TrueTomHarley

It is typical of the nonsense that afflicts much of journalism these days. What is an off-the-cuff remark by someone who may be opinionated and is simply representative of the tangled interaction of humanity, is presented as though it is official controlling dogma from on high.

Just once I would like to see media, when relating this problem that modern 'bloodless medicine' can usually accommodate, also stating that the 'oppressive' Witness teachings also eliminate drug and alcohol abuse, smoking, not to mention war participation, making Jehovah's Witnesses far and away the 'safest' religion out there. Only once have I seen the Witnesses' stand not get butchered on TV, and even that was not spot-on in all respects: in an episode of 'The Practice:' http://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2006/09/the_practice_ge.html

This suggests, whether it is intentional or just clumsy, (the reviewer seems to accept it as intentional) that had she terminated the pregnancy, all would have been well. In actuality, an abortion would greatly multiply the 'wrong.'

I have a library lending-exchange program with @The Librarian (the old hen)

I posted this elsewhere on this forum. Now I see that it fits better here: Richard Lowell Bryant, a United Methodist minister, rained on ‘Trinity Sunday’ recently by declaring of the doctrine: We made it up, saying in part:  “The truth is: God was nowhere to be found when we made up the Trinity and turned it into a tool to isolate, annoy, and explain God’s expansive love in terms of dysfunctional family.” http://um-insight.net/perspectives/there-is-no-such-thing-as-the-trinity His brethren men and women of the cloth hastened to correct him. Especially did one Dr. Hunter, who says: “Several of my students sent me the article, knowing the central place the doctrine of the Trinity holds in the courses I teach at United Theological Seminary.” Dr. Hunter responds with a twelve-paragraph reproof to his fellow minister. https://goodnewsmag.org/2018/07/in-defense-of-the-holy-trinity/ Two things can be observed about his reply. 1. It will barely be comprehensible to the person of common sense, and 2. No appeal is made to scripture for support, a tacit admission that none is to be found there. After all, the New Testament is the origin, if not the blueprint, of Christianity. Is it not telling that he does not go there? He goes there only a little, to cite John 16 and Jesus’ statement therein that the helper will come along later and reveal all things. He appears to have in mind, per a previous paragraph, the decree of the Council of Nicaea, which took place 300 years after Christ, and in which the Doctor expresses confidence that it was directed by Holy Spirit. But as to the scriptures themselves teaching a triune God—zip. He doesn’t touch it. The Bible verses can be tortured for that meaning, of course, but tortured is what they must be. They involve taking literally numerous passages which, in any other context, would instantly be recognized as figure of speech. However, it does serve to complicate the obvious and thus serves to supply Dr. Hunter with a teaching career. Not that Dr. Hunter is a bad man. No, he possibly is a very good man. But he is likely a product of what Jesus spoke of long ago to religious leaders of his day: “Woe to you who are versed in the Law, because you took away the key of knowledge. You yourselves did not go in, and you hinder those going in!” Since they took the key away, later generations don’t necessarily know that there is a key. http://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2018/07/most-church-doctrines-are-not-found-in-the-bible.html

Yes he is, and this is absolutely the last time I let this dog on a Bible translation team! Just look at what it did to Matthew 15:27! "She replied, 'Yes Lord, but really, the little dogs do eat of the steaks and hamburgers falling from their master's table. They are also partial to sausage, too. Pork chops go down nice. Um, pass the ketchup please. And, by the way,.." #NotInAnyManuscriptIKnow

