
2     you who hate good and love evil;
who tear the skin from my people
    and the flesh from their bones;
3 who eat my people’s flesh,
    strip off their skin
    and break their bones in pieces;
who chop them up like meat for the pan,
    like flesh for the pot?”

It’s a good thing that Jehovah’s Witnesses have their current organization to make sure that these bad things do not happen.

25 minutes ago, Witness said:

The investigation allegedly feared that the revelations in the programme might lead the movement's leaders to destroy incriminating evidence...

“Fearing” that something will happen is much less solid than it having happened

”Allegedly” fearing it is a further qualification still. 

Not exactly solid ground you are on, is it, lady?

There is a full court press on, to be sure. If they prove as toothless as your allegations, there is nothing to fret over.

https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2019/03/a-class-action-suit-in-quebec.html

In time, when a few such fishing expeditions turn up nothing, we can expect such clarifications as in the May 2019 Watchtower to carry the day.

https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/forums/topic/77381-the-reproach-of-child-sexual-abuse-falls-on-the-abuser/

40 minutes ago, Witness said:

Such clarity.  You speak truth - this preaching campaign has been organized by men.  If it was from God, wouldn't you give Him the credit? 

How can you be so dense? It can be only willfull.

When you read secularly how early Christians spread their faith far and wide throughout the then-known world, do you write the source to point out that it was not really they that did it, but God?

Answering your previous question, I begin to “glean” from your comments that there is almost nothing about Jehovah’s Witnesses that you agree with and that your entire representation here is a fraud.

On 4/9/2018 at 11:36 AM, Witness said:

All their immediate needs are met; everything and every form of service is provided for their benefit and is at their fingertips.  

This is true of anyone running any sort of substantial organization 

On 4/9/2018 at 11:36 AM, Witness said:

Their living circumstances may be even more comfortable than we may assume. 

This statement also means that they may not, and so is only laying the groundwork for another one of Witness’ vitriolic rants.

On 4/9/2018 at 11:36 AM, Witness said:

They have the luxury of dressing and eating well, 

This is because ‘you must not muzzle the ox while it is threshing’

On 4/9/2018 at 11:36 AM, Witness said:

traveling and seeing the world,

This is because you have to go see work that you are overseeing

On 4/9/2018 at 11:36 AM, Witness said:

and personally escorted wherever needed.

This is because they may not know their way around. It will hardly do to arrive late at the meeting to direct kingdom interests because you took a wrong turn at the Seven Eleven.

On 4/9/2018 at 11:36 AM, Witness said:

I implore you, JWs, wake up!

Oh, all right! Make them hitchhike.

10 hours ago, Witness said:

Yes it is a battle between the "kings of the earth" who speak either (authentic) truth...or lies.  

Well...you remind me of a government wonk—a person totally obsessed with the minutia of government that interest most people barely at all. Do you actually have any other beliefs other than that the bad boys have closed you out?

Seriously. I have no idea what you believe on any other subject. You do not speak of anything else, and it may be only an assumption that you stand for many of the things that Jehovah’s Witnesses stand for. Any remark about the worldwide united preaching campaign that the GB has organized and coordinated prompts nothing but derision from you, so that one wonders whether you think proclaiming the kingdom is even a good thing—maybe the kingdom is in our hearts. Any remark about urgency of the last days similarly prompts equal bile from you, so that once again, one wonders whether you think there will even be an end of this system—perhaps you are among those who think that Christianity will yet convert the world. The point is that nobody has any idea what you think other than that the current governing arrangement should be dynamited, even though most JWs think it is doing an overall pretty good job.

Unless I am speaking with those who think that all good people go to heaven—and they are becoming a rarety in these parts—I don’t even mention that a tiny number of humans will one day be part of the heavenly government. Few care. It is not a primary concern for most people. For you it appears to be the ONLY concern, but for most people the hope of everlasting life on earth is what grabs them. That there will be some humans to rule as kings with Christ in heaven is a detail for most people to be filled in later. 

It is just the same regarding human governments. Few people are overly concerned about the intricacies of government. Only the wonks are. You are talking past most of us. Plus, your incessant condemnation of the GB for any problems encountered today gives the impression that you think the Lord’s words are wrong—that without the GB to louse things up the world would embrace Christianity, rather than hate it as it does.

What’s wrong? Ribbon on your typewriter run out of ink?

It is as I’ve said before. When the GB discusses scripture, I get the sense of the woman  battling with the invisible spirit forces.

When Witness discusses scripture, I get the sense of of eavesdropping on a family feud, the black sheep of the family torturing every verse to advance the complaint that the 8 anointed have done them dirty.

There is something very strange about these constant vitriolic complaints with intermittent warnings that ”JWs, this means your lives.” It’s as though the Cabinet official of the Office of Widgets cries that Trump is doing him dirty and expects me to get all worked up over that, as if I have the resources to police these things. 

It may be that when I was asked: ‘do you mean to write a book about this “crazy anointed woman?” I should have said ‘yes’ and let that be the end of it.

On 4/28/2019 at 8:42 PM, Witness said:

Would God suddenly change His mind about His established decrees concerning His “special possession”?

