TrueTomHarley

24 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

As for your sly accusation, I won't even bother to answer it. You know my true concerns, I've told you often enough. 

 

One does not have to be a friend of something to enable it. Most enablers are not friends of what they enable.

I never accused you of being a friend of it.

6 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Bottom line - Jehovah's Witness children 10 times less likely to be sexually molested than the rest of the Australian population.  Wow, how unimpressive. 

 

This could only be said by someone who would enable child sexual abuse.

There is a solution that cuts occurances by 90%. He finds that "unimpressive."

1 hour ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

If no one kept records then how could the JW Org's records be ten times better. That becomes ten times better than nothing.

Come on, John! 

Not only have you not read the ARC info that you make such heated claims about, but you also haven't read my prior posts that explain it in detail.

55 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

BUT they would have given figures for how much pollution the cars pushed out, however the figures were lies. Now take that to the JW Org.

Take it to anyone. You have decided that Witness figures are lies. That can be said of anyone's figures. You just don't like them. 

It actually cannot be said of any religious organization's figures because none kept any records. That is where you ought to direct your rage if your concern is primarily the safety of children. What - the Lutherans would have us believe there has never been a case of abuse among them? Drag their butts before the authorities and grill them!

55 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

the Org was using the 'two witness rule'

This is completely irrelevent. The figures reported and investigated are those of allegations, without regard for whether there were witnesses or not.

It may be that God's human organization should be condemned for being human. If that is your position, say it. Ten times the prevention record of anyone else is not adequate for you? You expect perfection? Say it. 

Say 'I will not abide by any earthly organization unless its human leadership is perfect.'

"Will the greater world really condemn the ones who prevented child sexual abuse ten times better than anyone else, but failed to prevent it completely, over allegations that they neglected to report instances to the authorities who oversaw a record ten times worse?

It makes no sense to me, and I cannot escape the suspicion that the overall intent is to thwart the preaching of the good news, for that is plainly the effect. How can it not be the intent? This is not to say that everyone so involved, or even most, is deliberately pursuing this agenda, for the flashpoint is not imaginary and it is easy to get caught up in a cause.

But as in the Russian ban itself where allegations of child sexual abuse played absolutely no role, there are entities desperate to stop the spread of Jesus’ message."

Putting some final touches on the Pedophilia chapter, I managed to replace something bland with something more specific, resulting in this:

"It is similar today with the sexual abuse of children. Present protective policy has been extraordinarily long in coming. In 1987, Cleveland social workers and pediatricians removed over 100 children from their families suspected of sexual abuse. Public outcry was such, fueled by media alleging ‘overzealous’ and ‘intrusive’ agency overreach, that most were promptly returned, despite genuine evidence of abuse. Lucy Delap, writing for History and Policy, credits ‘feminist campaigners’ with making the protection of children a priorty, and states “clear guidelines for best practice were not established until the 1990s.”"

From:   http://www.historyandpolicy.org/policy-papers/papers/child-welfare-child-protection-and-sexual-abuse-1918-1990

It does not change the specifics here. But it does add context. Since "clear guidelines for best practice were not established until the 1990s” it seems one can only go so far in the criticism of any agency operating during that time. As late as 1987, public opinion was firmly against "breaking up families'" for sexual abuse allegations, even where creditable. Furthermore, "where evidence of sexual assault emerged, the reaction of welfare workers was to limit harm, often by removing a child from an abusive situation. Reporting of abuse and securing convictions was a secondary concern."
 

12 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

The entire Western drumbeat against Russia, especially since the recent US presidential elections, has included more nonsensical rhetoric than sensible rhetoric. Sometimes it even approaches bipartisan nonsense.

It does. And I make the point repeatedly that banning JWs and the NWT and confiscating their property does damage to the country's reputation by suggesting that, no matter how outlandish the allegation, it just might be true, and perhaps what is seen is but the tip of the iceberg.

(Also, I predict Bethel will jump into the spirit of things by expelling Jack's 'spies')

5 hours ago, tromboneck said:

I meant no harm

Not to worry. No offense taken.

5 hours ago, tromboneck said:

I realize you are a writer hence your large amountof time spent on this forum.

About half of the upcoming book on Russian persecution was originally written on this forum. Since few reasons for opposition were presented at any court hearings, and the m.o. was mostly to provide quick legal cover for decisions already made, I have given the reasons, and their defence, in the second portion of the book. These include such things as cult accusations, brainwashing, shunning, and the white-hot topic (which did not figure in to Russian action) of pedophilia accusations.