It is the attempt to read them in that causes people to throw up their hands in despair, sometimes even in disgust, of ever understanding it. To the extent that happens, it makes such doctrines very destructive. From time to time, this is acknowledged by some clergyman or other. For example, Richard Lowell Bryant, a United Methodist minister, rained on ‘Trinity Sunday’ recently by declaring of the doctrine: We made it up, saying in part: “The truth is: God was nowhere to be found when we made up the Trinity and turned it into a tool to isolate, annoy, and explain God’s expansive love in terms of dysfunctional family.” http://um-insight.net/perspectives/there-is-no-such-thing-as-the-trinity His brethren men and women of the cloth hastened to correct him. Especially did one Dr. Hunter, who says: “Several of my students sent me the article, knowing the central place the doctrine of the Trinity holds in the courses I teach at United Theological Seminary.” Dr. Hunter responds with a twelve-paragraph reproof to his fellow minister. https://goodnewsmag.org/2018/07/in-defense-of-the-holy-trinity/ Two things can be observed about his reply. 1. It will barely be comprehensible to the person of common sense, and 2. No appeal is made to scripture for support, a tacit admission that none is to be found there. After all, the New Testament is the origin, if not the blueprint, of Christianity. Is it not telling that he does not go there? He goes there only a little, to cite John 16 and Jesus’ statement therein that the helper will come along later and reveal all things. He appears to have in mind, per a previous paragraph, the decree of the Council of Nicaea, which took place 300 years after Christ, and in which the Doctor expresses confidence that it was directed by Holy Spirit. But as to the scriptures themselves teaching a triune God—zip. He doesn’t touch it. The Bible verses can be tortured for that meaning, of course, but tortured is what they must be. They involve taking literally numerous passages which, in any other context, would instantly be recognized as figure of speech. However, it does serve to complicate the obvious and thus serves to supply Dr. Hunter with a teaching career. Not that Dr. Hunter is a bad man. No, he possibly is a very good man. But he is likely a product of what Jesus spoke of long ago to religious leaders of his day: “Woe to you who are versed in the Law, because you took away the key of knowledge. You yourselves did not go in, and you hinder those going in!” Since they took the key away, later generations don’t necessarily know that there is a key. http://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2018/07/most-church-doctrines-are-not-found-in-the-bible.html

Yikes.

And to think kids are said to be able to communicate exclusively with emojies

I don't think so. It is always that way. Moreover, I believe scripturally it should be that way. It is Paul declaring that he would speak nothing other than the Christ before learned ones. It is the first century leaders ever remaining 'unlearned and ordinary.' It is God laughing at the intellects of the world because he uses people who are not especially intellectual luminaries to do things structure-wise that their intellectual 'betters' could not dream of. That said, I have not been following this thread (only through lack of time). It can be dangerous to chime in like this, especially when JWI is running the show. With others, it can be done anytime, anyplace, anyhow.

I spoke to both Caleb and Sophia the other day, and when the subject of @James Thomas Rook Jr. came up, they used words I have never heard them use before.

To read the sidebar "I Am the Christ, by JW Insider" is disconcerting.