People can partake of the emblems for several reasons. The first to consider is the correct one, from the JW point of view—that one truly has been called to heaven in order to rule with Christ, to be one of the “kings who will rule over the earth.”

But there are other reasons. The Watchtower has suggested that emotional or mental unbalance can play a role, if someone has undergone significant loss or stress. Newness can play a role, if a person has not completely shaken off the church model that all good people go to heaven. Spirit influences can come into play—the “historian” anointed came from a family in known for clairvoyance, and his father (grandfather?) had been a much-in-demand water witch.

What is spiritual disturbance and what is psychological interference? Since the beginning of time, believers of anything have reported strong, even overwhelming, religious experiences. It’s not for me to figure it out. None of the above are going to partake unworthily, for that is a major no-no that all of them would respect. All will truly believe it, even if it is not actually so for some. The trick, then, becomes how to separate the wheat anointed from the chaff anointed so that the spacey LSD brother does not end up running the worldwide organization. 

All things being equal, the present GB members are just as likely as anyone else to be mistaken in their belief that they are anointed. But all things are not equal, and this is why the present arrangement of the GB comprising the slave in its totality is such a good one. They have been tested for decades prior to being invited as a GB members. They have spent a life-time in full-time service to God. Most of them have served in settings more lowly than those of the ones they are later to lead. They have proven their humility and their ability to get along, working shoulder to shoulder with Christians from all backgrounds. It is entirely different from simply partaking in the Boise, Idaho congregation and then expecting that everyone will begin deferring to you on that account. 

(In the event that there are any anointed in the Boise Idaho congregation, rest assured that I just pulled that location out of my hat.)

Those truly anointed over the model that I have come to believe is correct do not mutter that the wicked 8 have stolen their thunder. Their stature in whatever congregation that they are in has not changed. They were never in it for the recognition. They look upon their assignment primarily as a future role. 

For now, they are undergoing training much like Moses underwent after bumping off the Egyptian taskmaster. He thought then that his time of shining brightly as the sun had arrived. It hadn’t. It would arrive in the future, but only if he submitted to the training of the field.

That is how the true anointed can be expected to behave, in my view. Their declaring abroad the excellencies will be in complete cooperation with those now taking the lead in that work—even my LSD spacey anointed one understood that. In my estimation, he thereby meets a major description of anointing more so than the ones who separate and bellyache, yet offer nothing as a substitute. 

Has Witness truly experienced the heavenly calling? Maybe. But let her conduct herself a little bit more dignified than the Democrat pundit constantly complaining that wicked Trump stole the election that should have gone another way. Even in the heavenly assignment—I mean, who can say?—but it seems that there will have to be some delegation of authority. Or will it be an earth carved up into 144000 fiefdoms, with each anointed overseer ever sensitive to his fellow anointed trying to pull rank, trying to demonstrate that they are the greatest. Shouldn’t they be expected to have moved on from that model?

“American studies show that Jehovah's Witnesses have the highest turnover of any religion,¹ as supported by Watchtower figures presented in this section.”

Easily compensated for by the high participation rate of those who stick. After all, the members of a great many denominations may not actually leave, but how would you know if they did?

4 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

No ... at that time I used to drink Miller High Life, the Champagne of bottled beers

“We made Miller the number 2 most popular brand in the country and everybody said ‘Nobody will drink that stuff.’” - Mickey Spillane

They have quarter walls on the platform of the new Kingdom Hall I visited. Most taking the platform would walk up from the side, disappear behind one end of the wall and then reappear from the other end to take the speaker position. I only saw one person do it differently.

It is just a small thing. Hardly worth mentioning. Petty, anyone? I ought to rise about the temptation to say anything. But.....on the other hand........

IT DROVE ME NUTS! Why would anyone do it that way?

I know how this happens. Someone starting doing it thinking it looked more “dignified.” Others thought it was a cool idea, and followed suit. That is how these things work. There is never a ‘rule’ though occasionally there is an unwritten rule which you cope with by just ignoring it.

The way you stop this nonsense is by deliberately flying in the face of it. Structures vary, but usually there is but a single step from the auditorium to the platform—it runs the width of the platform—and you mount that step any old place that you happen to be—let the stuffy other brothers think that you are barbaric if they must. What is more likely to happen is that they will come to think the other way is a little silly.

They see it done that way at the Assembly Hall and they try to carry over the experience to the Kingdom Hall. At the Assembly Hall, that seats 1000, well—of course! Just like in any auditorium, you have to enter through a door in the back and then come on stage behind a curtain or a half wall. You can’t just take stage directly from the auditorium because you would have to clamber up a 2 or 3 foot wall, and that would look ridiculous. 

Entering from behind the short walls at the Kingdom Hall makes just the opposite impression. The walls are convenient places to store junk behind, most likely—unused mike stands and the like. It’s not for a pretentious means for entry when you can just walk up easy as pie from where ever you are!

“Sure!” says my wife. “You always know just the way it should be. Of course! Everyone else is doing it wrong. Only Tom knows the way to do it!”

Finally, that woman is catching on! DO IT RIGHT, BROTHERS!