TrueTomHarley

21 hours ago, JW Insider said:

But there are several topics about which our natural tendencies have already made some of us look like we don't care about truth as much as sustaining an assumed reputation. Some of the same "defenders" don't realize they are creating a reputation of caring more about reputation than about truth. This affects discussions of WTS history, chronology, child abuse, and a host of other topics, most of which get blown out of proportion by opposers. But some get blown out of proportion by JW defenders.

I'll go along with this, with the caveat that you can overdo it with regrets and apologies. This is because most demands for apologies hide a greater agenda. We see it all the time in political matters. Admit to a fault and the immediate refrain is that you have declared yourself unfit and should be fired. Nor is admitting to a course ever enough in the event of not being fired. The fault is brought up repeatedly, ad infinitum. I almost think that people don't want the apology they demand, because then their mission is torpedoed by success. They get around it by continuing their attack anyway. 

In the case of some policies, an apology is immediately met with a "Well, what are you going to DO about it?" If the response is not exactly what the critic demands, the apology is dismissed as just empty words, the 'regret' no more that a lying attempt to manipulate public opinion. It is a crazy world we operate in today, and anyone in his or her right mind ought to be ecstatic at the prospect of coming out of it.

The enemies of Jehovah's Witnesses have succeeded in doing what Jehovah's Witnesses alone could never do: place Jehovah's name on worldwide center stage in (at present) three key areas. The one most unnuanced and instantly evocative of sympathy is the persecution of them in Russia, which has grabbed the attention of connected ones that we find difficult to grab.

The other two battlefields are not what we might have chosen, but that does not mean that the battle should be run away from, or that it will not be won. It is enough to state that this or that policy indeed has a down side, and then to call attention to its upside. It will divide people, but that it not a bad thing. It is exactly what Paul at Hebrews 4:12 says the truthful message should be expected to do.

The kickback over 'shunning' can be won. In many cases it is from those like Saul who keep kicking against the goads. In some cases it has nothing to do with disfellowshipping, a term that hasn't been heard in the Kingdom Hall for a dozen years or so. People do a 180 from previously held deeply moral views and find that those who hold the course lose interest in associating with them, even if they be family members, yet no announncement was ever made. When an announcement is made, it is that 'so-and-so is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses.' Who would ever say that he is, when he does/says things directly contrary to what he once did/said? People hear such an announcement and respond as they see fit. 

To be sure, Christian counsel based on Bible principles shapes how one responds to such announcements, but we make no bones about being guided by loyalty to Jehovah. The provision may tweek some; I think it already has, but the general principle is clearly found in the Bible. Suffice it to say that, minus such tools of last resort, no group has succeeded over time in preserving the morality that members have voluntarily signed on for. It becomes an issue of choosing between serving God or man, and we don't mind things being framed that way.

The child abuse matters indeed have a real downside to them. Though opponents expand the charges into as many different areas as they can, the essential reality is that, due to being 'insular,' allegations and actual instances of child sexual abuse were handled within the congregation arrangement, and thereafter many participants declined to go 'beyond the law' and also report to outside authorities. Once again, adjustments have been made by the theocratic organization. Perhaps more will be forthcoming, but it will never be enough to satisfy determined opposers. 'Insular', which sounds bad, is mostly just another word for 'separate', which is a biblical imperitive. Separateness usually leads to some degree of insularity. Admit it, settle up where need be, and move ahead.

Christians are to be separate from 'the world.' There is no question as to this. The world doesn't like it, because it reads in such a course a judgement, for example, as Jesus stated at John 3:19. It is as is written at 1 Peter 4:4: They are puzzled because 'you do not keep running with them into the same low sink of debachery,' but they figure out the proper course in a hurry, and 'go on speaking abusively of you.' So be it. Let it be a matter of being very public about Christians staying separate. "Water's just fine here in the low sink!" the ex-Witnesses and the media taunt. 'What's wrong with you, saying it is not?'

God's name is front and center, put there by our opponents as much as by us. In each case it is accompanied by what Jesus told his disciples to expect: 'They will lyingly say every sort of wicked thing about you' (Matthew 5:19) for belonging to the 'cult' that is 'everywhere spoken against.' (Acts 28: 22)

We can't choose our battles but we can fight them. Every one of them can be turned into a positve witness, even as we acknowlege there has been a downside, even a serious downside. Meanwhile the truth flows like the gushing widening river from the throne. It can be run online from the Lett's dorm room, if need be, as the online lessons convey what might take the individual Witness a year to convey.

Let those who have left Jehovah's way take responsibilty for the overall world they have chosen. Is it only with the congregation that there is a downside? When they see mayhem and malevolence on TV, let them embrace it. It's what they have chosen. Let them join pundits in declaring the skyrocketing anxiety levels that have become a staple of life 'a crisis of mental health', as though there was in reality nothing to worry about.

