TrueTomHarley

There were blue envelopes but they were for relating the disfellowshipping of any person for any reason. The idea was that someone disciplined for any sort of wrongdoing could not just slip into a new congregation as though a rebuke had never happened. Presumably, the envelopes were blue for privacy’s sake, so they would be forwarded to the right persons. Today, It is painted specifically as though it was for CSA. That was not the case. It was for any type of wrongdoing.

There are a number of ex-Bethelites & ex-JWs who might never have left if they knew their old building would someday be used for growing pot. I also learned just recently (no connection with the above) that the new Etsy headquarters is at 117 Adams St, also an old WT address.

I don’t think he knows anything.

That’s not a bad illustration.

The speaker’s wife gave one of the first comments at the Watchtower Study—on the very first paragraph. It sort of fit, since the theme was on making wise decisions and following through. Still, she ‘shoehorned’ it in a bit—it wasn’t a perfect fit. She said how she had not been manipulated to become one of Jehovah’s Witnesses—it had been her own choice and one that she did not regret. Well, who said that she had been manipulated?—that’s why the comment had an artificial flavor to it—the paragraph itself contained no hint of it. Furthermore, pushing the limits of the 30-second goal for comments, put in place so no one loquacious person steals the show, she found it the stupidest notion in the world for anyone to suggest that. Manipulation? How ridiculous. Plainly, someone had thrust that idea at her recently, maybe some sorehead that she had run across at work or among the neighbors—that it is no more than manipulation with Jehovah’s Witnesses—that’s why they believe and act as they do. It is the classic technique of the mainstream bully—to assert that one couldn’t possibly depart from the ordinary unless they had been manipulated to do so, and “unfairly” manipulated at that—had the “manipulation” been in that bully’s direction, there would be no problem with it. You can apply this to anything. The reason you bought a Chevy is that you were manipulated by their ads. The reason you cheered for the 49ers is that you were manipulated by San Francisco. The reason you went to college is that you were manipulated by the guidance counselor. The reason that you died for your country is that you were manipulated by that country to think the cause noble—nobody of any other country thought so. Really, Jehovah’s Witnesses least fit the accusation of manipulation, because they, unlike the above examples, represent persons who were actively searching—they were anything but moldable pieces of dough. They were dissatisfied with the status quo, dissatisfied with where life was heading, dissatisfied with the goals society set before them, and they took upwards of a year looking over a new model, weighing and trying it on for size, before committing to it. All this was done in familiar surroundings without leaving trusted routine—as opposed to the above examples of college and military, in which one is immersed 24/7 in unfamiliar settings, a classic tool of manipulators. Well, if you are going to talk manipulation, talk it with something that counts. That’s why I liked Mark Sanderson kicking back at the petty application of manipulation with a major one. In his annual meeting talk about not being fearful, he quoted Hebrews 2:15, that “through [Jesus’] death [God] might bring to nothing the one having the means to cause death, that is, the Devil, and that he might set free all those who were held in slavery all their lives by their fear of death.” Sanderson cited the Nuremberg trials, in which various Nazis who had committed unspeakable atrocities were asked the simple question, “How could you do those terrible things?” “What did they say?” he asked, and then related the answer they had given: “We had no choice. If we didn’t obey they would put us to death.” “Those people could be manipulated,” Sanderson said. “They could be controlled. They could be made to do the most wicked things because they were afraid.” Exactly! If you are going to bandy about words as “manipulate” and “control,” don’t trivialize the terms—do it with an example that matters! Don’t do it with an example of choosing this life course or that life course, neither of which will extend beyond 80 years. Do it with the example of control and manipulation that will gain you the reputation of a mass murderer to last throughout all time. Maybe that’s why the resurrection of the dead was one of the first Christian teachings to come under attack, even during the time of the apostles; the teaching thwarted the goal to keep people afraid so that you can make them do what you want. Was it coincidence for Sanderson to speak as he did or did it represent kicking back at these petty people who put all their stock in the here and now, equating acting by faith as “control” and “manipulation?” I don’t know, but I wouldn’t mind seeing more of it.

