TrueTomHarley

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

 I like the view for the nostalgia and great memories,

"My Bethel friend used to tell me how visiting speakers from the hills would rail on about the wickedness of the big city. It made him squirm - ‘New York City is our home,’ he’d say. He and his wife maneuvered forever to land a magnificent, if stamp-sized, apartment in the Sliver Building – housing is on a seniority basis. We joined them there for wine and cheese after a day sightseeing. Unwinding with a breathtaking view of Manhattan beneath them – ah, what a life! But they were soon transferred to Patterson where they would look out their window and see cows."

25 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

That’s where we defer with the kind of creed one represents and dismisses. Personally, my “statement” stands as “antipolitical”,

My only point was that it matters little how you or I intend something to be taken. What matters is how our audience does take it. It is a encouragement to use words seasoned with salt, that's all.

28 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

If you want to take me on

Of course I do not. We are on the same team.

On 5/21/2017 at 2:43 PM, The Librarian said:

 

Not sure how to refer to these two groups

Hard nosed

By any chance, does the Watchtower's time & temp &Read the Bible Daily sign stay up as an item of historical significance? You can't remove a shingle around here if it has been deemed historical.

36 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

That’s why we have ignorant governments, that think the Watchtower is now embodied with politics, and have foolish people like in Russia, that now call us extremist,

Tempting though it may be to say such things, in the light of what has happened, Russia would regard this statement itself as being 'political.' Seen through their eyes (which we should always try to do with anyone....okay, almost anyone) their intransigence is not totally baseless. 

Emily Baran's book details how all the typical religious reasons accounted for atheistic Soviet Russia persecuting Jehovah's Witnesses. But there were additional ones. The Communists regarded us also as a political movement disguised as a religion. If that seems paranoid, consider that such views were held during the cold war, the most paranoid of times, when anything from the West (like Brooklyn) was held in deep suspicion by the East, and vice versa. 

Early JW works occasionally picked up on Western terminology, such as 'iron curtain,' which the Soviets themselves would never use. Too, the Soviets got stuck being 'the king of the north,' who puts trust in 'the god of fortresses.' The book of the 1930's, 'Government,' lambasted Soviet communism as 'doomed to fail.' Of course, it said the same about democracy, for its point was the inferiority of all human government, not one in particular, but atheistic Russia could hardly be expected to pick up on the nuances, and they didn't.

These days the antagonism against us is mostly stirred up by the Church, as it always is. But the latent distrust of Witnesses from the political days has never vanished. Indeed, even during the 25 years of Jehovah's Witnesses operating as a 'legal' religion there, the government has never acknowledged the mass deportations of our brothers to Siberia in the 40's and 50's.

So while there are some here who 'spill' more than I would, even assuming I had stuff to spill, they are not the ones who will get us into hot water with Russia.

While I admit this glorifies myself, not God, it also fits perfectly. Therefore I can probably insert it without the Librarian, that old hen, going anal the way she does about hawking a book other than the dull works of pedantry she herself has placed on her library shelves.

From 'No Fake News but Plenty of Hogwash:'

Here are the top news stories of 2016:

1.   Trump won.

2.   The other side blamed Putin, who

3.   Got mad.....

5.   Jehovah’s Witnesses (my people) moved their headquarters from Brooklyn Heights, where they had been for over 100 years, to way, way out in the sticks.

6.   Jerod Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, bought their old building. Video of him saying nice things about Witnesses appeared on jw.org. I had no idea who he was at the time, but when I found out, I worried anew. See - I caught a heavy dose of news each day while I was writing, and it irritated me, but I stuck with it – how else would I learn about the snowfall outside my window? Now, no one is capable of total non-bias, but they are capable of trying. I’m not used to the referee leaning on the scales – it never used to happen. But when I would grouse about the media, which I did a lot, some took it as support for Trump! I could picture the Watchtower sign going down, a Trump sign going up, and fellow Witnesses, who weren’t paying overclose attention saying: ‘how did Tom manage that?’.....

