TrueTomHarley

1 hour ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Some people would complain if they were hung with an old rope.

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 ‘new’ wife showed up and it was Ben’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!’

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 God’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 didn’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 can’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 Jehovah’s Witnesses flip-flop on doctrine miss the point. They’ve never said they didn’t. They do it all the time, re-examining verses in the face of accumulating knowledge. It has been called ‘the light getting brighter.’ (Proverbs 4:18) It has also been called tacking. The only ones who say they can’t do it are the grousers themselves.

That said, the major teachings of Jehovah’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.’ 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')

29 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Oh wait, not that one, but his famous one: "What happens to a dream deferred?"

 

"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)

On 8/14/2018 at 10:31 AM, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

But, getting to your specific question ... Letter writing TO POLITICIANS and GOVERNMENTS is political activity. 

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.

2 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

they react in a crazy way such as a school girl finding out the boy they like does not like them back, and will go on being enraged angsty warpath until either calmed down or something goes their way to fill that void.

1 hour ago, AllenSmith34 said:

¹⁷ Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching.

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. 

2 hours ago, Anna said:

The fact that you (Tom) felt the need to encourage others to appreciate br. Lett indicates that you think some do not appreciate him,

Actually I said that “Witnesses love this guy.”

2 hours ago, Anna said:

So you felt the need to defend him.

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.

13 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

...could? be WORSE ....

 You know, I really enjoyed Sunday’s Watchtower on the value of political neutrality, didn’t you?

(sigh...every newbie begins with the assumption, as I did, that the house sorehead is sane and open to reason)

14 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

"My my my my my my my my my. What a mess."  Tommy Lee Jones (The Fugitive)

6 hours ago, Grey Reformer said:

The appreciation that the GB deserve is the initiative they have to undertake a heavy responsibility and weight on their shoulders.

 

 

This puts it in a nutshell and is overall perceptive and appreciative of the work of others. The reason that nobody knows anything today is because at the first misstep it is 'OFF WITH HIS HEAD!' leaving only inexperienced clods to run the show.

There are new battle lines being drawn today, and they have to do with human authority. The trend today is to despise it in every setting, not just JW. It is also one of the trademarks of the 'apostates' discussed in Jude and 2 Peter.

We have overall largely fought and won the battle of 'is there a Trinity?', blood transfusion, military non-participation, from the standpoint of nuetral observers. With determined opposers they will never be won, and each new 'weapon formed against you that will not succeed' will for them forever be a grand slam home run, but this is not where one must look. One must look at impartial parties.

Today it is largely 'apostates' who are succeeding in doing what Jehovah's Witnesses could never do on their own: putting Jehovah's name at the center of all creation.' In Russia it is anti-cult. In the West it is anti-cult and child abuse accusations. None of the reports are groundless, but they are all misframed and misrepresented. The trick will be to frame and represent them properly.

Amidst some of these accusations, Bethel seems to me to resemble 'a deer caught in the headlights' but it has shown many times in the past that it can adapt quickly. Sometimes I think that the lightning-like chariot image is applied too hastily, but then other times it actually moves lightning light and I am caught looking stupid for wondering about it.

Responding effectively to some of the modern accusations is complicated by the fact that there are some places that Bethel just doesn't go, in accord with verses to not even say a greeting to certain ones. They like the model of the plowman who is not much good if he keeps looking behind at the furrows. They like Jesus saying wisdom is proved righteous by its works and so not responding to critics who lambaste him no matter what he does. It may be for certain perceptive ones to 'go to bat' for them, and knowing that they may not even think it a good thing to do, and that it may not even be. However, in many instances, Bethel is cool toward something until they see someone who makes it work. This is true of computer and internet developments. It was true of the quick-build arrangements.

At present it is individual rights, all the rage today, versus individual responsibilities, which is downplayed and sometimes ignored. It is the rights of individuals versus the rights of organizations that would ensure some of those rights in the case of minority beliefs. 

"Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country," are the words of John F Kennedy, thought noble for many decades after he said it. Today they would be the words of a cult leader.

I think the operating verse will be the one in Phillipians:

"True, some are preaching the Christ out of envy and rivallry, but others out of goodwill. The latter are proclaiming the Christ out of love, for they know that I have been appointed to defend the good news;p but the former do it out of contentiousness, not with a pure motive, for they are intending to create trouble for me in my prison bonds. With what result? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is being proclaimed, and I rejoice over this"

We might never have chosen the particular battlefields that opposers have chosen for us, but that does mean we cannot respond to them. 'They will lyingly say every wicked thing about you' Jesus said to his followers. Tell me about it.

15 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

....don't feel bad .... at least you got ONE right.