3 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

If your family member (children) want to celebrate birthday and you as JW parent forbid them to express their  freedom to manifest and practice his or her religion  (or wish, or non religion attitude, or atheistic, or worldly ideas)  that is the source of conflict.”

Historically, people have recognized the right, even the responsibility, of parents to decide such things for their minor children.

There are many examples of authoritarian countries deciding otherwise: that children are the property of the state and not the parents,  to be molded by state views.

Increasingly that model is spreading to lands that once had greater respect toward parents and took a hands-off approach.

Don't go to town with the "hands-off"  phrase, JTR. Just don't. We know where your obsession lies. Please refrain.

I tweeted, with photo included, that all Regional Conventions had witnesses scenes of Russian police breaking up Christian meetings. 

Instantly, the tweet was liked from three entirely separate parts of the world, none of whose authors used English as a primary language. There is nothing like the worldwide brotherhood.

Rachel Denbur, director of Human Rights Institute, frequently quoted in media, picked up the tweet and retweeted it.

 

It is also worth noting that the European Court of Human Rights didn't buy the charge that Jack is spreading,  that Jehovah’s Witnesses break up families. It wrote in 2010:

“It is the resistance and unwillingness of non-religious family members to accept and to respect their religious relative’s freedom to manifest and practice his or her religion that is the source of conflict.”

They didn't buy the charge of "mind control," either:

“The Court finds it remarkable that the [Russian] courts did not cite the name of a single individual whose right to freedom of conscience had allegedly been violated by means of those techniques.”

"The Russian Supreme Court in 2017 was not chastened by this rebuke and saw no need to cite a name for the April 20th trial, either. They did, however, find every need to not hear representatives of foreign embassies who might, for all they knew, have sided with the European Court."

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

But even some of what we might tend to filter out gives us some material to think about.

As long as Paul pops Nero in the nose and gets the girl I'm happy.

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

Not funny! (Just my personal opinion and judgment call.) Have you read the new book about JWs and the Watchtower Society called "Ellen's Song"? It seems to have derived almost entirely from Internet discussions and rumors.

Though I was initially mortified that one describing himself as brother would give away the fort, spilling dirt here and there (and alas, Allen the Terrible seems never to have gotten over it), I am gradually coming around to his way of thinking. I like the model of the Christian who has seen dirt, but nonetheless stays loyal despite it. It is the essence of the talk: Acquiring a Heart of Wisdom, which I used to love to give and which is seldom done well. In this case, JWI chooses to spill, not in Grand Central Station, but in some tiny backwater channel of the internet run by an arthritic hackeyed has-been of a librarian (the old hen) and he makes his posts so long that the stupid people will get bored and move on.

I am going there myself, spilling dirt to some degree, and already have gone there in No Fake News but Plenty of Hogwash:

After studying one book seemingly written for no other purpose other than to harp on dress and grooming and harangue about field service, the conductor said to me: “Tom, why don’t you comment? You know all these answers.” It was a turning point. He was right. I did know them all. It was time to stop sulking. From the circuit overseer on down, they had stirred up major chaos in the family. They had been heavy-handed and clumsy - but never malicious. And it had never been Jehovah. I had read of ill-goings-on in the first-century record. Congregations described in Revelation chapters 2 and 3 were veritable basket cases, some of them, but that did not mean that they were not congregations. Eventually things smooth out. Eventually 1 Timothy 5:24 comes to pass: “The sins of some men are publicly known, leading directly to judgment, but those of other men will become evident later.” “Later” may take its sweet time in rolling around but it always does roll around. Should I stumble when it becomes my turn? I’d read whiner after whiner carrying on about some personal affront or other on the Internet. Was I going to be one of them? 

...Recovery didn’t happen overnight, for I have a PhD in grumbling. Indeed, I was so good at it that few noticed I grumbled, for I had never left the library – I had only strayed from the same page. Now it was time to get on the same paragraph. Was that book truly a dog? They’re not all dazzling flashes of light, you know, for the treasure is contained in earthen vessels. Or was it the conductor? Or was it me? No matter. If life throws you for a loop, you thank God for the discipline and move on. ‘For those whom Jehovah loves he disciplines, in fact, he scourges everyone whom he receives as a son,’ the Bible says. Tell me about it. ‘Half of those at Bethel are here to test the other half,’ the old-timers said. Yeah – tell me about that, too. 