...I looked diligently for that interview with Jared Kushner who bought the Bethel building, and it is no longer there. It’s too bad because he says nice things about us, such as how a handshake deal means something with the Witnesses. I don’t know for certain why it was removed, and just possibly it hasn’t been, for it was never a headline – maybe it’s still buried as an addendum somewhere.  But the Watchtower will go to great lengths to establish that they are absolutely apolitical. In this era of rabid politics, one can depend upon some yoyo coming across the video of Kushner touring the building he would soon buy and take it as proof that Jehovah’s Witnesses had struck a deal to erect Theocratic Trump Tower.

1 minute ago, Nnaemeka said:

Check your facts thoroughly next time before quoting from apostate sources so you don't end up misleading or stumbling others.

Nice as newbie N is, he will get his head handed to him on a platter if he does not explore the nuances here before putting in his loyal comment. Ah, well....that's the mark of a newbie. I have misread things far more myself.

'Toto, something tells me we're not in Kansas anymore.'

6 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

..reminds me of when Stalin gave a speech before the Soviet Politburo .... everyone ALWAYS stood up and clapped, and clapped...and clapped, and clapped.

I loved that part.

7 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

.... for pedophilia, substitute the phrase "FIRST DEGREE MURDER",  and see if your argument still makes sense.

If it does, you are OK.

If it does NOT .. there are flaws in the moral high ground attempted ... by requiring a HIGHER moral high ground of others.

Go ahead, be a sport.... try it out!

I will not, for I can already spot a dissimilarity. Pedophile victims survive. First Degree Murder victims do not.

Moreover, pedophile victims frequently recover. This is especially true when we are dealing with the non-violent, non-rape pedophilia which hysterical persons lump all together as one with the more infrequent predator sort.

Ancient Greece, as you well know, with all of your 'founding father' comments, is regarded as the cradle of Western civilization,  the first glimmerings of democracy. The sexual abuse of children was a staple of life among those perverts. Had it been First Degree Murder, instead, there would be no Greece and hence no Western civilization deriving from it.

4 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

 I have looked at many references from the society on birthdays, and honestly find none of them satisfactory in explaining exactly why birthdays are bad.

Celebrate your birthday, then.

2 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Much better ...

I used to LITERALLY stumble over my cat, the stupid thing. Finally I bought it a one-way bus ticket to Boise, Idaho.

And on birthdays, Shiwii, what happens if you do a search on the website or app?

(JTR: Want your dog back?)

1 hour ago, Shiwiii said:

I'm interested in your point of the beheading being auxiliary. If that is not the major support then what is? 

Search for more recent materials explaining birthdays. They play down the beheading references, which were possibly overused.

On 5/23/2017 at 2:52 PM, Eoin Joyce said:

 

Is this referring to those who criticize JW procedure in handling cases of child abuse?

I am not even willing to accede the moral high ground to these anti-pedophile zealots. Let them claim some progress before we do that. They have succeeded in shaming people, punishing many, and wallpapering the world with sex registry lists. Let them attain some progress in stopping child abuse before we rush to proclaim them heroes.

Though not parallel in all respects, the following is parallel in more ways than not: Nobody claims victory over drugs because many dealers and users have been sent to jail. Instead, they realize that taking out a drug dealer clears the way for ten waiting to take his place. They realize that ever more potent drugs are being devised, and ever more ways to ensnare people. They don’t crow that they are stopping drug abuse; instead, they realize they’re getting their heads handed to them on a platter.

So far, pedophilia is following the same pattern as drug abuse. Ever more sordid and vicious forms are being devised. Persons respected, in various walks of life, are continually being exposed, yet they simply are replaced by others. Those who must track child sexual abuse online in the course of their job describe it as Medusa – one look and it turns you to stone. Moreover, the fight against pedophilia is mostly confined to monied lands. Few care in non-monied lands, as you pointed out.

It is ever like the zealots of this world to charge around loudly, point fingers everywhere, punish some, shame others, and then, on the basis of their good intentions alone, claim victory. Let them actually achieve victory before we hail them as modern saviors.