On 3/24/2018 at 7:45 AM, TrueTomHarley said:

I have a few alternate personas and I bring them in every now and then, mostly for comic relief, that I'm not sure anyone appreciates other than me.

 

I take it back. I do know a certain @Nana Fofana who probably appreciates it and veers down that same nebulous path herself. 

4 hours ago, Nana Fofana said:

Keyboard, itself not main problem, perhaps.

"Come here cat. I'm gonna make you a star."

Having said that, what is the internet term for this:

22 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I have a few alternate personas and I bring them in every now and then, mostly for comic relief, that I'm not sure anyone appreciates other than me.

 

Or this?

On 3/23/2018 at 10:05 PM, TrueTomHarley said:

I certainly mess with people's minds enough when I determine they are up to no good.

 

Or even this:

22 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

If I actually thought I was patiently reasoning wiht "apostates" - [which by no stretch of the imagination do I include SM]  as though thinking that the elders struck out but I know how to convince them - well - no way. That would be hugely presumptuous and not too obedient. But if I can make my own world, I can get around it. And I get to hone my writing abiltiy, which these days, is my sole gig.

 

 

4 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

I can tell you right there the majority is Universal Unitarianism and they are not the type to agree with the rest of the tribe (other Unitarians).

 

Okay. What little I know of Unitarians is confined to UU, and I know little about them.

5 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

But yeah, not all of us Unitarians are the same.

Okay again. I am a little sorry that I posted my "next" book title. It is no more than the sort of good-natured ribbing that I would do to my closest friends, and I hope it is not percieved as any sort  "one-uppence." I also hope it doesn't overshadow the valuable perspective you're offered for the subject at hand, if it is really the subject at hand, since as you said it did hijack another thread.

I really don't know much about Unitarians except that @Space Merchant does not seem like a typical one. But then again, maybe there are no typical ones and they are like ice crystals - no two are the same. He sure knows a lot of stuff. I sure am glad he hangs around. He sure supplied some good info.

1 hour ago, Space Merchant said:

As for the secondary topic, pertaining to what I explain to Matthew about forum rules, if you get blocked to a topic without notice it is refereed to as a shadow block (referred to as a Shadow Ban as well as stealth banning, ghost banning), when you can't post at all with out being notified about when and why this happens - but every forum and or community has a different phrase for it, but it is what it is.

 

Who is this masked one so learned in the ways of science and internet?

I half expect that one day he will take off his mask and I will hear: "Truetom, (or JB or AS or anyone active on this thread) I am your father!"

My upcoming book on persecution in Russia is a week or two away. My next one will be entitled: "Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Unitarians But Were Afraid to Ask"

There! You see, @tromboneck? I win.

I didn't know you were still around John. You'll note I did not flag you. Yes, the second and third person would be beyond you. I have a few alternate personas and I bring them in every now and then, mostly for comic relief, that I'm not sure anyone appreciates other than me. But I need that outlet. I am playing here. If I actually thought I was patiently reasoning wiht "apostates" - as though thinking that the elders struck out but I know how to convince them - well - no way. That would be hugely presumptuous and not too obedient. But if I can make my own world, I can get around it. And I get to hone my writing abiltiy, which these days, is my sole gig.

That is not to say that when I interract with persons here that I am not being genuine. I am. But with some characters, it doesn't matter if they are real or not. If the persona sketched is realistic, it is just like the "phony" householder in a service meeting demonstration at the Kingdom Hall. It is an opportunity to improve reasoning abiltiy. Even beyond that, efforts are not wasted. Someone may come along later or be reading at present whose circumstances fit or are close enough to the one I am interracting with, that they are being addressed, even if I don't know of them.

As for John, he did something I have never seen anyone do here. He went from calling me a tool of the devil to offering me a heartfelt thanks. I'm not (overly) naive. I know he did not "come around." But I offered counsel intended to benefit him and he picked up on the spirit of it, if not the advice itself. I hope things work out for he and his family. People never yield on the internet, in any field, not just religion, and he did in a substantial way. Good enough I appreciate it. 

The only people that give up is some among US, who say 'you know the master IS delaying, so I'm going to beat my fellow slaves who misled me' or 'Actually Demas has a good point about the present system of things - I do kind of miss it - and here is an argument that gives me cover to follow his course.' These persons too, I hope to influence for the good in some manner.