The Philadelphia Inquirer wrote three incendiary articles about Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Wow! did they ever make them look bad! Probably that was the intent, though it is hard to say for sure because nobody would ever say that the subject is nothing. It is the topic of child sexual abuse, the most white-hot topic of all. As much as Jehovah’s Witnesses would love to say that child sexual abuse has not occurred within their ranks, they cannot. They can say, and do, that it is relatively uncommon within their ranks, but just try telling that to one who has suffered from it. There is no experience that determines one's viewpoint more than this one. It is exacerbated by the Witnesses being said to be an ‘insular’ organization, and this ‘crime’ of being insular is pushed pedal-to-the-medal by the Philly reporter, who returns to an anti-Witness website after articles, where he is lauded as a hero. Perhaps he has 20 more of such articles up his sleeve. But it is little wonder that he is lauded: some of these gathered at the site are ones who have been victims. The overall stats for child sexual abuse do not speak well for humanity. One of four girls and one of six boys will be sexually abused before they are 18 (in the U. S, according to InvisibleChildren.org)—this, despite decades of battling the evil. Jehovah’s Witnesses in 2017, at their summer conventions, which all attend, considered detailed scenarios in which child sexual abuse might occur, so that parents, the first line of defense, could be vigilant. If anyone displays unusual interest in your child, if there are sleepovers, if there are unsupervised trips to the rest room, if—there were several others, all potential hot spots, not necessarily bad, but reason to be attentive. Nobody, but nobody, gathers their entire membership for such education other than Jehovah’s Witnesses. There is also Caleb and Sophia, cartoon characters whose family doings are utilized as a teaching tool for Witness parents. They teach short lessons on subjects quite mundane, yet crucial to smooth functioning of society, such as the desirability of honesty. The tykes delight the hearts of JW children everywhere (except in Russia, where they are behind bars as extremists). ‘Protect Your Children’ is an especially vital lesson that addresses pedophilia, in which Mommy and Daddy coax their children on how to respond if threatened. If someone “touches you where they should not” or “asks you to do something that makes you feel uncomfortable.” “Even if it is someone you know and trust,” Mommy commends a correct answer, and her husband adds, “and then tell Mommy and Daddy right away,” who, in the video, take the news most seriously. In three articles, the Philadelphia Inquirer makes no mention of these clearly relevant factors, though whether it is through malice or incompetence is unclear. Nor do they cite the Witness organization’s easily available printed and digital child abuse policy, which gives the obvious lie to most of their insinuations. Included only is a Watchtower Society quote that the latter ‘abhor child sexual abuse,’ which the Inquirer presents in a context as though evidence that they do not. No, Philly Inquirer, the religion you slimed is not the scourge of humanity. It comprises a group of decent, caring human beings who encountered problems in the 80s and 90s, doing what others did not even attempt: investigate reports of this abomination, along with other types of wrongdoing, so as to strive towards the biblical imperative of ‘presenting to God a clean people.’ “You, the one saying, ‘do not steal,’ do you steal? You, the one saying, ‘do not commit adultery,’ do you commit adultery?” says the apostle Paul. Any group professing that their beliefs contribute to better social conduct should take measures to see that that is in fact the case. Did anyone other than Jehovah’s Witnesses take self-policing so seriously? The Philadelphia Inquirer appears to be fully siding with enemies of the religion whose stated goal is to litigate it out of existence. Were they to succeed, they would be showing themselves friends of child sexual abuse, for few others have the proactive education and prevention record of Jehovah’s Witnesses, despite some serious missteps. Data that can be gleaned from an Australian Royal Commission, coupled with the Witnesses relentless campaign to avoid pornography in any form, plus the educational factors already cited, make this conclusion nearly inescapable, though positive proof will ever be lacking because others of the time failed to address the problem and thereby produce records. In many venues, such ‘negligence’ is a punishable offense; here it is effectively rewarded. It is Sergeant Shultz crying, “I know nothiinnnggg,” a policy that ultimately got him out of many a jam on the old TV show. The misstep that the Inquirer exclusively zeroes in on, and it is not nothing, is the inclination of many Witnesses, upon submitting a matter to congregation elders, to not also go to outside authorities, and elders to not go over their heads and do so themselves. Ones were never prevented from doing so, but the prevailing atmosphere in the 80s and 90s was such that they were less likely to do it, and stories abound of persons being pressured in that direction. An ill-conceived desire to protect reputation is hardly unique to Witnesses of that day; the very reason there is an expression “skeletons in the closet” is that families once succeeded in keeping them there. I would not argue that Jehovah’s Witnesses were slower than most to give up that mindset. These days elders positively plead with families of victims to report to outside authorities, only