TrueTomHarley

I swear that that the fate of Roger Chillingsworth looms ahead for some of the most virulent haters, and it must make some of them very uncomfortable: Chillingworth cries out, “Thou hast escaped me!” Left with no object for his malice, Chillingworth wastes away and dies within a year of the minister’s passing, It is no surprise that Chillingworth dies, because the “leech’s” source of vitality has been removed. https://www.sparknotes.com/lit/scarlet/section13/

That’s a good way to put it. I like it. If you cut people absolutely no slack, you almost push them out. We do cut people slack in most areas. For example, if we cut them no slack on ‘loving violence,’ we would REALLY clamp down on those watching sports like American football, which has been PROVEN to drastically curtail life. (See the movie ‘Concussion’) But we don’t. We allow for the fact that all have missed the mark. This should not be the one area in which we cut people ABSOLUTELY NO SLACK. JWI spouts off on ‘the way things ought to be.’ So what? He has made it clear many times that he recognizes that there must be headship and that he acqiesces to it. He has picked some obscure backwater channel presided over by some 4th-rate school Liberian who really doesn’t like kids and who is counting the days till her retirement, easing her days with wine, while the children play mean tricks on her, lowering a cat from the ceiling that will first latch onto and remove her toupee like in Tom Sawyer, to pour out how he really feels for the sake of his ‘conscience.’ Let him. If he is a windbag, let that be his vice—probably he is not hung up on violent football. Challenge him on points if you like. I have done so, but every time he does, he defends his point so well that I have learned not to do it. I mean, what am I going to say—that his experiences are not his? He will agree in a heartbeat that what he says is subjective. Plus, he makes his posts so long that people skip over them, unless they are absolutely fixated on the points he raises, and if they are, they may as well get data from him, rather than from people who decidedly think ill of the JW cause and will make up falsehood. No, Felix, it is not that your point is invalid, but there are bigger fish to fry. Opposers say ALMOST TO THE PERSON that Jehovah’s Witnesses are ‘controlling’ and MANY say they were driven away on that account. You (forgive my bluntness) are here a case in point, striving very hard to ‘control’ him (with good motive—don’t misunderstand). Of course, it is in the nature of the truth that there is going to be authority, but in light of ALL opposers saying it and MANY friends conceding that it can at times be smothering, it pays to give thought to not being unnecessarily that way. My blog and book experience has led me to think of other areas where change may one day come. Elsewhere I wrote: It may be unavoidable, but the scriptural counsel to avoid apostates come what may has a serious downside. If a youngster of ours succumbs to the oldest trap of human nature- going somewhere out of curiosity because he has been advised not to, and he stumbles, he finds himself totally unsupported because we don’t know what is there ourselves. All we can say is that he shouldn’t go there, which opposers spin as proof that he should stay in order to escape from being “controlled.” I don’t know the answer, but it would be nice if there was one.

When was it ever anything else? From my point of view, that is almost the sole purpose of this site. Come, come, we must not squabble. We have the same goal, even if we go about it in different ways. I will allow that I am probably too flippant, and post in that spirit what you take seriously. For example, I did a quick & fictional snippet of Fred. That is my bad, and I apologize. JWI deals with egghead stuff that I only skim. Things dealing with dates are not my thing. These are not the ‘motivating’ things that cause people to develop a bad heart. Rather, if some have already developed a bad heart, they latch onto the fact that people ‘at the top’ disagree (Duh) and make maximum hay out of it. Or they find that there has been much hashing out over what eventually comes out as a unified whole, and they bail on that account. The one of good heart sees such disagreement & says ‘Ah, well, they’ll figure it out,’ and carries on without undo fuss. Since we have been wrong many times before, it seems a little foolish to insist that it will never happen again. ‘If they are on the wrong side of this or that bit of prophesy, they’ll figure it out and get on the right side,’ says the one of good heart. No. I don’t care about such things. Why some do I’ll never know, but it’s a good thing that they do. Everyone has a gift. I like to focus on what I think is more relevant - the qualities attributed to ‘apostates’ in Jude and 2Peter—an insistence on self-determination, and a disdain for authority. I am in my element when I get to kick back at those who would capitalize on genuine tragedies, such as CSA, to seek to destroy the ones preaching the good news. With a major ‘reform,’ making clear that there is absolutely no reproach in reporting vile things to the authorities, some of the most virulent of our critics lose something huge to them - a little like ‘what is Tom Brady going to do with himself after he retires?’ Some face withering away like Roger Chillingsworth. They almost have no choice but to find some pissy little thing that could conceivably allow something bad to yet happen and harp on that to the cows come home. Since I don’t care about the aspects of theocratic life that you do, I have probably overstepped in some places and drawn your reproof. I apologize. One of the prime things Jehovah hates is anyone spreading contentions among brothers. I won’t do it. When I once ‘liked’ a post of Captain Zipzeronada, a brother who was solid but rigid was stumbled. I apologized to him and didn’t do it again for the longest time - until the old pork chop said something to reveal that beneath his breathtaking pig-headedness, he was likable in some respects and I couldn’t resist. Our people do not typically do well online. They take shots at each other for not toeing the line in this or that aspect of service. Or they say: “This is what Jehovah has said:” to people who don’t necessarily care what he has said. They look ridiculous as they try to make the Internet behave like the congregation. As much as I appreciate your goal, if you told your circuit overseer that you were having a hard time purifying the Internet, what do you think he would say? You have to cut brothers some slack online. If they shouldn’t be here to say it, you shouldn’t be here to hear it. You know very well that Bethel isn’t thrilled about any of us being here.