This is not bad. It is worth playing with a hypothetical chewing out from the Lord as to how those disciples could remain in such a boat of bad caulking and rot, probably not even built by inspired craftsmen, and how they would be so much better off to abandon it for the open sea.

Just for kicks, google ‘corona virus biological weapon’ and see what comes up

If it wasn’t so much work you’d be hearing from Mr RealFineAuthenticJWInsider about now

In theory, I llke these remarks. In practice, I’m not sure that I do as much. Didn’t you say that you did not go to meetings but that you thought it was a good thing that your wife and children did? This doesn’t quite make sense to me. If your wife and children are going to meetings then they will be dubious of your efforts to make disciples of Jesus out of them. They will say that Jesus leads his earthly organization that you have separated yourself from—exactly the terms of which either you have never said or I missed it. For now, I will assume that you have simply gone inactive with regard to the congregation that your wife and kids think Jesus directs. Will that really help them become disciples of Christ? Or are they not praying that they may somehow be able to help you to become more fully a disciple of Christ? I’m going to make a few assumptions. They’re probably wrong, but they make a good composite picture. Bear with me. You certainly do not hesitate to speak with authority so bear with me if I do as well. You downgrade the importance of preaching and you upgrade the importance of fine works in other ways. You upgrade the importance of raising children apart from public preaching. You upgrade the importance of interpretation and have spun a theory about how the matters of Revelation will turn out. I think it is far-fetched for reasons already given—primarily by JWI—not me. But it certainly reflects contemplation on the scriptures. Indeed, all I did was ridicule it and I count it very much to your credit that you did not get indignant with me on that account. I think you’re a little embarrassed about the earthly organization and maybe about the brothers in any given Kingdom Hall. I think you are disappointed that so many of them are not more students of God’s Word than you think they ought be. You are turning verses over in your head, but many of them are not. “What has the organization said?” suffices for many of them. Plainly you are tired of the preaching work and tired that for so many it is rather ineffective. ‘It may be cumulative but, for any given individual, can’t they find more effective ways to serve?‘ seems be your attitude. If you have five children, then you are surely frustrated that so much teaching is geared for those who don’t have any children at all—at most one or two. “Yeah—give each of these guys (GB members) one or two teenagers and then see how that would affect how they carry themselves!” a friend of mine who raised three teens (two took to the truth, one did not) muttered. I will speculate that you were an elder but as certain things did not go your way, you no longer are. Go back to the congregation. Regain the confidence for acting a spiritual head ought, per the definition of your wife and kids. Bring your gift to the altar. It is other than that which is stressed today, but that does not mean that it is not a gift. Don’t worry about being an elder again. Focus on the basics and the freedom that you have to unbuild. There are so many things that, as appointed men, they have to do, but you do not. Support them, but you can look around and visit, unbuild in a way that they can’t always get to as quickly and sometimes not at all. Just between me and you, when I first saw the online study course, I said: “Good! Now we can hold off on spoon-feeding people the basics and engage with them at a higher level.” I even wrote that I looked forward to the time when I would say—it would have to be just the right circumstances—“I don’t want to study the Bible with you—do it yourself!” When we keep ourselves immersed in the milk because that is as far as we get in teaching most people, it makes us babes ourself—and you are anything but a ‘babe.’ I don’t think the ministry is as pointless as you say. Yes, much territory is well-worked and yes, people know who we are, but I don’t think they know it very well. At least two reasons you did not mention argue strongly for keeping the present course—new adults are formed daily, and new circumstances prompt people to reappraise. I think we are not particularly effective in how we present the good news. As I grow older, with bills paid, kids gone, more freedom to both copy and innovate, I come up with new methods of door to door that almost instantly break down barriers. Such as telling people how it works with Jehovah’s Witnesses—on the 100th call, I will ask them to join our religion, and what are the chances it will go so long? In the meantime, it is just conversation. I’ve seen people visibly relax at that—now that they know the score, they need not fear that every word they say somehow digs them deeper into a pit of expectation that they will not be able to extract themselves from without unpleasantness. (unfortunately, some of our people give exactly that impression) The point is I think we can be much more effective than we are. This one here about speaking to the evangelical works, too: https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/forums/topic/86486-speaking-with-the-evangelical/ No, the preaching work is going to define the organization and I think you must get your head around that. “This good news of the kingdom will be preached.....and then the end will come” will always be the theme. ‘Anyone hearing the voice of the Lord, let them also say ‘come’ It’s the way it is. You are not going to get away from it. You give your wife and kids the appearance that you are trying to, however. Better if you don’t do it, I think. Accept that the guys who get the “honor” will be the guys who push the preaching work, which you, by the simple reason of having five kids, will not be able to be in the forefront of. Accept that the guys running the show are “unlearned and ordinary.” They always have been. They always will be. Christianity is a working class religion. Use your considerable talents—evident by the way you conduct yourself—to build up the body of the Christ. If you are outside the congregation arrangement, then in the eyes of your wife and kids, the body doesn’t know where you are. You are like a severed member.