to find that some are still reluctant to go that route. In this context, some victims of child sexual abuse come to feel and deeply regret that they went unheard. Some of these later become bitter towards religion in general, and Jehovah's Witnesses in particular. It cannot be argued that circumstances did not give them a strong nudge in that direction, can it? Today, in a climate of litigation, many of these ones seek their due. The notion that persons should be monetarily compensated for real or perceived wrongs has long been accepted by society. Lawsuits for all manner of offenses are unremarkable routine and enormous monitary awards are common. It amounts to a massive society-wide transfer of wealth, with lawyers charging a third. It is the reason insurance skyrockets at a time that inflation is quite low. It is a reason prices of goods escalate, as ‘punished’ corporations simply pass along their costs to the consumer. Few would assert that compensation is wrong, but few would deny its overall effects, either. Witness policy has evolved to the extent they feel is possible, given their Bible outlook, but they plead for a circumstance in law that is unlikely ever to be realized. Here law mandates that allegations be reported to police, there it does not mandate it, and the default law kicks into place that it is likely forbidden, as it can constitute a violation of ‘clergy-penitent confidentiality,’ an idea as much enshrined into law as doctor-patient confidentiality and attorney-client confidentiality. The Witness attorney pleaded for understanding before the ARC (and got none) that Witnesses were having a hard time navigating this patchwork of laws, as they sought to fulfill a biblically-mandated duty that others do not take seriously. Three times before the Australian Royal Commission, a member of the Witnesses’ Governing Body pleaded for universal mandatory reporting laws, across all territories, with no exceptions. Then it wouldn’t matter if a given congregation member, for whatever reason, declined to go to the police. Elders would do it regardless. Most of the cases reported today are from 20 or more years previous, and the 'crime' alleged is failing 'to go beyond the law' with regard to reporting. Nothing is more telling of society's overall desperation at losing the war against child sexual abuse than the moral imperative to 'go beyond the law.' If it is so imperative to go 'beyond the law' then surely that should become the law. Otherwise, that lapse becomes merely a means for Monday-mornng quarterbacking to target unpopular groups. Such universal change in law would make possible both the aims of the congregation and those of outside authorities. Roundly condemned is Jehovah’s Witnesses insistence on a “two-witness rule” in connection with their religious investigations. The Philadelphia Inquirer misrepresents this rule as though Jehovah’s Witnesses demand two spectators for every abuse incident, and let perpetrators off with a wink and a nod in their absence. They ignore that one witness is the victim his or herself, and a similar report from another party also constitutes a ‘witness.’ It is still far from watertight, but hardly the pedophile green light that they represent. Circumstantial evidence will also result in less serious censure. The reason one ought not be too quick to give up a “two-witness rule” emerges every time someone is exonerated by DNA evidence, the latest advance of criminal science, after serving decades in prison, having been convicted with less strenuous proof. Outside authorities have their own standards for proof, and with universal mandatory reporting laws, both agencies can fulfill their duties adequately. Why was this not done long ago—passing universal mandatory reporting laws? Given the crusade to punish child sexual abuse, one would think that no task would have been easier. Since the present legal climate makes the Witnesses' duty in policing its own, according to biblical standards, almost impossible, the situation could be framed as a contest between church and state. ‘Preach to them on Sunday, and be done with it,’ is the only liability-free policy. ‘It’s none of your business whether they apply it or not.’’ And yet, to those determined to live by Bible prinicples as best they can, it clearly is their 'business'. Is it possible that the Witnesses' underlying ‘crime’ is the resolve to stay ‘separate’ from the overall world, today portrayed as being ‘insular?’ The Jews’ determination to stay separate, moderated only in recent years, has contributed towards many a pogrom over past centuries. Jehovah’s Witnesses are overall pretty good at allowing the repercussions of life to serve as discipline, even if they are not intended that way. “It is for discipline that you are enduring,” says Paul, adding, “no discipline seems for the present to be joyous, but it is painful; yet afterwards it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.” Witness leaders are without doubt humbled and chastened by events. They may not state it to those they perceive as their enemies, because the goals of the latter go well beyond humbling, but it is undoubtedly so. Meanwhile, when sued, they must defend themselves in court where determining what is right is complex and impartiality cannot be assumed. The reason there is an uproar with every new Supreme Court justice nominee is the universal understanding that even judges are not impartial; they interpret the law in the light of overriding philosophy and pre-existing bias; it is not enough simply to find one who knows how to swing a gavel. And no topic can trigger overriding philosophy and pre-existing bias more than child sexual abuse.

