TrueTomHarley

1 hour ago, FelixCA said:

By your explanation, there was no good reason to have removed Allen, and what is offered, is another form of unjust, justification to retain those that are abusive and against the Watchtower for the sake of revenue. Therefore, apostasy sells.

I think it was personal with Allen. I afterwards had some private communication with him and found that I liked him a great deal. He got under the Librarian’s skin, I think. It is very hard for me to justify why he was thrown overboard and the equally bombastic Rook and shrill Butler were not. I don’t try. I just explain what I think happened.

The Librarian is one of those Witnesses who thinks truth emerges from vigorous debate. When you shine the bright light of TRUTH around, cockroaches disappear. (I think they just go elsewhere.) It is even possible that she is disfellowshipped. It is impossible to know with anyone. My practice is to update the words of Paul, “Every man is a liar,” to “Everyone online is a liar.” It is impossible to know, which is why the slave repeatedly advises young ones (and probably everyone else) to friend only those whom you know personally, counsel everyone here has chosen to ignore.

On Facebook there is a originator of Witness memes, commonly copied by the friends, that is supposedly run by someone disfellowshipped. It is a huge page. His work is excellent and loyal, shared widely by those who don’t know his status. Who can say what his motive is? but it doesn’t appear to be bad. Someone who knows he is disfellowshipped because she personally knows involved parties created a major ruckess trying to get everyone to unfriend him. (I never had in the first place; his kind of material is not what interests me) It looks absolutely ridiculous to outsiders, and to even most of us, when you try to enforce congregation standards on the Internet. Talk about a bad witness!

The one serious beef I have with The Librarian, besides her being an old hen, is that she drags people in through social media (I came in through Twitter) purporting to be a fine gathering site for Witnesses. I blew a gasket when I found that it was not, and one of the ones I came after was JWI, though to a MUCH lesser degree than I went after ones like Rook. I wrestled for some time whether it was right for me to stay here at all. In the end, I decided to and that move has facilitated two books, both loyal, and both absolutely one-of-kind, that I would not have been able to write otherwise. I hope that brothers enjoy it, but the brothers are not my main targeted audience in either case.

I have gotten comfortable here now. I’ve even struck up some sort of semi-camaraderie with Rook, the old pork chop, who I sometimes think of as ‘my’ apostate. A good number of opposers here I don’t think are mentally sound. They probably (inaccurately- or is it?) think the same of me. Several I can’t stand, though in some cases I have caught a glimpse or two of what makes them tick. I have gotten to prefer the word ‘opposer’ or ‘detractor’ over apostate, partly because the latter makes for a ridiculous spectacle to ones like @adminand partly because, in my case, it pays to know that they, too, are people. They chose a wrong course, imo, but they are still people, and I benefit by putting myself in their shoes sometimes.

There you are, Felix. As honest as I know how to be. Though it is very objectionable in many ways, I have reaped benefits by being here, and to the extent that my books are any good, Kingdom interests have also. There are so many sites 100% devoted to opposition, that this site cannot rate too highly on the JW HQ annoyance list. However, maybe because it is in some respects disingenuous, it is at the top of the list.

12 hours ago, FelixCA said:

What part of apostate views can be accepted? Especially when those same ideas are found in apostate sites. 

I wrote the book on apostates.

Literally.

’TrueTom vs the Apostates”

Everything there is to be known about them I know. They come in many shapes, sizes, permutations, colors, and genres. Some of them may even be misnamed. Some are too young to be apostates, though they must be treated pretty much the same. Call some of them apostates-in-training. They are more like the inexperienced one snatched away by some wave of the trickery of men. (Ephesians 4:14)

Is JWI one them? It is probably good discipline for him to keep hearing it from every Tom, Dick, and Harry Witness that passes through here, for he undeniably is ‘out there,’ but I am not ready to throw him under the bus just yet, if only for fear that he may grab me by the ankle and pull me in, too.

Are his views ‘apostate,’ even if they can also be found ‘on apostate sites?’ There are many of such views that have eventually become adopted by the Witness organization. Were they apostate right up until the moment they were adopted and then revealed truth afterwards? It makes no sense.

There is some verse somewhere about not running ahead. I cannot quite put my finger on it, but it may be in John’s writing. Help me out, someone. Not you, Butler. That’s not good, to run ahead, but it mostly finds expression in those who are promoting a sect. Is he? It’s arguable, perhaps, but imo he is not. 

The prime component of what makes an apostate to me is a lack of submission to theocratic authority, and he goes out of his way to make clear that he has no problem with that. If you can’t even talk about something that (history has shown) might eventually be adopted, then it really IS true that eight men are the only ones authorized to think. Neither they nor anyone else would want that to be the case, I think.

When push comes to shove, he is submissive to appointed authority. Let that be enough on a bayou backwater thread as this. If he set up a booth at the Kingdom Hall: “JWI’s Thoughts,” that would be one thing, but he doesn’t (you don’t, JWI, right?)

Honestly. If he was an apostate I would know it because I wrote the book on apostates and he is not in it. (Yet. It is an ebook, after all, which has already been updated and no doubt will be updated again) Remember, ALL of us are apostate if you stretch the word too far, for Bethel clearly prefers we abstain from sites of off the grid spiritualality and yet here we are.

7 hours ago, FelixCA said:

JWI is a power player here and he can say whatever he wants. 

