TrueTomHarley

2 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

The Brothers and Sisters in Malawi chose badly ..... and the "Bus Driver" whistled as he went home

If people carry on too much about this stuff, I begin to wonder about their grasp of the Bible. Do they imagine that a competent Governing Body would prove Jesus wrong - would make the world love us? Do they imagine that the wicked thing people would lyingly say about us (Matthew 5:11) would be: “well, um, I mean….they woke me up when I was trying to sleep?”

If it is not Jehovah’s Witnesses who are described by this verse, who is it? Who else, attempting to do the work Jesus did, is “everywhere spoken against?” 
 

2 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

What do you do when the bus driver is OBVIOUSLY lost?

Or he is driving at night, and says he can see perfectly well, but the headlamps are not working?

Or he is abusive to passengers who complain his driving is dangerous .. and he NEEDS TO TURN ON THOSE HEADLIGHTS! ?

You go berserk like William Shatner on the Twilight Zone plane, positively losing it on a flight no one else had any problem with.

14 hours ago, Micah Ong said:

The scripture in itself doesn't bother me, it is important when put in proper context.  It's when you apply it to following a group of men who are "not inspired or infallible" as Feb WT last study article points out, you are blindly following men as if they are appointed by God.

Forgive me for this. It is not to say anything about you. But some things strike me as too stupid to try to get my head around. 

It is no more than 'blindly following' the bus driver. I could have walked, but I am smarter to take the bus. Having done so, I do not feel I have to sit behind him and critique his every decision. Much less, having already left the bus, shouting as with a bullhorn at the passengers remaining. What is your interest in doing so?

8 hours ago, Micah Ong said:

 Anyone can play that section and see that he doesn't gesture like that in that time frame mentioned.

If there is one thing all should be able to agree upon, it is that nobody can tell Stephen Lett about gestures. He wrote the book.

Look, I shouldn't comment on this topic because I am only barely paying attention. But why would not the following common sense point apply? If the ring truly represented anything sinister, he would simply remove it and leave it in his locker before doing the broadcast, so as not to get guys like you going.

With a view toward reviewing her work, I am reading the most exhaustive and scholarly treatment of the Russell era that I am aware of (and it is only volume 1)

https://www.amazon.com/Separate-Identity-Organizational-Readers-1870-1887/dp/1304969401

I have never seen such detail. It holds special interest for me as I live in Rochester, and was once  withing 100 yards (but also 100 years) of Nelson Barbour. There are frequent mention of towns around where I live - some have merged into Rochester, some have grown, some have disappeared.

I follow the author on Twitter. She tweets excitedly with her coauthor about some tiny little mini-fact that she or he has confirmed. We have briefly corresponded. I tried (I think unsuccessfully) to get her to review my book and ended up volunteering to review hers. It deserves weeks of pondering and I just don't have that time, but no matter. Because I have the history I get the flavor of it quickly. Even so, those devoted enough to meaningfully contribute to this thread (which I am not) will get more out of it than me. 

These days, plenty of people take a factoid or two and spin God only knows what out of it. You can't get away with it with these authors. Their research is exhaustive.

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Yup. At the time, I didn't have a care in the world. Thought I would probably stay at Bethel as a 10 to 20 year career, and that there was a good chance this would also see me through the end of this system.

Got married, and had to go out and get a real job. That's when the hindsight kicks in.

It played out for me not in precisely that way. But it did play out.

From what I can see, not many make it though this system of things with elegance. It's enough to get through it with greater things intact. It is generally that way in the non-Witness world as well. Those that get through it seldom do it 'in style,' as someone or other once said. When I see the various prices people have paid, I'm glad I did not have to pay them.

4 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

If it were not for my Vow against Ad Hominem attacks, I would state the opinion that JTR is piece of work.

On a morning when Kingdom Hall attendance was extremely thin - some were off in seldom worked territory, some were at the foreign language circuit assembly - I whispered to the Watchtower conductor: "Did the friends think you were giving the talk today?"

"You're a piece of work!" he shot back.

27 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I think John was just looking out for you.

Lot of truth in what he said, though, speaking personally, of course.