As I recall, when I visited the city in which you were head engineer, none of the toilets flushed

If you tell skeptics not to play with a Ouija board because the Devil may come up, they will laugh their sides off. If you tell them not to play with it because Putin may come up, they will run in terror.

This is as good a place as any to post a letter that does not specifically address Delaware but does the overall situation. It is a response to three incendiary articles in the Philadelphia Inquirer. It starts here and continues on my blog, as it is very lengthy: “The Philadelphia Inquirer wrote three incendiary articles about Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Wow! did they ever make them look bad! Probably that was the intent, though it is hard to say for sure because nobody would ever say that the subject is nothing. It is the topic of child sexual abuse, the most white-hot topic of all. “As much as Jehovah’s Witnesses would love to say that child sexual abuse has not occurred within their ranks, they cannot. They can say, and do, that it is relatively uncommon within their ranks, but just try telling that to one who has suffered from it. There is no experience that determines one’s viewpoint more than this one. It is exacerbated by the Witnesses being said to be an ‘insular’ organization, and this ‘crime’ of being insular is pushed pedal-to-the-medal by the Philly reporter, who returns to an anti-Witness website after articles, where he is lauded as a hero. Perhaps he has 20 more of such articles up his sleeve. But it is little wonder that he is lauded: some of these gathered at the site are ones who have been victims. “The overall stats for child sexual abuse do not speak well for humanity. One of four girls and one of six boys will be sexually abused before they are 18 (in the U. S, according to InvisibleChildren.org)—this, despite decades of battling the evil…” http://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2018/07/three-incendiary-articles-from-the-philadelphia-inqurer.html

I wrote the Mickey Spillane summit parody for Jane Spillane, who is re-releasing the Mike Hammer tough-guy series of late 1940's private eye books. It is a spoof on what if the President had handled Putin like Mike Hammer might handle a crime boss. She loved it. She said so right on my blog (almost immediately) when I released it. I wrote it because Mickey Spillane later became one of Jehovah's Witnesses and his work changed a lot. That triggered my interest in his books. Now, Jane is not a Witness, probably has mixed feelings about them at best, and may feel they were responsible for 'sabatoging' his work, since his post-JW writings lose the excess sex and violence and thereby become less of what Mickey himself once said about Hemingway and the highbrow authors: "What those guys could never get is that you sell a lot more salted peanuts than cavier." Nonetheless, there is no way she could not have picked up on his enthusiasm for the truth, and probably concedes that that is what ensured he remained the upright man he always had been. Jane is intensely political, another reason for the theme of my post. She assures me that Mickey would have been a Trump-man, too. I have not the slightest doubt of it, with the exception that he would know how to keep political leaning its place, and not disturb the peace of the congregation with such matters. All human governments will drop the ball, usually it is a bowling ball, and the only open question is upon which toe will it land. As individuals ponder their own toes, some will favor the left and some the right. Anyhow, I said to Jane that we could help each other. I will use the story to hopefully (this is extremely hard to do) flag the attention of some high profile figures, and did she want to be tagged or not?. She did. Good. It's a win-win, potentially helping both our causes. Mine is to direct attention to my blog, www.tomsheepandgoats.com, the first thing that hits the eyes is a link for my free ebook Dear Mr Putin - Jehovah's Witnesses Write Russia, which calls attention to the plight of our people there, (along with answering many a scurilous charge) and that goal motivates nearly everything I do these days. I draw some of my inspiration from Anton Chivchalov Blog. These days it is important to bring one's gift to the altar. The post is here: http://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/…/showdown-at-the-summit.ht… Since the violence and sex is excessive in those pre-Witness days, it is easy to dismiss the novels as so much garbage. However, as to the writing itself, Ayn Rand (The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged) lavished high praise on them and compared them favorably to some elite authors of the day. Mickey's own dad, I think he was a bartender, called his writing "crud." Ayn Rand did not feel that way. Atlantic Magazine (I think it was) interviewed him in later years ('I may write one more Mike Hammer, but that's it. I can't sit eight hours in a chair anymore. My rear end gets sore.') and pointed out that his latter books were winning some critical acclaim. "To Mickey's disgust, one suspects," one suspects, the author adds. Come on! It is impossible not to love this guy. He had the combination of intense interest, yes, even love, of people, coupled with an absolute lack of pretence, a willingness to go 'in your face,' something that was a trademark of Witnesses of a certain generation. Jane herself, I am not sure that she realized it, give me the ultimate green light, when she said of my scheme: "Mickey would love it."