I would be concerned, if I were you, about posting your "office" set-up.   #RussianHacking

11 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I might move this discussion under a more appropriate topic, but I started it here because, even recently, we do still present ourselves as "young earth creationists." We allow that the earth could have been here for billions of years, but that the creative days were only on the order of thousands of years long. We never print a statement saying they could have been tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands or millions. Therefore, this is still extremely young for the aforementioned geologists who find their evidence for creative days going back at least 125 MILLION years for plants bearing forth seed according to their kind.

 

There was an Awake interview of Michael Behe, who in the main supports evolution, but simply says that it has limits. It would not have happened if the two hated each others guts.

I doubt the thousands of years from the model once applied to creation means anything anymore. Particularly since they have said :we don't do anti-types anymore.' You get almost as much bang for the buck, with no downside, by saying 'this reminds us of that.' Can anyone come along later and say that it doesn't?

We can overthink things. Aren't there a few examples in theocratic histroy where memes competed with each other for a time before one emerged as the winner?

I think, with the exception of Adam and Eve, they are saying 'to each his own' as to days of creation. Let scientists be scientists and Bible teachers be Bible teachers. Even with Adam and Eve, I invite people who I think might stumble over it to think of it as a metaphor and try to discern the underlying meaning. People love being thought perceptive enough to be entrusted with such a challenge. They can go back and resolve it in more detail for themselves at a later time, if they wish, as I did.

2 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

....like a blind pig that occasionally will find an acorn  .... I suspect you are right on THIS one.

 

"At the home of Victor Vomidog, an alarm panel light pulsed red. Victor read the incoming feed. It was serious. Someone was saying nice things about Jehovah’s Witnesses. Instantly, he swung into action. There was not a moment to lose. He opened his door and whistled. The media came running. “Witnesses are selfish!” he cried. “They only think of themselves! Why don’t they help everyone? Why do they just do their own people?” That evening, media ran the headline: “WHY DON’T THEY HELP EVERYONE?”

"But they had asked the wrong question. The headline they should have run, but didn’t, because they didn’t want to deal with the answer, was: “WHY AREN’T OTHERS DOING THE SAME?” The answer to the first question is obvious: Witness efforts consist of volunteers using their vacation time. Just how much time is the boss going to grant?"

(from Tom Irregardless and Me)

Of course, it is about opposers' efforts to denigrate the disaster recovery work Witnesses are known for.

And to think I didn't even know you then.

1 hour ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

You are assuming things not in evidence, THH .... AGAIN.

I have "Google Alerts" set up to notify me on many topics ... and your name showed up on an  EXJW Web Link. ...

I have little doubt that it is like Mission Control at your place with signals constantly coming in from every bellyacher.

1 minute ago, Judith Sweeney said:

I think Brother Lett is a pure hearted Wonderful Brother.  The Anointed should not be ridiculed out of respect for Jehovah's Arrangement of things. 

Judith, it is a very true and loyal comment you make, but on certain threads there are very few who have regard for Jehovah’s arrangement of things. Speaking with true brotherly affection, you should give consideration as to whether you want to be here. I don’t mean the entire forum. I just mean certain threads.

2 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

TTH:

And you may want to check your cut and paste voluminous postings from your book to the Apostate web site EXJW ... I did not scrutinize it as an Editor might, but It appears you pasted  it twice.

 

There are two subdivisions of grumblers that I address, neither of whom like JWs but for different reasons. I would like to post just once and CC it to other, but do not know how. You know your way around there FAR better than I. Can you help me out?

”Voluminous” may be the weakness. What used to be called “complete” is now voluminous. People’s attention spans are short and they respond only to short snippets that they can argue back and forth ad nauseum. I am just not up for it, nor do I think it is appropriate for a Christian. I am pushing it as it is by just going there.

When people do nothing but reinforce existing views, the picture gets exaggerated and skewed. That’s why I offer contrast, not for the origators sake, for that is almost certainly futile, but you never know who is hanging out there. The deciding factor for me was learning that the Philly reporter spent time there. Maybe others do too.

 I make statements and seldom answer replies, unless it gives opportunity for another statement. I do not get into conversations. I take for granted that I am going to be called an a*****e routinely and do not take it personally. When that happens, I let the comment stand without reply so that, to any impartial observer, they are left to twist in the wind of their own hateful words. How many impartial observers there are, if any, is the million dollar question.

5 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Please give me ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE of something like what you referenced happening in modern times, to any individual ... or any group of individuals .... anywhere on Earth .... ANYWHERE AT ALL ... in the last thousand years, TTH.

If you cannot .... it shows that the example you referenced do NOT apply to this discussion.

It's a "stretch" that snaps when tested.

There is a reason that they call it a faith and that we allow ourselves to be instructed by the Bible.

Look, throw the Book in the dumpster already, will you? It doesn’t appear to interest you. Probably you can find something in the Philosophy or Science section of the library that will work better for you.