Let them come to grips with the causes of pedophilia. In a world that relentlessly pushes sex into ever expanding frontiers, crossing same-sex lines, encouraging lifestyles of multiple, ever changing lovers, embracing sexual activity of kids at ages younger and younger, hailing new exciting sexual positions and methods, it is unlikely to find success declaring every form of sex fine and wonderful except ONE THAT WILL NOT BE TOLERATED! The best defense will be the continual Bible training at the Kingdom Hall to keep yourself clean of every sort of fleshly defilement, to be had from the one religion training its members to properly integrate sexuality into their personalities – as neither the focus or life nor something to be frowned upon in its proper context. Ones of that religion should be portrayed as the heroes in this drama (even if flawed), never the villains.
 

Nice as it is to see our literature cart on the scene, it would have been nicer still to have seen the terrorist leafing through a magazine, stroking his chin thoughtfully, and then snipping the wire on his bomb suit and walking home, magazine in hand.

On 5/22/2017 at 8:49 AM, Micah Ong said:

Hey everyone thanks for the discussion but I am going to have to agree to disagree on our views regarding the Bible and it's message.  Thanks for sharing your views.  The Librarian has said this post is now enormous lol 

Not many people do this. I like it. Micah goes up a few notches in my book. [No, not THAT book, you old hag of a Librarian...sheesh! And why don't you mind your own business about how long a thread is? Those trashy romance novels you read all day aren't exactly short, are they?]

It's how I try to operate, as well. Make the best case you can. But there comes a point where you throw it all in God's lap; he knows if he is a trinity or not.

Sometimes people disagree. I can live with that. 

8 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

So instead of taking my comment as a whole, you choose the easiest portion to argue against.

Who doesn't?

Besides, you know full well that beheading is no more than an auxiliary point, nowhere presented as the main reason. These days (thankfully) it recedes even more as a factor when the subject is discussed.

(just in case you are on to something, though, I haven't taken a nap since I read your words)

It's an olive branch. I'll take it. I'm not always kind to you. Thank you.

In the aftermath of Manchester, if words can be called refreshing, surely "evil losers" fits the bill. As Trump says, you don't call them monsters; they will like that designation. These are not people who look at themselves in the mirror and gasp: "what have I become?"

Nor do you call them 'cowards.' To give your life in support of a cause, any cause, is the very opposite of cowardly.

Nor do you carry on about ‘senseless violence.’ If your goal is to kill people, it makes perfect sense.

Nor do you carry on ineffectually about how "we will not change our way of life because that is what they terrorists want." I suspect they do not want that at all; what they want is for people to continually prance around openly like bowling pins, easy to knock down. Surely if you say such inane things about not changing your way of life, you should acknowledge that it is at the cost of funding 100 cops in riot gear, whereas one with a baton used to suffice.

In their quest to undermine the President, I half expect journalists to turn critical of his label, describing it as 'judgmental', 'knee-jerk,' or juvenile. There's only so much you can do with rhetoric. But I'll take it over what we've had to hear in the past any day.

I like "evil losers" also because it doesn't pretend to have a handle on the problem, as some other responses have. Banal remarks about not succeeding in the fight to change a way of life implies that terrorists are merely a nuisance we all must bear, like mosquitoes.

Of course, what can never be addressed is how easy it is today to transform people into evil losers. And how, if you succeed in taking one out, there are ten in the wings waiting to take his place. Or, when mighty nations are bombing the snot out of weaker ones, how easy it is to turn on the citizens of that nation, thinking them not so innocent after all, since they vote into office the ones who order the bombing.

8 hours ago, JW Insider said:

But you have put me in the awkward position of thinking I should defend the truthfulness of what I said.

Wow! I won't do that again!

Look, we are on the same team, and all. Moreover, you have been places I have not. And I agree with your general sentiment that 

8 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I think it's just as dangerous to minimize the cases as it is to exaggerate them.