15 minutes ago, Witness said:

you write in the third person.

When I bring in folks like @Vic Vomidog, @Dr. Adhominem  Dr. 'Hammer' Urubi, and @Top Cat O'Malighan, I can almost write in the tenth person.

1 hour ago, tromboneck said:

TTR...this guy is playing you like a drum. He is not for real. You are quite pollyannish. (I mean that in the nicest kind of way)

I don't think so. Which guy do you mean?

Having said that, it really doesn't matter. If you leave a record of loyalty to Jehovah, slapping back hard at villainous reasonings, and even people when they make themselves synonomous with them, also not chit-chatting with determined enemies of the truth as though they were chums, yet not saying vile things yourself, and even showing some kindness and empathy wherever the situation might warrent it, I'm not sure how you can go wrong, even if the guy is phony.

There was someone here who said he was a brother coping with homosexual tendencies some time ago. He painted himself very distraught. I think he said he had contemplated suicide at one time. I spoke with him at some length, as did several others here. But I always thought he could be just putting us on. It doesn't matter. If you sketch a character convincingly enough, you provide good opportunity for dealing with such a character, whether you are real or not.

It's not like I feel I'm being Perry Mason here, you know. Nothing here is real, necessarily. Real or not, people provide a good opportunity to develope communication skills appropriate to both friend and foe.

If you mean John, I don't think I've been gullible. Why would you think I have been? But even if I have, it hardly matters. I certainly mess with people's minds enough when I determine they are up to no good. If I am to stay here I must have that liberty. If someone turns the tables on me now and again, why should I complain? But I don't think it of John. He struck me as genuine, though you never know.

2 hours ago, tromboneck said:

Whoever the bozo is that wants to quit...go ahead and do it loser. You are "already gone"

You have much stature, Trom, and I appreciate that, but I have learned not to say such things. Even when they are gone, there is no saying they might not come back. I don't like to make it personal.

Someone may say "you don't?" because I have pushed back hard at times, even 'slapping' some. But I try to never go personal, and I think proof that that can work is the conciliatory note from John. Now, he is gone for now, but it is not necessarily permanent, and we might have made it so by going after him personally.

3 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

For my part I cannot understand how few people even know about the situation. Whether true or false or whatever, people here just don't seem to know or are not interested.

I think it is because one calamity comes along and people become incensed, but then another one or two arises the very next day to distract them. They get overwhelmed and in many cases they turn everything off. This is part of what I meant by 'not seeing the forest for the trees.' I did not mean it in a patronizing way, but only that there are so many scandals people tend to not focus on any given one. Even if we narrow it down to child sexual abuse itself, there is so much of it everywhere that people's eyes start to glaze over. A top cop in one British town said he wished he didn't have to prosecute cases of child porn found on computers. It pained him to say it, he acknowledged, but there was so much of it his people could not possibly keep up and were thereby distracted from the more immediate cases of abuse. At the meeting last night we spoke of the 'pangs of distress' Jesus spoke about. Pangs of distress before childbirth are bad and they get worse and they get more frequent. I think that is what is happening today.

3 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

To be honest I've had my say, and yes did get a bit heated up, for which I apologize. 

Who doesn't? I do. Everybody does. It is the nature of the internet to never let the other fellow have the last word, as we all should do more often. I am guilty of it myself. I am guilty of it now.

3 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Now i will admit here that i was offered the choice of just becoming inactive, and that would have been far easier in the long run. But I saw it as just taking the convenient route and not feeling right to my conscience,

Okay. I respect this. Your family pays a high cost for this, however, so take that into consideration, as I'm sure you have.

3 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Some i found I could get along with well and others i would rather just sit the other side of the hall thank you.

This is how "God works in mysterious ways," to hijack a phrase from religious leaders when their doctrines have painted them into corners they cannot escape from. Over time agape love (the Greek agape,, not the English word) which focuses on a object and does not let go until its purpose is realized, serves to bind you to these ones too, even if they are yo-yos. There is a report somewhere that one GB member upbraided another for behaving "like an idiot." I have no idea whether it is true or not, but, as I close my eyes, I can see it, for their personalities are quite different. They smoothe it over with love so as to function effectively.

3 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

 Each time you flag me I get an email so I look to see what you've written and sometimes reply. I will try to respond less  .