My ultimate goal is to drive the gin-soaked Librarian into insolvency, the old hen.

“The Witness organization cannot be expected to defend itself on social media, if on any media. It takes the scriptural view of Jesus at Matthew 11, noting that grumblers slam him no matter what he does, before finally saying, ‘Don’t worry about it,’ “wisdom is proved righteous by its works.” It is like David who kept mum as ‘all day long they muttered against him.’ ‘It is like the plowman who knows that if you look behind while plowing, the furrows get all flaky.’ They don’t do it. The common view of opposers is that the Witness headship is telling members what to do, while it cynically manipulates all from above. That view is wrong. They practice what they preach and they do it themselves. The organization headship cites Hebrews 13:7 about ‘imitating the faith of those who are taking the lead among you.’ They don’t go on social media at all. They prefer a less raucous channel, and content themselves with news releases at the website that inform but do not kick back at the critics. “It is scriptural. It is proper. But there is a downside. By staying mum on specifics, essentially our enemies get to define us to the news media who refer to a cover statement about “abhorring child abuse” as “boiler-plate” and then go to former members who will eagerly fill their ears with accounts that we could counter by adding context but don’t. What’s a reporter to do? He goes to who fills his ears. “It will fall upon the Witness journalist to do it, if it is to be done, and there aren’t many of them. If fourteen years of blogging, not shying from controversial things, does not qualify me to take a shot at it, what does? If you are in a spiritual paradise, or even a vacation paradise, you do not have to concern yourself with removing the trash. It may be even dangerous to do so, because there is broken glass and used syringes. It’s not for everyone, and maybe for no one. But I thought I’d give it a go, and I at last got under this fellow’s skin, the big baby.” ...  If it was up to me, there would be an ‘Opposer Servant’ in each circuit. He would say: ‘Look, follow Matthew 11 if you can. But if you can’t, if you simply must have a specific reply to the negative publicity that is becoming frequent fare for mainstream news outlets, here is training on how to deal with them.’ Regarding my book itself, I repeated the thought: “The book is not recommended to all Witnesses. Read it if you want a specific reply to charges laid against the faith. For those able to focus upon forward motion only, the book is not recommended. For those not, it is. The line that invariably gets the largest applause at Regional Conventions of Jehovah’s Witnesses is: “Would you like to send your greetings to the brothers in Bethel [headquarters]?” The hard work and integrity of these ones is appreciated by all. So not everyone will feel the need to check out every derogatory report.”

TTH: Hopefully that has not happened. TTH: Without weighing in on whether he is bad association or not, he is one of the very few who offered constructive criticism of CSA matters. Whether he should have done so on this forum is a matter for others to haggle over, but the fact is that he did and I benefited from it. For example, the Philadelphia.com slimed JWs with a front page lead that must have been seen by everyone in the city and well beyond. It was too much for me. I subsequently declared war on this sort of thing. I submitted a reply to them. This was a big deal for me, to reply at length to a prominent source and tell them they owed it to their readers to publish my reply as prominently as they published the slam. There was a chance that they would do so. I didn’t want to screw it up. I ran it by JWI privately, knowing he has Bethel experience, he reasons well, and he wants to see CSA matters resolved WITHOUT burning Bethel to the ground. (the solution of the opposers) He did not disappoint me. He made valuable suggestions, most of which I accepted. What follows is what I sent to the Philly source, followed by the refined version that is an early chapter of TTvtAp. https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2018/07/an-open-letter-to-the-philadelphia-inquirer-because-they-did-not-acknowlege-much-less-print-the-sent.html https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2019/01/four-incendiary-articles.html  So he helped me. A lot. I don’t care if he is bad association or not. If I was worried about bad association, I would not be here. Nor would you.