In both my books, I deliberately take on controversial matters. In my second book (No Fake News but Plenty of Hogwash) ["He's plugging his books again!" shrieks the Librarian, falling off her chair and landing on her fat keister. "After I ordered him not to!"] I describe at some length two greatly flawed persons, with names changed. One, an elder like Diotrophes, who bullied the elder body and plotted to kill his wife so that he could marry his girlfriend without suffering discipline, and two: a man who placed his hand on a teen's rear end and lived the rest of his life in self-imposed exile out of remorse. He had run away from a foster home at 16 and spent 20 years traveling with a carnival before coming into the truth; he was terrified at slipping back into what he had one been. At a time when everyone was doing high speed internet, he refused more than a slow dial-up connection, necessary for his business, so he would not instantly fall victim to internet porn. He may have masturbated himself to death, but he did not revert to what he had been.

Okay? I don't shy from controversy. Besides, I like you. If you are 'out there' in some ways, so am I. Even so.....having said that....it's amazing what you choose to spill. Surely the same GB member who told you of certain doings also told you about Proverbs 11:13. Clearly, there is something 1 Corinthians 5: 1-8esqe about your posting this here.

So there's my rebuke. I'm uncomfortable giving rebukes to a brother, for it isn't my place. But please don't squawk about it overmuch - you know you have it coming. A little squawking is okay, if need be, since I speak without the knowledge a counselor should always have; namely, I know neither you nor your history and I might speak differently if I did. But don't carry on too much.

Now, if the cat is out of the bag, the cat is out of the bag. What can we do with it? Perhaps it is not such a bad thing after all to have aired things.

8 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Although I am not speaking of child abuse, exactly, there have been cases of collusion among some accused of wife-swapping,

Since it is not child abuse, it doesn't belong in a thread devoted to child abuse. If we are to discuss all our slimeballs, then everyone else must, too, and they are not - because the topic is something else.

8 hours ago, JW Insider said:

one had been accused of homosexual tendencies

Not only is 'homosexual tendencies' vague, open to much interpretation (I am cautious here, for fear you will next post 8X10 glossies) but, again, he doesn't belong in a thread about pedophilia. Frankly, in the world's eyes, he becomes a heroic victim, his 'true sexuality' repressed by a homophobic organization - oh, yeah, I can hear the gears turning now in the murmurers' minds.

So we are down to three. I heard once about Greenless, but not the other. However, 'accused' is different than 'established.' With President Duarte's complaint, we were speaking of abuse that is frequently - some would say usually - rape. On the other hand, the person in my book would be put on the sex registry list today, but he plainly was not a threat to anyone - it is only the predators you need keep track of, otherwise you will keep track of damn near everybody, for it seems there are few who have not, at some point in their lives, touched a child inappropriately. (and if what you allege to have happen happened at Bethel, then it happened with young men, not children, and thus, was not 'child abuse,' even if innappropriate. It's most unlikely that abuse accusations here remotely approach the gravity of the Church leaders.

Lastly, we come to

9 hours ago, JW Insider said:

 a 80+-year GB member (Fred Franz) who had made it a longstanding practice to meet with more than a dozen naked and semi-naked 19-year olds in the sauna (steam room), who came there to listen to his Bible discussions for up to two hours every Wednesday night.

Firstly, I accept you as a truthful source. Having said that, I am in no position to verify matters so my acceptance cannot be taken without a grain of salt. And I'm not saying that the above is great, but come on! We are contrasting this with serial rapists in the Church! And while perhaps the 80+ year old was 'getting off,' perhaps he was not. When I was in a health club years ago, it was not unusual for guys to sit in the sauna naked after a workout - I honestly don't remember it I ever did or not; I think I probably did. Guys his age will remember the YMCA, where boys and men routinely swam together naked; I remember that well as a child, and he probably had 30 years on me.

Moreover, not all in the sauna were naked. Some in the sauna were "semi-naked." Do you ever find anyone fully clothed in the sauna? When you go to the beach, aren't they semi-naked there? And what about the pervert Michelangelo, who sculpted 'David?' And aren't ALL art students - aren't they all perverts, for they have all painted nude models? Look, many people consider the human body beautiful.