I got sick and tired of hearing the hysterical cry that Assad had “gassed his own people”—mostly because it seemed to imply that gassing anyone else would be okay.

What I like is that the third slave of Luke 19 approaches the master and hasn’t done a thing with his mina; he has hidden it in a cloth and offers the explanation that he knew his master was a harsh man, taking where he did not deposit and reaping where he did not sow. The Master does not deny it! It’s a bad attitude, but he does not deny it. He does reap where he does not sow. He does reap disciples where he did not directly make them himself. It is an unappreciative attitude that slave had but it appears that the master could have worked with it—‘just put it in the bank and I get the interest’ he says. Who knows where the slave picked up his rotten attitude?—maybe he was wronged somewhere In the past. It doesn’t matter. Just deliver the interest and the master can work with it. Depositing it in the bank is not much, but it appears that the Master could have worked with it. The parallel illustration at Matt 25 has that “wicked slave” burying his master’s talent in the ground, working up a sweat so as to thwart his Master’s will. Why should anyone do that?

Not that verse specifically, but I certainly am aware of Bart. He is the GreatCourses lecturer who I’ve been listening to lately. He has replaced some unsavories here who I promised to myself not to engage anymore. God never takes away without giving something better No sooner does Bart say something blockheaded and I think of starting up an article on it than he says something even dumber. He is the newer, better, improved version of the “apostate”—it is no more than “apostates lite” up till now. For the most part I have not named him, but have just called him The Professor. It is not about him but the role he plays. Like the Watchtower seldom naming names, as soon as you name a villain you created the impression that removing that villain solves matters. Instead, another villain immediately steps into his shoes and the show goes on. Here is his quip when speaking of Pax Romana: “I always tell my students [at Chapel Hill] that if there is a perfectly good English term for a concept, you are better off using the Latin term so everyone will know you’ve been to the university.“ It is just a quip but in that quip lies all the pretensions or our ridiculous times. “How can you believe, when you are accepting glory from one another and you are not seeking the glory that is from the only God?” says Jesus. (Jn 5:44)

I did read the book ‘The Creature of Jekyll Island,’ and yes, it was one of the most intriguing books that I have ever read. I also read a book ‘The Rockefellers’ covering 4 generations. No going into conspiracies here, but if focused on how the first generation made the money, the second softened the image of the first and founded the charity, the third expanded the power base (David of Chase, Nelson of NY, 3 others i think) and the fourth went to psychiatrists and laid very low, even renouncing the name in a case or two. Anti-pharma people loathe one of them—I think it is David—for essentially buying out the medical profession and converting it to drug salesmen.

