TrueTomHarley

The 144,000 is a yawner. Nobody cares. I never go there. To clarify a little, some care, but it is analagous to the wonks on media absolutely obsessed over the doings of government and all its machinations, imagining that they reflect the interest of the ordinary people whose greatest hope towards government is that it will pave the roads, jail the bad guys, keep a few of its promises, and otherwise stay out of their hair. A handful throughout history go on to rule with Christ in heaven. Good. It means the heavenly government has more of a feel for humanity than otherwise, first observed by the fact that the king himself did time as a human. That's all anyone really cares about, as they envision how God's Kingdom will bring relief from the individual woes and travesties they suffer on earth. I barely go further with the 144,000 unless someone insists about it.

It means we can run the entire preaching campaign out of Brother Lett’s dorm room, if need be. I am amazed to have seen no reference to it online till now. It confirms my take that people primarily mount the internet to bellyache. I am looking forward to telling someone: ‘I don’t want to study the Bible with you. Do it yourself.” We spoon-feed too much. Many people can handle the basics themselves. This frees up whoever wants to be freed up to focus on a second tier of Bible education involving specific questions, application, press to maturity, and so forth. I think it is a great idea and I wonder what the theocratic organization will do with it, since even they haven’t commented on it. A pioneer in our Hall saw it and said: “ I think it means we have been fired.” I think it means some will feel freed up to make more effective use of their time in the ministry, for truth be known, it is not always stunningly efficient. The observation that efficiency is not one of the fruits of the spirit only partly compensates. It continues a direction already started with JW.org itself, particularly the broadcast, as well as the literature carts. Can’t get enough of it here; it has changed my approach already.

As an ultimate trump card of congregation discipline, to be applied when lesser measures have failed, is disfellowshipping cruel? It certainly could be, and increasingly is, argued that way. Undeniably it triggers pain. That said, suffice it to say that no group has been able maintain its deeply-held moral principles through decades of time without it. I vividly remember circuit ministers of my faith saying: “Fifty years ago, the difference between Jehovah’s Witnesses and people in general was doctrinal. Conduct on moral matters, sexual or otherwise, was pretty much the same.” Today the chasm is huge. Can internal discipline not be a factor? The book 'Secular Faith - How Culture Has Trumped Religion in American Politics' attempts to reassure its secular audience through examining the changing moral stands of churches on five key issues. The book points out that today's church members have more in common with atheists than they do with members of their own denominations of decades past. Essentially, the reassurance to those who would mold societal views is: 'Don't worry about it. They will come around. They always do. It may take a bit longer, but it is inevitable.' Jehovah's Witnesses have thwarted this model by not coming around. Can internal discipline not be a factor? In the case of Jehovah’s Witnesses, members voluntarily sign on to a program that reinforces goals they have already chosen. Sometimes it is not enough to say you want to diet. You must padlock the fridge. It is not an infringement of freedom to those who have willingly signed aboard. They are always free to attempt to diet some place where they do not padlock the fridge. Experience shows, however, that not padlocking the fridge results in overweight people, for not everyone has extraordinary willpower. If people want to padlock the fridge but they can’t do it because malcontents forbid that course and they get big and fat, as in the United States, for example, where the level of obesity is breathtaking, how is that not a violation of their individual rights? It is all a difference over the basic nature of people and what makes them tick.

Next thing you know the charge will be collusion. This is a witchhunt! Sad.

You know, I think that this says it all. The disfellowshipping provision, though hard on those who refuse to yield to it, is a principled moral stand based on biblical values. Possible cut-off with the grandchildren is a great tragedy, to be avoided if at all possible. The response Jack advocates is about himself not being disrespected, and the grandchildren are to be used as pawns to that end. Yes. That says it all.