TTH: I am probably one of the few here who has not read Ray’s book. I might someday but have no immediate plans. Such things are just red herrings to me, a distraction. I mean, if my books were about personalities, I would go there. But they’re not. My books are what of Jehovah’s Witnesses as a people have done, not so much the individuals in it. I tell a lot of stories, but internal ‘power struggles,’ if they are that, do not interest me.

TTH: I'm going to have another go at this. I do not think that 'TrueTom vs the Apostates!' is a great book in its writing. It is adequately written. It gets the job done. It is even a little haphazard in its organization. Another person might do it better. However, it is a great book in that it is the only one of its kind. And it should not be. There should be more, but there are not. I am convinced that there are many friends and onlookers who need such material. Maybe there shouldn't be, but there are. @JW Insider, more than any single person, helped me in my writing of it. His input was very slight, no more than a sporadic word or two on occasion, sometimes publicly, sometimes not. Where I was too aggressive or undiscerning, his observations put me back on track. Where I was flat-out wrong on a few things, he bluntly corrected me and thereby made my work more effective. He knows where I am coming from. Where I ignored him I afterwards came to realize why I shouldn't have. Whether it is wise for him to carry on at such length as he does here I do not know. But I do know why he does it and why he does it the way he does it. I respect him for it, and I cannot detect an ill motive. That is not to say that he might not be loony, but in my case, he has proven more valuable than he knows.

@JW Insider Whenever I post something about my book in answer to a question, I will put a copy of it here. It is partly to help me keep track, and partly because I want to address a few questions that obviously come up, like: Why is a brother addressing apostates? Does he think he is above theocratic counsel? (He does not) Does he disagree with counsel not to engage apostates? (He does not.) Does he think he is some kind of ‘exception?’ (He does) Is he crazy? (Arguably, he is.) Will he, in the course of accumulating these posts, try to make the case why he thinks he is an ‘exception.?’ (Yes) Does he seriously expect anyone to buy it? (Time will tell) Is @The Librarianreally ‘the old hen’ that he keeps saying she is? (No. She is a male who had long played along with a gag that he acquiesced to and even said he enjoyed, though it has probably worn thin at times, such as when I’ve described her with more negative adjectives than Paul uses at 2 Timothy 3:1-5) Why doesn’t he write what he has to say here in the first place, rather than posting an answer somewhere else, with a copy of it here? (Because he is not smart enough to do it that way. His best writing comes when he is responding to a real person.) Will he continue to annoy The Librarian (the old hen) by spamming to his own blog? (As sparingly as possible. Often he posts the entire article here as well, and he will strive to keep things in-house. His own site features no comment section at all, or one that will be expired by the time he links to it, so linking may even increase traffic here, since if you spot anything there worthy of comment, you must come back here to give it.) Do the elders of his congregation know what he is doing? (Yes, to the degree they wish. Two of them met with him to say they would like to use him more, but does he associate with apostates? He told them that he does not, but what he does comes close enough that it could easily be taken that way & for that reason he did not feel that he should be used in any representative capacity.) Does Bethel know? (He has written them as to what he is doing and why.) Have they endorsed him? (No) Have they said ‘no?’ (They have not.) Have they responded in any way on this topic? (No) Does he expect them to? (Who can say?) Is he worried that they may reply with direction not what he would like? (He is old, and is not worried about much these days. His worrien days are done. He doesn’t miss them. They caused him trouble.) Would he comply with direction if it were not what he would like? (He does not consider himself above theocratic counsel.)

My comment from the other thread: “Everyone knows that it is fixed. The only people not knowing it are those who are convinced that Jehovah’s Witnesses are evil incarnate whose charter purpose is to abuse children, and they will not be convinced until there is a cop in every Witness home.” The threads are careening wildly, showing a shocking lack of organizational ability from The Librarian (the old hen) and BOTH are now in CSA territory. (The only topic EITHER of them should be concerned about is discussion of my book, where I have several chapters on the topic—soon to be updated, since you can do that with an ebook.) It is at the point now where one must flip from one to another to follow the discussion.

Hey, @Shiwiiiiiiiiiiiiii: Did you hear the one about the ‘prosperity gospel’ preacher who tried to lure them in with Beatles tunes and got stuck on the first line? “You never give me your money. You never give me your mohuhuny. You never give me your muhuhuhuhuhoneeee.”