 

 

I would imagine this would be a hindsight assessment. Similar to 'perpetual students' in academia, perpetual soldiers in military, even perpetual jailbirds in the prison system. I could easily have been the first two, and, say if I was strangle some folks here, the third, as well. And had I gone to Bethel, I could have become the theocratic variety. I am not like Davey the Kid, who relished the challenge. The nitty-gritty of 'cutting it' in this system of things is a huge pain in the rear for me ... I just like to do what I like to do, irresepective of whether it pays or not.

Of course, all this is from the human point of view. What of the JWB brother who said we should not say 'he'll do all right; he has a marketable skill - what if one doesn't?' Instead, it should be said: 'he'll do all right; Jehovah will provide for one who puts his will first.'

But it is irresistably human to say the first.

Even now, when the bills are paid and the kids are gone and I can indulge some hobbies, I say 'I am on the road to becoming a best selling author. The trouble is, I am not very far along on that road.' (no thanks to @The Librarian(

3 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

 

"No, Tom thinks only losers go to Bethel, who can't make it anywhere else," John replied for me!

Say - how did @The Librarianend up in charge of the Bethel library? (the helpless harried hen)

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Some would emboss and design book and Bible covers, and stamp a name on it. Some persons would use Bethel camera equipment to make enlargements for wedding photography, etc. Some would do carpentry, upholstery, and other jobs where they used skills and equipment they got from their work assignment.

Davey the Kid, working in the cheese room, had published his book on how to make cheese. Don't know if he ever made money off of it.

John and I went to visit him at the farm. We were all in our twenties and John had been raised a Witness. I asked him during the drive down whether he had ever thought of applying to Bethel. He said no. He said that those who went to Bethel did so because they couldn't cut it in the real world and wanted someone to look out for them.

I, new in the truth, rebuked him. What an unnappreciative attitude!

Later, during our visit, Davey asked me if I might like to apply to Bethel someday.

"No, Tom thinks only losers go to Bethel, who can't make it anywhere else," John replied for me!

If it were not for my Vow against Ad Hominem attacks, I would state the opinion that JTR is piece of work.

27 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

... some got into so much trouble they had to be put into the Jehovah's Witness Protection Program ...

Alright, just on general principle I will not 'like' anything from JTR. I will not do it. Just when you think he is finally offering up something worthwhile, he slams you with some crass graphic.

So I won't like this one, either. I won't. I won't.

I won't. I won't. I won't. I won't. I won't. I won't. I won't. I won't. I won't. I won't.

On the other hand......it is kind of funny

9 hours ago, Nicole said:

What happens to their Vow of Poverty when a Bethelite leaves the religious order?

In some cases, it is 'crank out the dough.' Some Bethelites do extraordinarily well in business after their of special full-time service. Sometimes it is for the advancement of the good news. Less frequently it trips them up spiritually.

Davey the Kid, from the first book, 'took over' Bethel while he was there. He simply had the ability and personality that everything he touched turned to gold. In another context, he once told me: "It's my gift - they never say no."

He left Bethel to marry, in the days when you could not do both unless you were Brother Knorr. He loved his Bethel days. But he told me he had always felt cheated at not being able to make his own way financially. He made up for it afterwards. He never became wealthy. That was not his goal. But he never had the slightest difficulty supporting himself and his family as he made extraordinary contributions to kingdom interests in these parts.

Sometimes when I call and people are obsessed that my motive is to convert them, I try to counter that.

"If it will help, let us agree up front that there is no way on God's green earth that you are going to become a Jehovah's Witness like me. You know it. I know it. So you won't have to worry about me sneaking in tiny hooks to that end."

Sometimes that helps. Every Witness knows that the odds of any given person converting are extraordinarily thin. It's icing on the cake if they do, but even that they cannot do without a solid year of study behind them. The main motivation is to declare the good news of the kingdom.

When there is obvious human suffering, and you feel you hold the key to its alleviation, you may try to offer that key. What's so sinister about that?

I will concede, however that many of our people are not too discreet. They are like the early Christians who .... oh, wait ....they weren't too discreet either. 

13 hours ago, The Librarian said:

oh wow... I think I heard @TrueTomHarley throw his glove on the floor.

What exactly, pray tell, are you wishing to debate?

 

My BOOKS, you old hen! You know it very well.

My BOOKS, written by the most astute mind of our times, a person who, despite being undeniably brilliant, is unfailingly respectful of all persons and scrupulously  avoids ad hominem attacks!

My BOOKS, you disgusting and ignorant, diuretec dinosaur! The ones you will not let me hawk in your library! They don't exactly fly off the shelf, you know, as they should, and as they WOULD but for not your petty rules!