“...never [enter] into dispute or argument with another. I never saw an instance of one of two disputants convincing the other by argument. I have seen many, on their getting warm, becoming rude, & shooting one another. ... When I hear another express an opinion which is not mine, I say to myself, he has a right to his opinion, as I to mine; why should I question it? His error does me no injury, and shall I become a Don Quixote, to bring all men by force of argument to one opinion? ... There are ... the ill-tempered & rude men in society, who have taken up a passion for politics. ... Consider yourself, when with them, as among the patients of Bedlam, needing medical more than moral counsel. Be a listener only, keep within yourself, and endeavor to establish with yourself the habit of silence, especially on politics. In the fevered state of our country, no good can ever result from any attempt to set one of these fiery zealots to rights, either in fact or principle. They are determined as to the facts they will believe, and the opinions on which they will act. Get by them, therefore, as you would by an angry bull; it is not for a man of sense to dispute the road with such an animal.” - Thomas Jefferson

When everyone else has viewed and written about something, that means you do not have to. Just read what they said, note what they did not say - it's a slam-dunk as to why - and you are golden. You can hit it with 90% accuracy. Mine is a forensic review. That's why I put the word in quotes. Before you choke in indignation, recall that forensic techniques are used all the time in many fields and people never discard the results on that account.

When I heard that the Philly reporter hangs out at the Reddit site, and then I later saw him there myself, as though reporting back to the 'faithful' and promising them further salvos, I thought maybe other reporters might do that too. So I have posted there several times, as JTR immediately detected at his Apostate Control Center. In any community where ones do nothing but repeat and reinforce, in time the subject becomes skewed and misrepresented. 'They need some education over there,' I said, not regarding the chief priests, but the third parties that may pop in or even take their main nourishment from that source. I don't expect to turn anyone around. I hope only to present another side so that should a reporter broadside us, he at least has a better feel for who and what he is broadsiding. On posts that are lengthy, which is most of them, I usually post just a few paragraphs, and link to the remainder on my own blog, where I can keep track of it and it is not quickly buried. Do you know, Ms @The Librarian, that I have never once been called for 'spamming' on the 'apostate' site? In writing specific replies to each Philly article, then an overreaching one incorporating all three, I begin to imagine, I hope not too immodestly, that I become a 'news source' in my own right. What I write I have seen no one else write in a comprehensive fashion. This is also true of my 'review' of the Apostasy movie and an upcoming post or two about the BITE model that everyone is swooning over. Though some get all bent up that specific replies are not forthcoming from the theocratic organization on whatever dirt opposers think they have dug up on us, and fume that responses cannot be found on the official website, I think they cannot be expected to appear there or anywhere else. To do so would require our brothers go the 'low road,' from the Bible standpoint. Jesus said (Matthew 11) that they will bellyache no matter what you do, so shrug it off and go full speed ahead. David said 'all day long they muttered at him, and he responded by keeping mum.' The plowman that keeps looking behind 'is not well-suited for the kingdom of God,' so they tend not to do that. (Luke 9:62) It will be for others to defend them, and they may not even appreciate it. And they may not even appreciate it because it is not a good idea. Who can say? I just find that, having taken the time to get my head around things, I cannot let one-sided articles go by without posting a reply as complete as I know how to make it. Another reason, maybe the more important reason, for the organization's not jumping into the fray, is the principle of separateness. The fray is populated by those yet in the 'low sink' of 1 Peter 4:4. 'Water's just fine here in the low sink!' they cry. 'What are you, nuts, for staying out?' It is just as Peter says, that they are puzzled about it for a time, but quickly figure out that the 'correct' response is to 'speak abusively' of those keeping separate. And few people are as quick to embrace values of the sink than media people - it is they who discuss the merits of "theybees," for example, while people of common sense dismiss it as stupidity on steriods. And don't get me going about people who were out of the low sink but dive back in. "Water is not so bad here, after all," they say, as they slap lipstick on a pig like varnishing a barn. The brothers cannot win by jumping into the fray. Pope Francis apologiizes in the wake of the Pennsylvanian report, and it is "too little, too late," to the Church's opponents. And no, JTR, it is not even remotely similar to the JW situation - please do not embarrass yourself still further by going there. It will always be 'too little too late' to those whose primary goal is to discredit what they don't like. Even were the brothers to decide that they have something that merits a public apology, the instant retort would be: "Well, what are you going to do about it?" Unless the answer is exactly the course that opposers want, the 'apology' will be dismissed as but empty words. We should not be naive. How do you face a squad that would convict you for not 'going beyond the law' in reporting? What sort of an invitation to Monday-morning quarterbacking is that? If it is so crucial to go beyond the law, then MAKE that the law. What is so hard about that? Jehovah's organization can make a new policy and spread it throughout every congregation in the world in no time at all. The overall world is, as usual, incompetent, and tries to foist the consequences of its incompetence on others - in this case the one branch of Christianity that knows that if you preach moral values, you had better take some measures to determine that your own people are doing them. How do you face a squad that says the standard of justice integral to Western law should be abandoned because bad guys escape through the net that way? Each time DNA evidence releases someone convicted on less strenuous proof from prison, we see the value of actually making sure of your facts. Doesn't matter to the zealots. Not long ago the British cops descended with huge fanfare - helocopters, I think, to bust some well-known person for pedophilia, with media giving the raid the greatest coverage. It turned out that when it was found that there was nothing to it, the man sued media and won a large award. It did not make a dent in their zeal. 'Alright, alright, so we destroyed someone,' they muttered. 'It is worth it in our quest to 'protect children.' In searching, I didn't remember enough to bring up the story, but I came up with this from the Michael Jackson trial (one of the most shameful travesties of 'journalism' says the HuffPost) which is almost better. Meanwhile, at Apostate Control, JTR does not miss an opportunity to malign Michael Jackson, as he does Prince, because he thinks he can hurt the Watchtower that way. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-thomson/one-of-the-most-shameful_b_610258.html Nonetheless, do what Jackson pleaded for before the ARC and the problem is solved. Both parties, congregation and government, can pursue their goals without interfering with the other. No, I think the organization will never go there, in answering charges specifically. It will focus on what it does best, make 'reforms' that it deems necessary, and press forward. It will take up the words of Russell about not kicking at every one that barks, because you don't get very far that way. Meanwhile, the Librarian, fine lady that she is, and who can blame her for blowing a gasket when I try to link to my blog three times a day? took a look at my blog, said it had an 'old look,' and made some suggestions. I had to admit that it did, so I went to Typepad and said 'what were they going to do about it?' It turns out they can make things more modern, even get it so that it flows into whatever device summons it. I will not get to it immediately, because it is a pain in the neck, but I wlll get to it. Thank you, Ms Librarian. (you old hen) My blog will not compete with yours. It is only a collection of writings I deem loyal. At most, I get one or two attaboys from allies, and seldom even that. "I don't want more,'" said the fox to the sour grapes. And what! You think I am going to let JTR go there without a leash? No. I want to write, not moderate comments. It is as you say: FB and the huge social media sites are squeezing out the bacon of everyone else. I took a four year hiatus from blogging to attend to some pressing matters. When I returned, it took awhile to restore former traffic. That has been done. Yet the commenting never reappeared. Come, we are allies in a battle that is not unimportant. I don't mean to take from here; I think it almost an impossible goal due to presentation and commenting differences, and if I link to myself, will only do so if it is directly relevent, and not just tooting my own horn for the sake of tooting it. Especially if Srecko links to an entire article, where a hit man writer luxuriates in slowing building his point, I ought to be able to counter with a post progressively building a reply.