15 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Next thing you know, we will be specifically asked to blindly obey things that from a logical standpoint make no sense at all.

 

First of all, wait until it happens.

Second, it has happened many times within scripture. Not exactly 'brilliant' to face the immense army unarmed with your singers in the lead, is it?

15 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

but hey, that could just be me, projecting. A common problem with many people.

 

"I thank you, O God, that I am not as other men, and do not fall into such error."

6 hours ago, Gone Away said:

Or what about a surgeon performing cardiac surgery.  He asks for a clamp immediately, and the assistant says "what do you want a clamp for?" 

 

Exactly.

5 hours ago, tromboneck said:

No need JTR...I meant that in the nicest kind of way

I, too, always try to be as nice as I can to JTR

At the Regional Convention, at least half of the videos were directed at young people. This is good because they are under more peer pressure than most not to 'go along with the crowd.' All young people experience this pressure, but Jehovah's Witnesses youth more than usual because what they stand for is more specific and the degree to which they stand is more determined. Besides, there are many young people who resolve the pressure not to go along with the crowd by going along with the crowd. Sometimes they go so far as to answer the wise words of their mama, "If everyone jumped off of a cliff, would you jump off, too?" with a "That's what I'm talkin about!"

Such talks at the convention would feature some Bible character doing something that took guts, and then the modern video application have some young person taking a bold stand based upon consideration of it. I don't remember the specific talk, but I do remember the specific video of a high school girl saying how she was really quite shy but got into the habit of, right from the start, at school's opening intro 'show and tell' session, reveal that she was one of Jehovah's Witnesses and thereafter let it be known, when all the kids are quizzing each other as to what they did on the weekend, that she engages in spiritual activity during much of that time. That is all she did.

"People started coming to me with their problems," she relates. Upon establishing herself as a member of something she thinks works better, all she has to do is be nice, cooperative, friendly, and it is easier for her to stand firm when peer pressure to do something she thinks wrong comes her way. People approached her, she said, and to the extent they did, she was ready to discuss what she had and how she found it had worked for her. Let me tell you, it works way better than haranquing people over religious doctrine, which few in the West care much about anyway, and the ones that do are inclined to do nothing but argue over it.

The Watchtower Study Sunday furthered that basic youth-supporting theme, with paragraphs discussing various situations. When another student approaches her teacher, and you know it is a science teacher because of the ascending apelike creatures on the chart in the background, she does not have to convince him to turn the whole troupe around and march them back into the slime from whence they came; he is not going to do that. All she has to do is tell him that she doesn't buy it. It is undermining to her faith and it is not sufficiently logical to be allowed to do that. To overturn the common sense model seen everywhere else that anything made has a maker and the more complicated the made thing is the smarter the maker must be will take proof more conclusive than what is offered.

Even the teacher, though he may mutter a bit, may be able to live with this because Watchtower publications speak of the six days of creation being "epochs" and the period prior to their commencement being "aeons." Jehovah's Witnesses are not young-earth creationists.

When the Watchtower wants to suggest a biology teacher, always the ascending ape chart is in the background; that's how it is done. It probably is done everywhere, not just in the Watchtower, for that one chart instantly conveys the idea as nothing else does. Icons are everywhere. Sometimes they are not even accurate. When a scientist was impressed with a discussion between he and I and wanted to reproduce it on his own blog, he represented himself with a double-helix. I got stuck with a cross! So I told him Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe that Jesus died on a cross but on an upright stake. "I knew that, actually," he said, "but an upright stake makes a ridiculous looking icon." What could I say? I had to bear my cross.

Several videos (back to the Regional Convention) feature Witness youths being put down, sometimes even by the teacher, and thereafter mustering up boldness to ask to address the whole class, always (in the cases shown) winning respect from students and teachers alike.

15 hours ago, JW Insider said:

That said, it's not quite true what you said. I include things like "It's easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle, the 2-by-4 in your own eye, etc. (See  Mark/Matt and Matt) The exaggerated imagery gets attention. 

I guess this is so, but the most quirky developed parables are in Luke. The firsed slave who flimflammed the master and is commended for it. The householder who won't do squat until pestered to death, a model applied to God. Ditto with the unrighteous judge.

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

several of Jesus illustrations reach a level we might even call "comedy."

Come to think of it, they are all in Luke. Does that say anything about him? Were the other three gospel writers more ‘serious’ and thus passed over these ‘cute little humorous stories?’

It appeals to lowly persons. It exasperates “wise” ones.

From the final chapter of Tom Irregardless and Me, the chapter in which I try to tie up many loose ends, I threw in this little snippet: "Brother Lett gave a talk in the Ministry School and was given a ‘WÂ’ (work) for gestures. Surely if he applies himself he can learn to be more expressive!”