What I will never be is a reporter taking on the mission of telling Bethel what it is doing wrong, as though I knew or felt I could assume the responsibility. Even of most of the supposed JW supporters on this forum, it is mostly a matter of discussing the degree to which they are wrong. I won't go there. I will take it as a given that since they are human and follow in the footsteps of the first century congregation leaders, of course they will make mistakes here and there. Nobody should expect otherwise.

Though JTR will gleefully seize upon the nugget of dirt and throw away all context, usually imputing the most vile motives to those in authority that he disagrees with, I have come to think that it doesn't matter. They will, and do, make up dirt anyway. Might as well give them some John Wayne True Dirt.

I don't consider myself above the theocratic organization, much less authorized or interested in 'exposing' their missteps, and I could care less about wonkish things.  If a video is posted of something confidential, I don't go there. Not everything not made public is the smoking gun. To be sure, I may eventually go there if something becomes absolutely crucial, as it did with the confidential memos Shiwiiiiiiiiii posted, because I eventually inserted them into the Money chapter of Dear Mr. Putin, with the observation that each one of them was entirely what you would expect given the Bible verses used to justify them in the first place. And when JTR excitedly posts video for me to see, I seldom go there. What is this obsession with allowing ones' enemies to serve up your menu for you? Didn't he get the sense of Thomas Jefferson's counsel not to argue with entrenched idealogues? Now, if JWI posts it for me, that is a different matter.

However, I like the idea of suffering setbacks in life, even some in the context of theocracy that would not have happened outside of it, and recovering from it rather than evangelistically broadcasting every little petulant beef about anyone or anything that ever did one wrong, an inconvenient truth that makes the internet so tiresome. Nobody would ever say that there is not more 'peer pressure' within God's organization than outside of it, for example. Peer pressure in the Christian context is generally a good thing, as persons 'exhort one another to love and fine works.' But occasionally it runs amuck. 

The downfall of Western life today is that it is exclusively focused upon the rights of the individual as a near sacred quest, and any mention of a 'greater good' is met with a "Whoa! That sounds like Stalin talking!" Not everything can be about the individual. You know the pendulum has swung too far in the individualist direction, to the point of upending the planet from which it is suspended, when that happens.

29 minutes ago, AveragePub said:

Back to the six month limit?

Yes and no.

Yes, in that you can reach a point, per your own judgement, where you say: 'I've pretty much done all I can do as a teacher. The public Bible studies at the Kingdom Hall represent your best path forward at this point.'

No, in that you don't write anyone off. You can visit forever if you see fit, bringing specific points, bits of encouragement, or invitations, to your student's attention. You just may feel free to ratchet down your attention for a given person, but you never have to vacate entirely unless you want to.

41 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Instead of mentioning the 144,000 the lesson merely says of God's kingdom with Christ as King: "God also selects others to be associate rulers with Jesus" and adds that "anyone who obeys its laws can be a citizen."

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. 

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Most of us have probably already worked through the online Bible Study course on jw.org.This was an excellent idea

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.

8 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

In movie reviews, reviewing someone else's reviews being acceptable as an actual "review" is word subversion.

It has the advantage that you do not have to do the work of actually analyzing the movie, and giving your honest opinion of the movie, but is is EASY, and you do not have to think at all .... just superimpose your preset and predetermined agenda ONTO the movie, and claim credit for having reviewed it.

... which you in reality ..... did NOT.

Next thing you know the charge will be collusion.

This is a witchhunt!

Sad.

On 6/22/2018 at 11:41 PM, Jack Ryan said:

This is the ONLY way for them to understand that disrespecting you is not allowed and so they can also experience how hurtful their behavior is.

 

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
 

1 hour ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Did you do it like you do everything else .... with second hand reviews of OTHER people's reviews, who actually DID see the movie?

 

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.

44 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

.......read more

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.'

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

The short, choppy sentence thing with unnecessary periods is less common, but not completely new either. Could even happen on some devices when a comma is intended, but mistyped as a period, and the next word is automatically capitalized after the spacebar.

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.’

41 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I liked that one, so I'll take the risk and link to it for you:

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

59 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Psychiatrists are a wide-ranging bunch who have even believed things like full-frontal lobotomies can only have a positive and never a negative effect.

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

1 hour ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

There is a time in everyone's life when he needs to stop thinking like a child, and grow up.

 

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.

35 minutes ago, bruceq said:

          Reasons that this manuscript may have been written by a Christian scribe:

 

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.

7 hours ago, Grey Reformer said:

Then you must be part of that group that read between the lines (tea leaves) and only paid attention to rumors rather than what the Watchtower message was actually conveying.

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.

9 hours ago, Anna said:

But this is completely off topic here. I apologize @TrueTomHarley but this is JTR's fault, he started it

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.” ? ?

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I'll stick my neck out and offer some last words on the topic.

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.”