What about tattoo artists? In a reflective manner, I once asked one whether, when they are tattooing intimate areas, they get a charge out of it, or is it just art. "It's art!" he told me indignantly. What about nudist colonies? Are they all perverts? When my homeschooling wife made high-ranking friends in the school system, one of them asked her to join his group where they would swim...um, you know...naturally. Nudist colonies are frequented by entire families, including the children.

There is mass hysteria here is what I'm saying. All 'abuse' is not the same, and some is abuse only in the eye of the person determined to see it that way. It's why Economist Magazine advised in April, or was it August? - it was an A month - of 2009 that we should all get a grip on ourselves. Only ten percent of those on the sex registries pose any significant threat to the public. All the rest are better handled (my point, not theirs) through parental training such as is encouraged in the Caleb and Sophia series. 

There! Much ado about little, in my estimation. I did not say it was obscene for commissions to examine any accusation of abuse that they see fit to examine; that's what commissions do. But I continue to hold that it is obscene not to slap down anyone who would attempt to equate abuse in Jehovah's organization with abuse in the general religious world. After all, unlike most religions, our spiritual bread and butter emphasizes keeping ourselves morally chaste. Surely, some of that training sticks and gives us a leg up on persons who don't receive it.

Is he the one who did the 360 degree spiral jump over a river in an AMC Hornet?

The President of the Philippines was interviewed recently by the Russian Times.And boy oh boy, did he ever unload:

MF: Can I ask you a personal question, please? Two years ago, you shocked the media by revealing that you had been molested by a priest when you were 14 or 15 years old. And later, you even identified that priest. He was an American national.

RD: Yes. Not only I – the whole class. Two generations up and two generations down. All of us.

MF: You were 70 years old at that time. Why would you make that confession more than 50 years later?

RD: I said this because of the penchant to keep silent. The abuses of the priests had been filmed everywhere. There was an Italian underground film – I’m sure you saw that – priests were running naked there. And they don’t really bother to investigate. There is no condemnation. Nothing. They show the priests and the religious people doing shenanigans, but it is seen just as part of the show of the night. Is it liberality? Is it because you don’t want to condemn your own countrymen? Or is it because the victims were just natives? Never mind about them. We were considered natives. And sometimes pictured as apes.

13 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I am not referring to whether or not any or some had been personally accused of crimes, I'm also referring to a claim of undeniable knowledge of crimes that were not handled correctly, ethically, or even according to law in some cases.

In view of the above interview, it is obscene to even include Jehovah's Witnesses in the same discussion of rank pedophilia. It is obscene not to continually slap down persons who would attempt to equate the two. 

Knowing of a case that was not handled 'correctly' is poles apart from being the predator of that case. They would not even have that knowledge if they were like the churches that make no effort to keep themselves clean morally in God's eyes.

4 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

 

And as you have now explained that your "never" means "rarely",

When you come right down to it, do absolutes ever apply to entire populations? In any group consisting of millions, you will find many examples of anything. It is enough to focus on the preponderance of evidence, the overall pattern, the forest - even when discussing individual trees.

1 hour ago, Micah Ong said:

 

There is a difference between making mistakes and manipulating quotes from research articles and also lying and plagiarism.

The Watchtower quotes the Gazette for support that in 1914 War War 1 changed the world for the worse. Taken in context the article says something quite different.

“News columnists recently commented on the end of World War I 60 years ago. Gwynne Dyer of the Montreal “Gazette” wrote: “World War I—simply The Great War to its survivors—remains the watershed of modern history in men’s minds. Before 1914, the figures in the fading photographs live in another world . . . marked by a peculiar innocence. . . . It was the period before 1914 that was the island in time, when men could believe that progress was changing us as quickly as it was changing our machines. Then World War I tumbled us back into reality.” Watchtower 1979 Fe 15 p.13

Between these carefully chosen comments and the ellipses the Gazette includes the following paragraph.