When we drove from Florida to Rochester years ago, whenever we crossed the state line, there appeared a huge “Welcome to such-and -such State!” soon followed by a hospitality stand. When we crossed into New York it was “Welcome to New York!” followed by “Stop! Pay toll!” [exclamation marks mine, probably] People have been leaving the state lately and the (extremely liberal) governor has said it is due to the weather. I agreed with him, tweeting that New York has very high income weather, property weather, and sales weather. Within the year, legislation was enacted to make New York the most green place, not only in the country, but maybe in the world. Since it is but the tiniest sliver of the overall world, can it not be positioning for a 2024 Presidential bid/ Within the month, legislation has created a “catch and release” program for non-violent offenders—issue them a court date and let them go. A woman’s group says: “What? Domestic abuse that falls short of broken bones will be catch and release? They fear women will not report it at all—what’s the point? Especially since a reported and released abusive spouse may just return to the scene of the crime to ‘teach the woman a lesson.’ It brings some real fear into the unsavory joke: “What do all abused women have in common? They just won’t listen.” The gov has conceded that the law can use some tweaking. Cops hate it as is. Why report a burglary? Might not reporting one result in retribution? But the gov has run the stats, has discovered that jail detentions do not balance out racially, and figures his duty is to stop that. When I live in the hood I recall (white) neighbors blasting their boom box full volume on their front lawn. All prior complaints had fallen on deaf ears. It was a low enough priority for police that if you called it in, you ought not hold your breath. I remember I wanted with every once of my being to cross my small yard and smash the thing once with a baseball bat—one hit would do it. I didn’t do it, though. I knew that I could not stay home day and night and guard my house. Low priority then. No priority at all now, most likely. But the gov lives in a fine area.

When I, a New Yorker, visited Florida and heard someone say that, I was furious! I called them out! “Call yourself thorough? You forgot, ‘inhospitable and rude!’”

“For their own good” the true believers among them would have said.

Paul commented how “this witness is true” and he was referring to the prophet among them who wrote that Cretans were “always liars, injurious wild beasts, idle gluttons.” Emily Baran cites a few places in Wt publications post-WWII which reiterates the phrase “iron curtain.” This didn’t sit well with the Soviet government, who considered it not an iron curtain at all but a protective barrier.

When I worked a part time job with a lot of twenty-somethings, some wanted to know how long I had been married. They were dumbfounded when I told them I had been married for over 20 years. Raised in single parent families, most of them, they had never heard of a marriage lasting so long! How likely is it that they are going to try a model that they have never seen work?

When I was a child, supper time was sacrosanct. Everybody had supper at more of less the same time. On becoming a Witness, I respected that family hour and would not ever call during that time. It took me a long time to realize that it is not that way anymore. Typical is for family members to come and go, eat whenever, and not necessarily together. Now I will go in service sometimes through what used to be the supper time and it raises no fuss at all. Should I find I have interrupted someone’s supper, I apologize profusely, say people have such varied schedules that I didn’t know, and I move on. It doesn’t happen too often. And to think that when I was new as a Witness there was an old-timer, who not only would not call during the supper hour (something NO Witness would do) but he wouldn’t even call during the LUNCH hour that he imagined people still kept.