See this previous comment:

Yes, Shiwiiiiiii, let’s go at this again: I repeat, the problem is solved. Where law requires it, elders report & any concern that might make members reluctant to do that has been removed. Where is it not required? If, with all the worldwide outrage over CSA, you cannot get it mandated, then it is time to give up all hope and admit that the world you have chosen will never rise above the civilization where it finds roots—ancient Greece, where CSA was an enshrined practice in society. Moreover, when confronted with an issue with obvious legal implications, I know of no other scenario where consulting with one’s attorney first would be spun as an evil, as it is when BOE’s speak with WT Legal first. This is done, not to evade law, but to ensure compliance with it. Unless there has been human error, JWs always act in compliance with law, but the outrage over CSA (and the disillusionment with religion) triggers reinterpretation of law to present it that they did not.

You know better than this She’s funny that way. When I worked with her in service, she hadn’t even washed it out. When I scolded her, she dismissed me by saying (breezily) that the wind would blow it clean. What have you been smoking? Not at all. Just because policies are fixed does not undo previous suffering. They are having their day in courts, having selected that means of comfort—the same as in scores of organizations where, unlike JWs, the leaders were the abusers.

The real problem is that people have children. This should not be allowed. Most parents have children only so that they may abuse them. Produce children in factories instead, and raise them in communal settings where supervisors have been vetted by authorities* so as to avoid any possible occasion for abuse. Sheesh. *and have certificates to prove it.

Everyone knows that it is fixed. The only people not knowing it are those who are convinced that Jehovah’s Witnesses are evil incarnate whose charter purpose is to abuse children, and they will not be convinced until there is a cop in every Witness home.

Everything in life is action/reaction and it would be foolish to deny the substance of this remark. That said, the parallels hold true in almost all groups, the Boy Scouts even exploring bankruptcy, with but one notable exception. With Jehovah’s Witnesses, it was members engaging in CSA and leaders were deemed lax in reporting. With almost everyone else, it was the leaders themselves committing the abuse, something rare with Witnesses. I will credit crusaders that their activity had brought this about. Once ones leave the faith, people lose track of them. It is easy to say ‘out of sight, out of mind,’ and they did not allow this to happen. They should seriously congratulate themselves. Many have publicity stated that their ‘opposition’ is only so that Jehovah’s Witnesses will fix their ‘broken’ policies. Now that they have been fixed, one wonders if their opposition will stop, or even turn into advocacy in view of the overall benefits of the Witness faith. Members have been given the clearest possible direction that there should be no obstacle or objection to their reporting whatever allegations or realities they feel should be reported. Few observers will hold out for elders marching them down to the police station at gunpoint to make sure that they do, even if the most determined opposers will insist upon it. Few in lands where there is respect for freedom of worship will require that elders be agents of the state.

Lap dance all you want, Jack. You have moved on, so it is hardly your concern.

“The Witness organization cannot be expected to defend itself on social media, if on any media. It takes the scriptural view of Jesus at Matthew 11, noting that grumblers slam him no matter what he does, before finally saying, ‘Don’t worry about it,’ “wisdom is proved righteous by its works.” It is like David who kept mum as ‘all day long they muttered against him.’ ‘It is like the plowman who knows that if you look behind while plowing, the furrows get all flaky.’ They don’t do it. The common view of opposers is that the Witness headship is telling members what to do, while it cynically manipulates all from above. That view is wrong. They practice what they preach and they do it themselves. The organization headship cites Hebrews 13:7 about ‘imitating the faith of those who are taking the lead among you.’ They don’t go on social media at all. They prefer a less raucous channel, and content themselves with news releases at the website that inform but do not kick back at the critics. “It is scriptural. It is proper. But there is a downside. By staying mum on specifics, essentially our enemies get to define us to the news media who refer to a cover statement about “abhorring child abuse” as “boiler-plate” and then go to former members who will eagerly fill their ears with accounts that we could counter by adding context but don’t. What’s a reporter to do? He goes to who fills his ears. “It will fall upon the Witness journalist to do it, if it is to be done, and there aren’t many of them. If fourteen years of blogging, not shying from controversial things, does not qualify me to take a shot at it, what does? If you are in a spiritual paradise, or even a vacation paradise, you do not have to concern yourself with removing the trash. It may be even dangerous to do so, because there is broken glass and used syringes. It’s not for everyone, and maybe for no one. But I thought I’d give it a go, and I at last got under this fellow’s skin, the big baby.” ... If it was up to me, there would be an ‘Opposer Servant’ in each circuit. He would say: ‘Look, follow Matthew 11 if you can. But if you can’t, if you simply must have a specific reply to the negative publicity that is becoming frequent fare for mainstream news outlets, here is training on how to deal with them.’ Regarding my book itself, I repeated the thought: “The book is not recommended to all Witnesses. Read it if you want a specific reply to charges laid against the faith. For those able to focus upon forward motion only, the book is not recommended. For those not, it is. The line that invariably gets the largest applause at Regional Conventions of Jehovah’s Witnesses is: “Would you like to send your greetings to the brothers in Bethel [headquarters]?” The hard work and integrity of these ones is appreciated by all. So not everyone will feel the need to check out every derogatory report.”