My BOOKS, which I pluralize because there are two, soon to be three. The third would come even sooner if I did not piddle away so much of my time here! It must be conceded, however, that I am also writing much of it here, so the relationship is symbiotic.

My BOOKS, which you will only let me display on my profile page! My BOOKs, which ought to be required reading at your pathetic library, instead of the shelves upon shelves of the great philosophers down through the ages! If any of the thoughts they thunk were worth the paper they were printed on, it would be a much better world today, wouldn't it?

11 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

You have already conceded, True (Tom), by default, for leaving the battlefield, and by surrender, when you "overturned your King".

Using YOUR logic, you have  self-forfeited the right to disagree with anybody about anything .... and only think approved happy thoughts.

You cannot even reply to THIS!

Stupidity would be to referee a fight already lost.

.

 

Even so, with you referee for me when I take on the Librarian in DEBATE, the ugly old hag? 

IT IS SHE WHO STARTED THIS IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!

CONFISCATING MY LIGHTER! ALL I WAS DOING WAS LIGHTING THE CANDLES ON MY BIRTHDAY CAKE.

LAST WEEK I TRIED TO LIGHT ALL THE MANY CANDLES ON HER CAKE AND THE LIGHTER RAN OUT OF FUEL!!!

Once again, James, you must turn that frown upside down. I'm too peaceful to debate.

I CHALLENGE  @The Librarian TO A DEBATE!!!!

YES, YOU HEARD ME, YOU OLD BATTLEAXE!!! A DEBATE!!!

THAT"S THE ONLY WAY WE'RE GOING TO SETTLE THIS! RIGHT HERE! RIGHT NOW!

A DEBATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

JTR WILL REFEREE!

2 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

IT IS A DEBATE ... and that is how adults sift out bad ideas, and set them aside .. on the intellectual battlefield...

Debate is sometimes a war of attrition ... until the last of the opponent's ideas are individually squashed.  That is basically how the "Scientific Method" works...

You cannot LEAVE THE BATTLEFIELD while the opponents' army of ideas are still standing erect and strong.

"If any man teaches another doctrine and does not agree with the wholesome instruction, which is from our Lord Jesus Christ, nor with the teaching that is in harmony with godly devotion...he is obsessed with arguments and debates about words".....(1 Timothy 6:3-4)

"Further, reject foolish and ignorant debates"... (2 Timothy 2:2)

"So I desire that in every place the men carry on prayer...without anger and debates"...1 Timothy 2:8

2 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

like turning over your King, half way through a chess game.

Since I am constrained to follow scripture, I am overturning my king. 

2 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

I can see BOTH viewpoints

Excellent! You debate my side. Let me know how it turns out. Argue hard. Don't be stupid. I don't want to lose this one.

2 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Nothing else need be said.

Rather, I think it important to stick with the original theme of this theme. My last reply was a noble attempt to do that. Look, if you want to take on the Librarian, be my guest.I don't want to sit in detention for a month.

16 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Not a clue.

I suggested a mom who homeschools her two teenage kids assign them this one, and suggested it would not be easy - they would likely have to go to Supreme Court records. She replied that her boy would be enthralled and dive right into it, but her daughter would say ... this is too much....'if it was important, it would be in the book.' (the girl grinned when this was brought to her attention)

I'm with both. There are some things that I dig into with relish. And there are some things about which I say: "who cares?"

The girl's anticipated answer reminded me of a brother, likely the dumbest person I ever met, as fleshly as a brother can be and still be a brother, who likely came into the truth simply to placate his wife, as course as he could be, but nonetheless loved by all for extreme generosity and unfailing good humor ....okay? ....got the picture?....cornered me when I was saying something zealous, with: (as if from Moses on high) "a man can only stand so much religion!"

As to the thirteenth case, how could anyone possibly know that one?

12 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

That'll be Douglas v. City of Jeannette https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/319/157/

 

It is as the Eagles sang: "There's a new kid in town." Eoin's star rises, mine continues to sink fast.

The U.S. Supreme Court in the 1940's decreed that Witness children could be required to salute the flag. It unleashed a wave of violent reprisals, ordinary citizens suddenly unashamed to be thugs, so that many legal types began to rethink their decision. It was reversed within the year, as [separate] men of conscience could not abide what they had unleashed.