 

"This is of course a hopelessly romantic view of the world we are idealizing the past, and over-dramatizing our own circumstances. The 20th century is certainly no worse than the 13th for mass slaughter, nor than the ancient empires for regimentation." Gazette 11 Nov 1976

 

Talk about dishonest! The former remarks are what the columnists actually said. The latter are that of someone attempting to deflate them. You could have written them yourself. 

Here are some more 1914 comments from persons who were there, not from revisionists looking back:

1.)   "Those who have an adult's recollection and an adult's understanding of the world which preceded World War I look back upon it with a great nostalgia. There was a sense of security then which has never since existed."  Benjamin J. Anderson (1886-1949), Economics and the Public Welfare
 

2.)  We read "Historic events are often said to have 'changed everything.' In the case of the Great War [1914-1918] this is, for once, true. the war really did change everything: not just borders, not just governments and the fate of nations, but the way people have seen the world and themselves ever since. It became a kind of hole in time, leaving the postwar world permanently disconnected from everything that had come before."    A World Undone, by G J Meyer, (2006)
 

3.)  Everything would get better and better. This was the world I was born in. . . . Suddenly, unexpectedly, one morning in 1914 the whole thing came to an end.—British statesman Harold Macmillan, New York “Times,” November 23, 1980
 

4.)  Civilization entered on a cruel and perhaps terminal illness in 1914.”   Frank Peters, St. Louis “Post-Dispatch    January 27, 1980
 

5.)  In 1914 the world lost a coherence which it has not managed to recapture since. . . . This has been a time of extraordinary disorder and violence, both across national frontiers and within them. The Economist,” London, August 4, 1979
 

6.)   The whole world really blew up about World War I and we still don’t know why. . . . Utopia was in sight. There was peace and prosperity. Then everything blew up. We’ve been in a state of suspended animation ever since.    Dr. Walker Percy, “American Medical News,” November 21, 1977
 

7.)   Thoughts and pictures come to my mind, . . . thoughts from before the year 1914 when there was real peace, quiet and security on this earth—a time when we didn’t know fear. . . . Security and quiet have disappeared from the lives of men since 1914.    German statesman Konrad Adenauer, 1965
 

8.)   In 1914 the world, as it was known and accepted then, came to an end.”   James Cameron (the historian, not the movie-maker) 1959
 

9.)  Ever since 1914, everybody conscious of trends in the world has been deeply troubled by what has seemed like a fated and pre-determined march toward ever greater disaster. Many serious people have come to feel that nothing can be done to avert the plunge towards ruin. They see the human race, like the hero of a Greek tragedy, driven on by angry gods and no longer the master of fate.   Bertrand Russell, New York “Times Magazine,” September 27, 1953
 

10.)   More and more historians look back upon World War I as the great turning point of modern history, the catastrophic collapse which opened the way for others, perhaps the final one. Professor D. F. Fleming, Vanderbilt University:

11.) World War I was more devastating to civility and civilization than the physically far more destructive World War II: the earlier conflict destroyed an idea. I cannot erase the thought of those pre-World War I years, when the future of mankind appeared unencumbered and without limit. Today our outlook is starkly different from a century ago but perhaps a bit more consonant with reality...Alan Greenspan

12.) When, in far off Serbia, an archduke was assassinated, it seemed such a faraway incident - nothing that concerned us. ...And than suddenly one morning it had happened. England was at war.'  Agatha Christie

13.) Charlie Chaplin's autobiography ('My Autobiography') has a very interesting account about the first world war and how it changed the world and people. He said something like that people lost their basic virtues and never got them back.

Sure, contemporary people whose main goal is to discredit Jehovah's Witnesses will say "all things today are exactly as from Creation's beginning." That's why its good to read up on persons who aren't  trying to pooh-pooh it from afar for devious or lazy motives - persons who lived through the change. 

4 hours ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Actually this is a valid point but is also an overstatement. The word "never" exaggerates. The Roman Catholic church, as an example, has received considerable publicity over this matter, albeit with a focus on clergy crime. 