If I was to describe myself, it would be in words very similar. A story, with opening background: I have always been ‘out there’ in appearance (for a brother), at times downright shaggy, with hair falling over my ears, and I don’t fuss much with combing it, usually not at all. I don’t fully trust anyone who has not a hair out of place. I don’t like cuff-links either, though I will concede that some will wear them and figure that they are like the fine seamless garment Jesus wore. Nobody would rebuke the Lord with: “Why don’t you wear a regular garment from the Goodwill so no one thinks you are putting on airs.” They would not say that, so cuff links get a free pass, too, but I would never wear the stupid things. Amazingly, I have never been counseled on general shagginess, despite all the carrying on about ‘dress that befits a minister of GodI’—which rubs me the wrong way when it is overdone. I’ve had speaking assignments at the District Convention, now called Regionals. I can only surmise that my personality otherwise offsets a moderately (at times) unorthodox appearance. In my 50’s, after my eldering days, I got into the habit of moussing my hair when it got long, running my fingers through it once so it stayed off my forehead, and I would go about my day with it spiked up, flopping over any way it liked as gravity took over. If I see a young woman with green hair, I won’t harrumph as many of our people would—I’ll say, “Huh! You know, I kind of like that.” These days I am less that way and I now say to the barber: “Look, so long as you are not thinking “US Marine,” cut it as short as you like—even if you get it too short, I will not complain—it grows back.* That way I don’t have to horse with it for a while. Brother Lloyd of the US Branch gave the talk at our Assembly Hall. He is an old-timer who has been around forever. The place was packed out. For reasons I don’t remember, my wife and I arrived late and we were shoehorned into the only two seats available—directly in front of him. His talk was hard-hitting, the type you used to hear from old-timers and the type that you will not hear today—‘if you do not make time for Jehovah, maybe he will not make time for you’ was the tone some of it took. Now, I am not one of those brothers who has to track down the speaker so as to shake his hand. If I don’t speak with him at all, that is perfectly fine by me. I have stated here that I would love to have a Governing Body member stay at my house so I could ignore him (which would probably make me popular in his eyes). “There’s your room. Come down and hang out if you like, but don’t feel you have to—I know that you have things to do, if only unwinding free of persons who you have to talk to,” is what I would say to him. So after the closing prayer I turn around with my spiked hair and find myself face to face with him—the crowds have not closed in yet. I exchange a few pleasantries—nice of him to make the sacrifice to travel, and so forth, and he says, almost with a twinkle, “I wasn’t too hard on you brothers, was I?” “Well,” I said, “we’ll adjust.” ......*With regard to not complaining about a bad haircut, I remember reading a book by Peter Lynch, the Fidelity fund manager known for investing in what he liked. He bought a ton on Dunkin Donut stock and it went to the moon—his interest first piqued because he loved their coffee. He also bought Supercuts. True to method, he went there first to get a haircut. He thought he looked a little funny as he left, but he allowed that it might simply be due to some new style that he was unaware of. The horrified look on the faces of his wife and daughters convinced him that it was not. The CEO, when he related the experience to him, observed cheerfully that hair grows back at 6 inches per....some quantity of time that I forget. Lynch is the same fund manager who once observed of General Motors: “The nicest thing I can say about it is that it is a terrible company.” I never forgot that line. PS: the good guys have all migrated for now to Anna’s new thread on the closed site. You’re welcome to join them. Leave 4Jah, Srecko, and Witness here to talk among themselves. They’ll soon discover that they can’t stand one another.

Here is a Russian economist that thinks if “Donald Trump is re-elected later this year, he, Putin and Xi will move quickly to put in place “a new world order” by means of a new Yalta agreement that will replace the failing Bretton Woods economic system....If Trump loses the election, of course, the Russian economist says, this will not happen as soon because “a civil war will begin in the United States,” making it impossible for Washington to take part in such transforming economic and political negotiations” http://windowoneurasia2.blogspot.com/2020/01/putin-will-seek-new-world-order-with.html?m=1 The above blog is a great source for articles about contemporary Russia, by the way