I'll take a chance here. Srecko posts a Philly article damning to Jehovah's Witnesses. (though it has nothing to do with the thread - my thread) I wrote a reply to that article and sent it to the newspaper, cc to the reporter and an editor or two. I said they owed it to their readers to publish it or its equivalent as prominently as they had published theirs maligning a group of decent people. The letter of reply was not acknowledged in any way. Let's see if the reply can remain here. Srecko's incendiary link has stayed. Let's see if the response is permitted to stay as well. It is directly relevent and does not veer off in any other direction. http://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2018/07/an-open-letter-to-the-philadelphia-inquirer-because-they-did-not-acknowlege-much-less-print-the-sent.html The Philly paper went on to write two follow-up articles, the reporter checking back to Reddit. I replied to each of them, and then wrote a fourth piece summarizing them all: "Three Incendiary Articles from the Philadelphia Inquirer." She says she was 5 when another Jehovah's Witness raped her. The religion's leaders call such accounts 'false stories' They do not. It is the spin put on them that he calls 'false stories.'

I don’t, want to dump, on, the Church, but when I, stopped in,at, the office to, explain. my mission regarding, Celeste, staff assured me, that Father, so-and-so was an absolutely, wonderful man, who would. of course, help Do, you know. that, he never got back to, me? Unrelated, I recall Garrison Keillor telling how Pastor Inqvist unsuccessfully tried to jazz up his dull sermons by watching the TV preacher: ‘It was hard to follow because he was pausing in such odd...............places........that it confused people.’

I'll pick a fight with JTR and distract her. Though she might be on the bottle again and need no distraction.