I always exaggerate. 'Never' in MySpeak means 'rarely.' 'All' means 'most.'

But in this case, I hold to the never. It is membership I am speaking of. Everybody's clergy gets outed when they do wrong in this regard, but nobody's membership. It's because nobody has a clue as to what their membership is up to. Nobody feels the obligation to present to God a morally clean people, so they don't bother checking to see what members apply biblical morality and what do not. If a member gets blown in for child abuse, it's not their affair; in fact, they know nothing about it. They are not the 'middleman'  and thus cannot be called to account for whether or not they handled matters in the way deemed acceptable by abuse people today.

So with regard to members, how else are we to know an abuser's religious affiliation? Can we imagine the police or the judge will ask about it? Of course, they will not, so the only membership you will hear about is Jehovah's Witnesses. We have a 'vulnerability' in this regard, and it is vulnerability that stems from doing the right thing. If we ignored the conduct of our members, as others do, we would not have this vulnerability. We also, in time, would not have a congregation looking much different than the world in matters of morality. That is what infuriates former members who are now enemies: our attempt to do so, for many of them were once on the losing end of discipline. 

Our 'clergy' stack up pretty well with regard to abuse, and clergy is the only place where you can compare apples to apples - you can't do it with membership because no one else keeps track.

In 2007,  Watchtower settled a number of abuse cases. This statement was released to the media at that time: "For the sake of the victims in these cases, we are pleased that a settlement has been reached. Our hearts go out to all those who suffer as a result of child abuse....During the last 100 years, only eleven elders have been sued for child abuse in thirteen lawsuits filed in the US. In seven of these lawsuits against the elders, accusations against the Watchtower Society itself were dismissed by the courts. Of course one victim is one victim too many. However, the incidence of this crime among Jehovah’s Witnesses is rare..."

We have a missing puzzle piece here. We know the stats for abuse among our 'clergy.' We know the stats for abuse among the clergy of others. But when it comes to membership, we only know the stats for Jehovah's Witnesses. So as not to be comparing apples to oranges, we need to know the stats for the membership of other faiths. We will never get them because nobody keeps track. So people who know better (and many who don't) will continue to equate the membership of Jehovah's Witnesses with the clergy of other religions.

With a missing puzzle piece that will not be supplied, all we can do is extrapolate. If eleven Witness clergy were sued over 100 years, with only four of them stemming from any culpability from the organization, then I submit that the overall rate among the members will also be low. If it is seen to be high, then the overall rate among memberships elsewhere will be astronomical.  

Of course, we see that it is. Child sexual abuse everywhere is an absolutely out of control pandemic. Like nurturing a seedling plant through inclement weather, apostates promote the idea that the pedophilia problem is disproportionately a Witness problem. It is not. If stats are disproportionate, it is probably the other way, as it is with clergy.

It is a classic example of getting slammed for doing the right thing, and it should not be spun any other way.

The way to avoid such messy critiques is to preach to the congregation on Sunday and let that be the end of it. It's up to them what they do with it. That way, if somewhere down the line a member of a religion is busted for child abuse, leaders can truthfully say, like Sergeant Shultz, 'I know notttthhhhiiiiiiiinnnngg!' 

Let them come to consume religion, and no more. Give no thought to disciplining congregants who misbehave. Construct matters so that you never know about these ones.

Fail in your duty to God to produce for him a people spirituality and morally clean. Tell Him: "What you see is what you get. It's not my problem.'

Surely this explains why we never hear religious affiliation for anyone other than JWs when abusers are found out. Nobody else cares about Scriptural direction to maintain cleanliness as a congregation. Nobody else has a clue what their members are up to. When cops nab an abuser, their religion is never reported because few imagine that today's religions should result in clean people; it's not their job. Only Jehovah's Witnesses take it upon themselves to insist upon clean people.

For the most part, former Witnesses who are now enemies and who push this narrative for all it is worth were disciplined at one time for one thing or another, and are livid over it. It's no more complicated than that.