"

"The first court to hear the case, the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia refused to follow the precedent of the Supreme Court decision and ruled in favor of the Witness children:

"Ordinarily we would feel constrained to follow an unreversed decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, whether we agreed with it or not...the developments with respect to the Gobitas case, however, are such that we do not feel it is incumbent upon us to accept it as binding authority...The tyranny of majorities over the rights of individuals or helpless minorities has always been recognized as one of the great dangers of popular government. The fathers sought to guard against this danger by writing into the Constitution a bill of rights guaranteeing to every individual certain fundamental liberties...We are clearly of the opinion that the regulation of the Board requiring that school children salute the flag is void insofar as it applies to children having conscientious scruples against giving such salute...

"The issue was again appealed up to the Supreme Court, and this time that body reversed itself. By a 6:3 majority, the Court ruled that compulsory flag salute was unconstitutional. Their verdict was announced on June 14, 1943, Flag Day."

Perhaps there will be some men of conscience in Russia, as well, who cannot abide what they have unleashed.

15 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

.with your infantile debate concession comment ...

Suppose I took the crass words you use and threw them around, like Kim and his nukes. Would you like it?

Most things are arguable, and as you know, I'm not one to argue. Shiwii wanted to celebrate his birthday. I told him he could. What more can he ask for? Is he upset that some are convinced by the explanations that failed to convince him? What's it to him? Why is he here?

I WAS FURIOUS AFTER THE MEETING THURSDAY AND I HANDED IN MY RESIGNATION!!! JTR HAS BEEN RIGHT ALL ALONG!!!!! HOW COULD I HAVE BEEN SUCH A FOOL??????

THE BROTHERS TAKING THE LEAD ARE INCOMPETENT LIARS!! THEY ARE IMPOSTERS!!! THEY CARE NOTHING FOR THE LITTLE PEOPLE!!! THEY LAUGH AT THEIR WOES!!!

FROM THE 'KINGDOM RULES' BOOK: "ON THAT MEMORABLE DAY IN 1943, JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES WON 12 OF THEIR 13 CASES BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT!!!!!" [!!!!! MINE]

IF THEY WEREN'T SUCH JERKS, THEY WOULD HAVE WON ALL 13!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*

(What is the one they lost? I'll bet even @JW Insider, who knows a lot, doesn't know this one.)

I wondered what was all the fuss about this tract. Then I went to the Thursday meeting.

As to the question "What effect did the [Canadian Supreme Court] victory have on our brothers and sisters?' I replied that the jury is still out. It isn't for Canada, but it is for Russia. How comes it that this Quebec case is presented to congregations worldwide as the Russian Supreme Court is to hear our appeal? @JW Insider will know the lead time on this article, but I would be surprised if it is under two years, one at most.

Their certainly are a lot of parallels, and perhaps the Russian Court will be instructed by the Canadian Court of long ago. Perhaps it will be moved by "the Court agreed with the argument presented by the defense that "sedition" requires incitement to violence or insurrection against government. The tract, however, 'contained no such incitements and was therefore a lawful form of free speech.'" The tract in question, Quebec's Burning Hate, was considerably hotter than anything Russia has been asked to deal with.

You can be sure all is being done that can be done to ensure that relevant Russian officials are aware of this. Perhaps they will empathize, or perhaps they will be chastened by, the "trial court judge, who hated Witnesses, refused to admit evidence that proved the Bouchers' innocence." The Russian court, too, refused to admit evidence proving innocence, most notably that of police planting the 'extremist' literature that they would later 'find' and used as a pretext of arrest. 

Russia is not Canada. It cannot be shamed for denying free speech. It has not the reverence for free speech as do Western countries. There is a tendency to think that if the actual trial was a perfunctory sham, surely the appeal will be, too. But it may not be that way. The internet may prove powerful. The evidence that the Russian Court refused to see WAS seen by everyone else in the whole wide world thanks to jw.org, and this has to register. Of course, I exaggerate. It wasn't everyone. Far from it. But among legal type people and scholar type people, human-rights type people, and many a political figure, it likely was universal. The only ones who had a moral responsibility to see it are the ones who refused to see it. Surely they are embarrassed as this is brought to their attention. 

What will their response be?

6 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

Hogwash to all of that mess.

'Hogwash' is my word, from the second book title. You may not use it.