It is almost like what they said about Jesus, though not with the same degree of admiration: “Never has another man spoken like this.” As one brother put it: "Let no one ever think that Jehovah's organization uses paid actors.”

Witnesses love this guy. He KNOWS he is nutty and he builds upon it as a strength rather get all bashful over it. If I had any doubt about that, it was erased at the behind-the-scenes broadcast that explained how such broadcasts are produced. As he is beaming in the chair and assistants are dabbing him with make-up, the voice-over (his) says that the final step is to apply make-up to the host so that he “looks his best!” He knows he is a nut. A guy that knows how not to take himself too seriously is a precious guy to have around. There are far too many people who do not suffer fools gladly – and a fool is anyone who disagrees with him.

That Lett is not one of them affords him huge respect in my eyes. It’s not so much where you are but how far you have come. When a Christian Life and Ministry program suggested that we think of brothers we appreciate, I picked two not commonly recognized. They are both from a pronounced socially awkward background, and they both have overcome it to serve capably in roles that anyone would have previously thought were permanently beyond them. They are not “heavy hitters,” in my view, and probably never will be, but they are solid and respected. In an age where elders seldom have to give talks but just use discernment in applying Q&A sessions and though personal interactions, it is enough.

What does Jesus three times tell Peter, recently returned from one of the greatest failures in history? “Feed my little sheep.” It is not your stellar brilliance that is going to make you most effective in doing that. It is the love that you show, and Lett shows it in spades.

In the August broadcast, he gives one of the most ridiculously over-the-top illustration that I have ever heard, in which volunteers are supplied 2-inch brushes to paint the Kingdom Hall and everyone knows that is a crazy way to do it. On and on he goes about some grumbling that 4-inch brushes would make more sense, even six inch brushes, even rollers. And why not go all the way and rent a spray painter? Or hire a contractor? And, come to think of it, someone else grouses, the Kingdom Hall doesn’t need painting in the first place. Furthermore, Lett almost makes this the central issue before all creation, with God potentially saddened because the friends are bickering over the tiny brushes and the Devil is jumping for joy at their disunity, as though neither one of them really has much to do up there in heaven. (a brother at an assembly applied the analogy, a bit more fittingly, to Satan being unhappy about the decision baptismal candidates had made to dedicate their lives to God. But don’t worry about it, he went on to say, “He’s not usually happy.”)

Tempering this verdict of the illustration being ‘ridiculous’ is that Brother Lett admits from the start that it is over-the-top. It is an hyperbole, and the man himself is an hyperbole. And come to think of it, anyone familiar with the gospels knows that Jesus uses hyperbole all the time. Through their exaggeration, they have the advantage that anyone of common sense and unhardened heart instantly gets the point.

They also have the advantage that anyone ‘wise in their own eyes’ and too enamored with ‘critical thinking’ does not, and thus these people are sifted out. I begin to think that hyperbole is a tool in the toolbox that serves to fulfill Jesus’ words at Matthew 11, on how God has “hidden these things from the wise and intellectual ones and revealed them to babes,” and is even a way in which he “catches the wise in their own cunning,” the “wisdom of this world” being “foolishness” in his eyes. I mean, if the stuff is so great, show me the peaceful world it has collectively produced. Real wisdom should enable diverse people to overcome divisions and work smoothly together, and that is a sub-theme of Lett’s illustration.

You should have heard how some of these latter ones savaged him! ‘Classic JW thinking. So typically black and white.’ But just because there is black and white thinking does not mean some things are not black and white, and not long ago, a car group of sisters was rear-ended by a cop in an actual black and white because he was not single-mindedly focused upon his driving. It is possible to overthink things.

Though these are NOT the people that those of critical thinking pay any attention to, most persons in the world are quite simple, and thus so are JehovahÂ’s Witnesses, who draw disproportionately from this pool. One out of six persons in the world today cannot read. Do the wise ones of this system of things even know these people exist? The Watchtower produces simplified versions of material already written simply so as to reach them.

There is an apocryphal story that one of the Governing Body told Lett to “stop acting like an idiot.” It is impossible to know with apocryphal stories what are true and what are concocted. That said, as I close my eyes, I can see it, for the two are vastly different in presentation. Even that ‘mystery’ serves to beneficially separate people, as some dismiss it with a ‘who cares?’ and some obsess over it. It is not unlike when Rex Tillerson supposedly called Trump a moron and news media suspended all other activity to find out whether he really did or not, even after the occasion where Tillerson himself called a news conference to say: “Back where I come from, we don’t have time for that nonsense.”

That is another way in which people are separated today. One personÂ’s nonsense is another personÂ’s manna.

 

 

You know, I truly admire JWI for his measured response in answering friend and foe alike solidly and without heat. I should learn from him (but won't). Well, actually I have, a little (but only a little).