I would link to my post about caring for a woman Celeste who was given to a lobotomy when young, as it is a favorite piece, and I atypically get to swear like a drunken sailor in quoting her, but I’m afraid of the Librarian. She might get mad. Canada, where GF resolves to, or is it Allen the Terrible in his umpteenth recreation, is a fine place. When they get out of line, we tip a Great Lake or two their way.

Weighing in (I think) with @Space Merchant (was it on this thread or another?) here is a psychiatrist declaring that pedophilia is a legitamate sexual orientation, thus arguing for its recognition. This does not appear to be fake news. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/paedophilia-sexual-orientation-straight-gay-criminal-psychologist-child-sex-abuse-a6965956.html

What I cannot fathom is that you (supposedly) still attend meetings and and engage in field service. This makes no sense to me, and does not fit the pattern, and for that reason, I half-don't believe it. When someone grouses eterally over what eventually drives them apostate, they lose EVERYTHING they once regarded as spiritual. They do not 'reject the 85% that they regard as crap but cling to the 15%' still pure, or was it the other way around? They may do it in the short term. But long term, they reject everything. This, to me, is the 'mystery' of apostasy. Not that ones would go that route. That I find very easy to understand. But that, having gone there, they would not retain even a shred of what they once held dear. That to me is the mystery. If it is really true that, as someone alleged, you remain where you hate to be out of fear of social consequences were you to be outed, then you are most of all the one who is in need of courage, the theme at the Be Courageous Regional convention, though the content be not intended for that outcome.

Forgive an off-topic comment, if you will. I have long wanted to thank you, but did not know that you still hung around. I finished the book I was working on, 'Dear Mr. Putin - Jehovah's Witnesses Write Russia,' and you were the biggest help, since you continually posted updates of persecutions there. I am grateful to you for that. I also took it to heart when you chastised me for 'liking' the contents of apostates, which I had never done much, but resolved to do not at all henceforth. That is not to say that I have not exchanged barbs with the 'house apostate' who resembles, after a time, a big cuddly snarling lovable rabid old teddy bear. And even a Jack someone or other, whe has launched as many as ten petulant complaints in a single day. But 'guest apostates', like a certain one who used to sign off 'he he he )))))' until he discontinued it, apparantly realizing it made him look like a moron, I do not respond to (usually). It is well that you stay out of it. You have chosen the high road. I recall you saying that you had recently been appointed MS and married not too long ago, and that you wanted to focus on those real priorities. I hope things are going well with you.

There is a certain idiot on Twitter who has been trolling me lately and he has not been easy to shake. I do not converse with such characters, though I do announce to them. He said that he assumes I have JW friends and family that I would lose were it discovered that I had "chatted' (his innacurate word) with him. I replied that 'You know what they say about assuming.' While continually asking for clarification, he inserts observations such as me belonging to a high-control group. Lately I have taken to responding to all requests for elucidation with a link to somethng I have already written. Such as: "Here is another one for you,, since you keep asking. I really don't want to do this. But I am in a "high-control" group, as you say, and they are making me: http://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2011/04/what-the-is-next.html Incredibly, he perseveres, even after I sent him one that I said I called my "troll special." But I can outlast him. I have a lot of posts. This is called 'shifting responsibility.' it is what Adam did. My thread! My big beautiful thread! How it has been hijacked and divereted! That bad Anna.

You will be happy to learn that I got a G on my talk last night, which was written here. The deciding factor was when I threw in, entirely spontaneously, that Franklin was hung with a NEW rope and yet still complained about it Imagine. Even when the hangman goes to all the trouble and expense of procuring a NEW rope, it is still not enough for Mr. Fussypants. For those in Rio Linda, let us illustrate the situation thus: ”He would complain even if he was hung with a NEW rope.” Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! “He would complain even if he was hung with a OLD rope.” ? ?

You guys are all nuts. It only makes comedic sense if it is a new rope. Old rope is decidedly not funny and anyone thinking so should be observed for at least 48 hours. It is like new new prisoner puzzled that the mere shout of a number would evoke uproarious laughter until he was told that in a closed population all jokes eventually get told many times and so to save time all are assigned numbers. He asked if he can do one, too, and when he shouts out a number, it is met with dead silence. He asks why that is and is told: ”Some people just can’t tell a joke.”