If it helps - one participant jokingly complained a few times that I never 'like' anybody. The final time she said it, I went back into her comments and 'liked' everytime she so much as breathed. She asked me to knock it off before I crashed her system.

3 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Enough again, I get to burbling a bit. Have a good day, John 

You and me both, pal. @The Librarian is not wrong when she makes me sit in the corner with a dunce cap every now and then.

On 3/17/2016 at 2:38 PM, Γιαννης Διαμαντιδης said:

where is the scriptural proof of hiding the reason of disfellowshipping or dissociation?

this is because @The Librarian is not running the organization. If she was, each disfellowshipping would be broken down and cataloged in a system that would make John Dewey envious, and like snowflakes, the same reason would not appear twice.

6 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Of course, this month, I've been out with Witnesses (most of them auxiliary pioneers) who struggle even to get to their 30 hours goal. Two or three good Bible students would make it impossible NOT to get 30 hours.

You have no idea how avant garde I am about counting hours. It is almost to the point that if I say my goal was 30 or 50, I write down that figure at the end of the month, and I mentally review my activity - if I have any sense of 'cheating' on the figures, I don't do it again. I witness routinely in a crazy variety of times, places, and methods, and if I have to track everything it will drive me nuts.

My sense is that things will go this way eventually. We all know situations where it seems someone is overly concerned about hours, or where 'hours' can actually interfere with a productive ministry, as you just mentioned, or steering people away from productive times just because you can't accumulate too many hours there. 

It gets silly. It is not a bad idea, for it does make possible an overall cumulative report, which is a good thing, but if people start to obsess over time - how does that help anything. My report is .00000000001% (or so) of the total. If I deliberately lied through my teeth, it would not register. 

7 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Maybe it's good that i can't comment as @TrueTomHarley is sounding off again. Still adding my name to it I see. Poor man just cannot resist it..

I am tempted to start a post with flagging you 60 times. It is not considered rude to flag people usually, especially when they have been a central figure of the conversation.

The specific reason I flagged you last time was to exclude you from a category of people that would wish to stifle the Bible's message. Had I not flagged you, I would have left the impression that I thought you were the worst of the lot.

It is out of consideration for you that I did it.

The other thread doesn't work for me, either. I don't know why. To my knowledge no one is specifically shut out without a warning or two first from @The Librarian Not too long ago I got into a endless battle with a certain pestilential fellow who I will not flag because if I never see him again it will still be too soon  - a 'jugganaut', even his chum callled him - about another subject entirely and the Librarian asked me privately to knock it off. 

She is somewhat fond of the bottle (the old hen) and does not always notice at first when conversations are going down the toilet. She really doesn't like conversations, anyway - her pupils are here to study and do homework. She may have closed down the entire thread because there are getting to be many such threads and she is absolutely anal about imposing order on things that are not neccesarily that way, combing through her card catalog and sniffing out duplicates long after all her colleagues have gone digital and use their spare time to have a life.  I don't know. Usually threads run longer than three pages, and if you are not @AllenSmith, who can be outragious, even though more often than not he strikes a blow for what is right, and has been tossed a number of times, you or anyone can continue to your heart's content. 

You must understand, John, that except for me, no Witness here is typical. That is not to say that any of them are bad, necessary, but they are not typical. The typical one will be more reserved as to participate in a slugfest such as this, knowing that Bethel recommends what Jesus recommended about opposers: "Let them be" at Matt 15.

You know, it is hard for me to believe -  I mean, I grapple with it, but cannot escape the idea - and I specifically exclude @JOHN BUTLER from this and a handful of others who are right on top of the trees and so have not the best vantage point for contemplating the forest - that the true purpose of all condemnation of the GB's oversight is to slow down or, ideally, stop the preaching of the good news. 

Beyond all question, that is the effect. It is hard for me to believe that is not also the intent

That is not to say it is even the deliberate intent of those who weigh in critically - it is easy to get caught up in a cause. However the effect is undeniably to thwart what Jesus said at Matthew 24:14 or turn it into a bland nothing with no power.

Maybe I am missing something, but If they say they abhor child sexual abuse, if they assembled every member in the world at Regionals to educate them in prevention, and if they have achieved a prevention record 10 times that of anyone else, I do not see how they can be portrayed as the villains. I just don't. Temporarily lost footing in a windstorm - perhaps - but by no stretch of the imagination villains.