All you have to do to be a power player here is to hang around This is a commercial site, after all 

7 hours ago, FelixCA said:

When he gets challenged by showing those areas of error, people get deleted, 

The only one who has ever been deleted is Allen, (as far as I know) which both JWI and I tried to prevent/undo. And he DID get abusive at times, which is a little different than obnoxious. Many here are obnoxious with no penalty whatsoever. That’s okay. But abusive is not. Even I was once penalized for being abusive. (for beating up on apostates, to a FAR greater degree than you.) I have preserved the experience, with embellishments, in the introduction of TrueTom vs the Apostates.

https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/917311

Butler is right. I shamelessly self promote (but it is for the best)

7 hours ago, FelixCA said:

I get that, thanks for the warning, I’m on the verge of being erased, by Tom, Anna, JWinsider.

None of these have that power. The ones that do, @admin and @The Librarian (that old hen) would not want you erased.  You contribute to eyeballs on this forum, and that drives traffic, which drives money in the form of advertising. This is a commercial site.  The worst you can do from their point of view is to disappear. JWI has been given minor clerical powers. They are mostly so that he can straighten out the messes that his posts mak in the form of launching tangents. The Librarian is a Witness, I would call her an ‘avante gard’ one, which to some means she is not. Admin is not a Witness and is ambivalent in how he feels towards them. Certain posts of his have not been encouraging, but he stays on his side of the fence. Business, you understand.

You have made your point well. Possibly I may mention it again, but I have no plans to bring it up again. An ‘agree to disagree’ thing, and yours is undeniably the majority view among our people. Perhaps it must be that way.

I will be with you as I am with him. In the words of the great American forefather, ‘I may not agree with what you say, but I will argue mildly for your right to say it!!’

That being said, that being said.

1 hour ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

You avoid answering the questions I asked though and that was what i wanted you to explain, as you well know. 

The post itself explains those things.

if you don’t mind, I’ll pass, John. Many others have explained these things for you. I haven’t seen any of them make an inch of progress.

24 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Quote TTH "We do cut people slack in most areas."   Please explain.

 

I did explain. All you had to do was read the next sentence.

24 minutes ago, Anna said:

It almost seems like you are wishing the elders will act against these clearly stated instructions  in the wt, and shepherding book like you are not happy that the victims and others are assured

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/

2 hours ago, FelixCA said:

But, that's between you and our creator.

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.

7 hours ago, FelixCA said:

Therefore, this place has become a bully pulpit for misinformation, nothing more. 

When was it ever anything else?

7 hours ago, FelixCA said:

I can understand your need to receive opposition input to frame your own books,

From my point of view, that is almost the sole purpose of this site. 

7 hours ago, FelixCA said:

however, that in itself is no excuse to malign, or distort the truth.

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.

1 hour ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Perhaps TTH is giving away 'samples' of his 'works' just to get people 'hooked' on his books. Then, he will start charging high prices. This time next year he'll be a millionaire.  

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

On 2/3/2019 at 9:33 AM,  Srecko Sostar said: 

Those JW who will go on Your page will find, I guess, more information than from WT official channels of communication. hehe

“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.”

   On 2/1/2019 at 12:06 PM,  FelixCA said: 

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.

@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.)

4 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

The Elders won't handle the issue without two witnesses because they will call the victim a liar or slanderer. Then if the victim keeps complaining the Elders will have the victim disfellowshipped for either of the above reasons.  

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.”

6 minutes ago, Shiwiii said:

ok sure, answer this: 

 

Johnny boy is allowed to recycle his plastic, glass bottles and aluminum cans in the State of Arizona

in California (in certain cities) Johnny boy is required to recycle his plastic, glass bottles and aluminum cans.

Is this the same thing? Is the practice of  recycling "fixed" in Arizona?  

See this previous comment:

13 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

If, with all the worldwide outrage over CSA, you cannot get it universally 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.

3 hours ago, Anna said:

 

Yes, Shiwiiiiiii, let’s go at this again:

4 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

regardless what I think about jws in general, there is a big difference from being allowed and requiring. 

 

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.

2 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Well TTH is an author and I suppose whatever sells his books for him.

You know better than this

3 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

And Anna has her head in the sand and is just hoping the situation will just blow over and go away.

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.

3 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Neither have any thought for any of the victims of Child Abuse. 

What have you been smoking?

3 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

And it seems to be the American way to just live with collateral damage. Just push those people underground and forget about them. 

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.

7 minutes ago, Shiwiii said:

regardless what I think about jws in general, there is a big difference from being allowed and requiring. 

 

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.

52 minutes ago, Shiwiii said:

Hang on just a second Tom. Do you really think this is fixed?  I mean, now it ALLOWS reporting without repercussion and not instructed to report. That is not quite the same thing. Don't get me wrong, I am happy to see that they are now allowing it to be reported, but it isn't the fix. 

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.

On 2/3/2019 at 1:33 AM, Shiwiii said:

Sadly it has taken the secular courts in many countries to force this to happen.

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.

19 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Those JW who will go on Your page will find, I guess, more information than from WT official channels of communication. hehe

“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.”

14 hours ago, Anna said:

But it's unrealistic and unfair to have to apologize in all instances. How can elders apologize for the sexual misconduct of a father against his children, especially if 

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.