Yes, I think @Dr_Ariel_Cohen is right (in clip). Religious freedom is of "burning, but not paramount importance 2Trump & co, given current critical geopolitical issues. In 2.5, hours #JehovahsWitnesses probably breeched but not dwelt on. The NYT question was probably asked. http://video.foxnews.com/v/5810310518001/?#sp=show-clips https://wwld/europe/putin-trump-russia-jehovahs-w#jwrussia #StopJWBan JTR probably wrong as usual. #ublockhead

I haven't viewed it yet, but I will Mickey Spillane's wife survives him and through social media, I sometimes have contact. She is an ardent Trump supporter. She loved the post.

Check this out, JTR. You'll love it. Seriously No tricks http://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2018/07/showdown-at-the-summit.html

Actually, I think I fantasized pretty well with regard to my revised introduction.

Look, I knew you wouldn't get off your rear end. I sent in enough to make up for you.

You forget that the letter-writing campaign made possible the introduction of this year's best-selling book, Dr. Mr Putin.... (assuming more people download it): In early 2017, Jehovah’s Witnesses were invited just once to write Vladimir Putin. Within two months, up to 49 million letters had been sent. They weren’t all to Putin – other officials were identified – but his was the most visible name. Trouble was not averted, yet Russia came to know of one nation on earth where every citizen cares deeply about every other. On the surface, the letter-writing campaign was a failure. Opposition which would ultimately lead to a Supreme Court ban of the religious organization continued unabated. It has only intensified since. Two and only two groups of children have been recognized by authorities as at risk of “destructive psychological influence” - children of ISIS members and children of Jehovah’s Witnesses. At present, the stripping of parental rights for members of the two groups is an unused tool, but it is a tool that has been approved for use. Witnesses around the world felt and feel the heat on their Russian brothers and sisters as though it were on them. They longed to do something and here was something tangible they could do. By taking part in letter-writing, they fortified their Russian counterparts, who are now in the eye of the storm. However, I have thought over matters. I can see that you have a point. I have revised the introduction as follows: In early 2017, Jehovah's Witnesses were invited just once to write Vladimir Putin. They said: "You've got to be kidding me! That costs a dollar. And why? Just to fill up 11 hundred boxcars of paper that Russians can burn during winter? Let them freeze! This is all your screwup anyway! The world would love Christians except for you! And don't get us going about shunning and the two witness rule! You have messesd up everything and it is supposed to be that the "every sort of wicked thing that people lyingly say about Jesus' followers is: "Well....they woke me up when I was sleeping. And they were a little pushy at the door." So forget it! We're not doing nothing! Russian brothers entered into their greatest tribulation ever. They didn't really know if anyone anywhere else even knew what was going on. The brothers they thought they would hear from had all tuned into JTR. "This can't be the truth," they said. "Where's the love?" #ublockhead

Oh for crying out loud! Will you give it a rest? It is a single question we are speaking of, not made in a confrontational way. Not a long harrangue. A tiny footnote in in 90 minutes of discussion. Look, he has to like Witnesses on account of his son-in-law's dealings with them. It could have happened. It was behind closed doors. Maybe he did.

Today Presidents Trump and Putin meet for summit, and the New York Times tells of an exiled Jehovah's Witness who proposes Trump ask Putin a simple question: "Why are Russians who pay their taxes, follow the law and embrace the Christian values promoted by the Kremlin being forced to flee their country?" https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/16/world/europe/putin-trump-russia-jehovahs-witness.html A simple [and single] question. To propose that Trump do this is exactly the non-confrontational style of Jehovah's Witnesses, and is proof in itself that they are not extremist. Moreover, because the goal is so modest, it is not impossible that it could happen. Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia is not everywhere, but where it is, it is draconian, with police dressed in riot gear breaking down doors to arrest them. Meanwhile (and irrelevant), I did a google search of "New York Times Jehovah's Witnesses." The second hit is an article from 1958, telling of (I think) the largest Christian assembly in history. Remember, Google is personalized. Your results may vary. http://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2018/07/ill-take-it-fake-news-or-not.html