This is incorrect. They should ALL complain about being hung with an old rope. It’s people that are so fussy that they would complain even were it a brand NEW rope that makes it funny. A good friend of mine used to say it all the time.

Ben Franklin courted the widow of his good friend, but the woman turned him down flat: ‘I could never be untrue to my husband.Â’ Then, in a dream, he went to heaven and met his good friend. They exchanged pleasantries until the friend presently said: “You must meet my new wife. SheÂ’ll be along soon.” Ben Franklin couldnÂ’t believe it. ‘Your earthly wife is more loyal than you!Â’ he said. She turned me down cold on your account!Â’ ‘ThatÂ’s too bad for you,Â’ the friend said. ‘She is an excellent woman and I missed her terribly at first, but now it is time to move on.Â’ As Ben Franklin grumbled, the ‘newÂ’ wife showed up and it was BenÂ’s own deceased wife! Ben Franklin turned his rebuke on her, but she said: ‘I was a good and loyal wife to you for 50 years. Let that be enough for you!Â’ It is a mangling of Luke 20: 34-36, most likely, botched, but nonetheless used as a starting point. No need to say what is wrong with it. Suffice that it addresses the changed nature of relationships after death: “Jesus said to them: ‘The children of this system of things marry and are given in marriage, but those who have been counted worthy of gaining that system of things and the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage. In fact, neither can they die anymore, for they are like the angels, and they are GodÂ’s children by being children of the resurrection.’” For the longest time JehovahÂ’s Witnesses took those verses to mean that those who lost a spouse in death would not reunite in the earthly resurrection. After a certain public talk years ago that had mentioned the verse, a sister raised her had during the chairmanÂ’s remarks, something I had never seen before and have not seen again. She was new in the faith, widowed, and she looked forward to reuniting with her husband in the resurrection. She quizzed the chairman until the speaker himself raised his hand and said he would clarify the verse for her afterwards. About 30-40 years ago, the Witness organization looked at the verses anew and said maybe she could reunite. They didnÂ’t want to be dogmatic. Maybe the verses just applied to those having the heavenly hope, as they were the ones in abundance back then. It canÂ’t even be said of earthly ones “neither can they die anymore.” They can, and surely will, if they show a rebellious spirit. I mean, if you were raised up to life on a paradise earth, would you grumble about the ground rules? Grousers who say that JehovahÂ’s Witnesses flip-flop on doctrine miss the point. TheyÂ’ve never said they didnÂ’t. They do it all the time, re-examining verses in the face of accumulating knowledge. It has been called ‘the light getting brighter.Â’ (Proverbs 4:18) It has also been called tacking. The only ones who say they canÂ’t do it are the grousers themselves. That said, the major teachings of JehovahÂ’s Witnesses regarding the nature of God (no Trinity), the nature of the soul (not immortal), who goes to heaven (not everybody good, but only a minority), have been firmly in place for over a century. Ridding the false doctrines that make knowledge and a close relationship with God all but impossible is part of the job of ‘the messenger preparing the way.Â’ The first thing you do in preparing the way for a building project is to take out the trash. (the Ben Franklin writing is called 'A Proposal to Madame Helvetius')

"This next lesson is mighty important." "Bullwinkle is a dope." "NOT that lesson. This lesson:" (Rocky and Bullwinkle) Still, if studying the 1000 years book twice was for misguided purpose, for what reason was it directed that we study the Greatest Man book four times? (and again, in its new version)

In the broadest sense of the word, nearly all human interaction is political. This is not the sense of the word the people normally use, and everyone here except for one person 'groks' it. It is similar to the 'political' involvement of previous WBTS presidents. The accusations are so obviously and lovingly culled from apostate websites, everyone else rejecting it as the obsessive nonsense that it is, that I find, although there is a part of me that would like to answer it, it is too stupid to answer.

And to think that I once called this brother ‘Allen the Terrible.’ Not only does he prove the resurrection; he proves the rehabilitation. A few Bible verses say it all.

Actually I said that “Witnesses love this guy.” I wouldn’t put it that way. Offense is more like it. Admittedly he is a cultivated taste and it is well that he is one of a kind among Watchtower ‘brass.’ But nobody would ever deny that he is genuine, nor of his concern for the flock. In a world of phonies obsessed with outward appearance that is a decided plus. In general, the more ‘lowly’ our people are, the more they like him. The more enamored people are with the TV anchorman as role model, the more they choke on him.