I see it as an overall attack on the spread of the good news, made by persons or entities desperate that it not be told, no different in principle than the Russian ban, where sexual abuse charges played absolutely no role at all.

That is not to say that the flashpoint is bogus, but only that it is being pumped up beyond all reason.

There is something in the air of this system of things to tear down anything that is an accomplishment. Mark Zuckerberg had better step very carefully, for there are some who would crucify him in the afermath of Cambridge Analytica. Did anyone read his apology in its entirety and not just sound bytes that are selected to further differing agendas of those who report it? It sure sounded genuine to me - he says he does not deserve our business if he cannot do better - and responsible, and he immediately launched corrective measures.

It is not enough. It will never be enough. Read how he is being reviled. He will apologize to his grave and it will not satisfy those who do not like him or Facebook.

5 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

My concerns are not what 'men' think of JW Org, but what God thinks of it. I was hoping things would move forward more quickly but it seems I must have patience.  In probably 3 more months things will become more plain for everyone to see. And by the end of the year hopefully God will have sorted the Org out, if indeed He intend to use it at all. 

 

Okay. Fair. See what happens. Do not be a foot soldier for. Do not be a foot soldier against. Be there (ideally at meetings) for your wife and son.

4 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

What should be your concern is enduring and be in the right for your actions because anyone at any given time can lose their faith and or salvation, hence why it is important to take into account of what Jude 3 says about maintaining faith being a hard fight.

 

Yes.

5 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

I really would like to give warning of the massive storm i see coming and the danger it may cause to brothers and sisters, but no one will talk to me, so there is nothing i can do. i do ask my wife to warn others that danger may be close by, but she refuses to do so. So I'm quite helpless in the matter.

Nobody can say that you have not tried. Sit tight and see how it plays out. At the Kingdom Hall even were you to persuade others that the org had dropped the ball, you would you be unlikely to get them to think that wrath from the courts or uprising from the people would improve things. They will think that God will use the present arrangement to clean up whatever mess they have stepped into. Don't be too quick to assume they are wrong. 

At the last Regional was a segment dealing with child sexual abuse. Nobody, but nobody, assembles their entire membership as the GB did and reviews detailed scenarios under which abuse might happen so that parents – the first line of defense - can educate their children and themselves. If they screwed up in the past (and I have not agreed they have) it is hard to imagine anyone atoning for it better.

Especially emphasized was the fact that a perpetrator is likely to be someone a child knows and trusts. If a relative, or friend, or anyone else, seems overly attentive to your child – it is a reason to be watchful, said the program.  If there are tickling sessions, if there are sleepovers, if there are trips alone to the public restroom, if - there were several other scenarios. They are all potential red flags - maybe harmless, but maybe not, and the parent must be aware. “The wise one sees the [potential] calamity approaching and takes action” was the Bible verse repeatedly cited. 

5 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

When i joined the Org i had just been 'released' from a Children's Home where i had suffered sexual, physical and emotional abuse

Okay. Herein is found your new role. Let us do a Luke 22:32 number on you:

that the Lord has "made supplication for you that your faith may not give out; and you, once you have returned, strengthen your brothers."

I think no one will be better equipped to strenthen the ones of Jehovah's people who have suffered abuse then you "once you have returned."

It would appear that there are three facets of the child abuse situation: rehabilitation of victims, punishment of perpetrators, and prevention. Work on the first and the third. Ones who would devote themselves to the second are not lacking for numbers. The second is not nothing, but even when punishment is meted out, it does little to prevent future occurances, as @Space Merchant makes clear, nor heal the victims.

Prevention and rehabilitation is where you can devote your best efforts. In the meantime, be a good support model for your family to lean upon. They (at least your wife) would prefer that you not be in the situation that you are in. But she will support you, if you do not act in a way she considers outragious, if you sit tight, work through a crisis, and see how things unfold.

Most likely the elders, if you have been as forthright with them about your history as you have with us, will do so too. They won't say anything, and some will be more in tune than others, but they will most likely lend silent support as they observe. I get the sense they took no pleasure (they never do) in doing what they thought they had to do.

As to: "As a complete contrast the congregation I joined was so full of peace and what i thought was love. That is why i accepted it so easily. I was naive and looking for security in a wicked world" - don't flush down the drain decades of life. Build upon it.

45 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

... it could be worse ..... you could snore.

Tell me about it. I can hear you from here