Of course. This demand for public apologies is largely a PR event. It is worth noting that when Australia apologized and opposers praised that apology to the heavens because they thought they could thereby embarrass JWs, the victims nonetheless rejected it as ‘too little, too late.’ I think it also fits in well with a certain legal strategy in that it constitutes a clear admission of guilt, thereafter better enabling lawsuits. Few things are done for the noble ‘window-dressing’ reasons that are given.

Hopefully that has not happened. Without weighing in on whether he is bad association or not, he is one of the very few who offered constructive criticism of CSA matters. Whether he should have done so on this forum is a matter for others to haggle over, but the fact is that he did and I benefited from it. For example, the Philadelphia.com slimed JWs with a front page lead that must have been seen by everyone in the city and well beyond. It was too much for me. I subsequently declared war on this sort of thing. I submitted a reply to them. This was a big deal for me, to reply at length to a prominent source and tell them they owed it to their readers to publish my reply as prominently as they published the slam. There was a chance that they would do so. I didn’t want to screw it up. I ran it by JWI privately, knowing he has Bethel experience, he reasons well, and he wants to see CSA matters resolved WITHOUT burning Bethel to the ground. (the solution of the opposers) He did not disappoint me. He made valuable suggestions, most of which I accepted. What follows is what I sent to the Philly source, followed by the refined version that is an early chapter of TTvtAp. https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2018/07/an-open-letter-to-the-philadelphia-inquirer-because-they-did-not-acknowlege-much-less-print-the-sent.html https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2019/01/four-incendiary-articles.html So he helped me. A lot. I don’t care if he is bad association or not. If I was worried about bad association, I would not be here. Nor would you. It takes a while to know the players & you do not know them yet. Both of us worked very hard to retain him on this forum. Besides, I am not sure that he is gone. As for JWI, he spots him everywhere as does the groundhog his shadow. I pleaded with @The Librarian (that old hen) that if for nothing else, Allen should be honored because he proves the resurrection. As to your point about John being more obnoxious and still remaining here, THAT point is certainly valid.

I'm going to have another go at this. I do not think that 'TrueTom vs the Apostates!' is a great book in its writing. It is adequately written. It gets the job done. It is even a little haphazard in its organization. Another person might do it better. However, it is a great book in that it is the only one of its kind. And it should not be. There should be more, but there are not. I am convinced that there are many friends and onlookers who need such material. Maybe there shouldn't be, but there are. @JW Insider, more than any single person, helped me in my writing of it. His input was very slight, no more than a sporadic word or two on occasion, sometimes publicly, sometimes not. Where I was too aggressive or undiscerning, his observations put me back on track. Where I was flat-out wrong on a few things, he bluntly corrected me and thereby made my work more effective. He knows where I am coming from. Where I ignored him I afterwards came to realize why I shouldn't have. Whether it is wise for him to carry on at such length as he does here I do not know. But I do know why he does it and why he does it the way he does it. I respect him for it, and I cannot detect an ill motive. That is not to say that he might not be loony, but in my case, he has proven more valuable than he knows.

He does not. He would like to, but his last two books, because they address things important, will always be available free in some digital format. Obviously, this undermines any efforts to make a living via selling books.

In fact, the problem is solved and everyone not completely unhinged knows it. Witnesses have always been free to report. The unsettling aspect of the CSA cases is that many chose not to do it because they thought they might be bringing reproach on God’s name. Now, beyond any possibility of misunderstanding, it is spelled out for them and for elders that they are not. The problem is solved. There are always going to be ‘What ifs.’ At some point one must have some confidence in the power of parents to be concerned for their children. It is not easy to get between a mama bear and her cub. You make it sound like a walk in the park. Reporting to authorities has now been endorsed. The two witness rule becomes irrelevant, as it always was to outside authorities In the rare situation that nobody has payed the slightest attention to Christian values taught, if wrath or revenge is feared, mama bear may have to flee the house. This has always been the case with in abusive families. The point is that she now knows she has a green light to do it, and can summon whatever authority there is for domestic violence and she need not think she is failing God, the congregation, her family, or anyone else. Sometimes I think that these virulent opposers will not be satified until there is a cop stationed in every Witness home.

You have displayed that you know very little of Einstein. If you did, you would realize that my sense of humor is spot on and everyone else’s is warped.