Unlike most here, and possibly everyone here, my online activity is known in my home congregation. This is not due to this forum, which probably Is unknown to them, but to my blog. I have blogged for years. I don’t advertise the fact, but word gets around, and within the year elders have approached me to say that they would like to use me more in the congregation, but is there anything to what they have heard that I engage with apostates? I at first told them that I did not; however what I did do came close enough to it that it could easily be taken that way and for that reason they probably should not use me in any visible capacity. As long as counsel is what it is, this seems the reasonable course to me. If there is a blatant example of not following counsel on a point repeatedly made—well, ‘he doesn’t enjoy privileges in the congregation,’ does he? This is not quite fair to me, but it is not about me. I consider it a win-win. Many times in my writing I have made the point that I am not trying to set an example for others to follow, that I am pure-and-simply a bad boy in this one respect and I don’t try to present myself otherwise—though I will say that it is the only area in which I am a bad boy—I am a good boy in all other respects. I am on excellent terms with all of my elders— all upstanding men whom I respect—and with the congregation as a whole. If a list was ever made as to who is trying or discouraging or toxic or headstrong or aloof or a downer in any respect, I would be the last person to be on it. I am a fine example in every way—except one, and this troubles them. Anyone visiting my blog can see the book cover for TrueTom vs the Apostates! so its a little hard to say: ‘Don’t know nothing about no apostates here!” One brother on FB, who writes himself, when he saw that cover, said, “You’re brave.” I have never made any attempt to hide what I do. I have even written HQ about it, more than once, as to what I am doing and why. They have not responded. I’ve said I don’t expect or require them to, but I will take to heart anything that they do say. Nothing. As for me, the show is not interesting unless there are villains and apostates for me make the perfect villains!—they have tasted the good food and spit it out. Only about 10-20% of my blog could be described as taking on controversial topics. But blogging itself is not the pathway to popularity within the JW community—some will always give you the fish-eye over it. A visitor I know from HQ spoke at the Kingdom Hall, we engaged in some chit-chat afterward, and I asked him for thoughts about blogging. “Oh, blogging,” he said, as though I had told him that I enjoy farting in the auditorium, and then he migrated into generalities about there being no rules but one must always take into consideration the sensibilities of others, avoid hanging out with the baddies, and so forth. In the introduction to my 3rd book, I wrote: “Books about Jehovah’s Witnesses authored by Jehovah’s Witnesses are not plentiful. This is a shame, for no outsider, even with the best of intentions, can do justice to the faith as can an insider - they miss the nuances, and in some cases, even the facts. Jehovah’s Witnesses are primarily drawn from the ranks of working people who are not inclined to write books. Pathways of publicizing their faith are already well established. Why write a book when you can and do look people in the eye and tell them what you have to say?” For the most part, the same is true of blogs. Two elders wanted to speak with me following Sunday’s Watchtower. How did I still feel regarding interaction with apostates after that lesson and similar items in the past? There have been two other discussions—probably spurred on to priority by consideration of Paul’s counsel that certain pernicious sayings “spread like gangrene” so you want to get right on top of it—the counsel to not engage with apostates is pretty clear. These are good men and I do not doubt for one moment their concern for me. There is no way I am going to get into any sort of confrontation with them. This is a little challenging because if one has engaged with the malcontents—in some cases the scoundrels—then one knows things in detail that they know only vaguely, and in some cases, not at all. I asked if I could speak candidly. Obviously, this is just a verbal opening to present that I would speak from the heart and not just regurgitate platitudes or ‘what I am supposed to say’—it’s not to suggest that I would be normally lying through my teeth. Of course, they agreed. The article was of a catch-all nature of several things to watch out for, several unrelated things that could pierce your shield if you didn’t maintain it—materialism, undue anxiety, lies, and discouragement were in the mix. Now, the only one of these that you can actually sink your teeth into as a direct measurement is ‘lies and distortions.‘ Do you engage with those who originate them or not? Easy black and white answer. What can one possibly say about materialism? It is much more subjective. “Did you move into that house that has far more space than you need or didn’t you?”—it’s ridiculous! No one is ever going to say that. The best you can do is what the Watchtower did do—point out that while you might easily be able to afford something with money, which you have far more of than your neighbor, that does not mean that you can afford it with time (for use and maintenance of), which you have no more of than your neighbor. As a byproduct of these other areas being hard to pin down, the only one that might possibly incur restriction of privileges is dealing with apostates. ‘There are brothers here and in other Halls that show significant weakness as regards to the other three—materialism, discouragement, and anxiety, and it can be plainly seen in their demeanor in some cases,‘ I said, ‘yet no way would their privileges ever be affected by it—only for that involving dealings with opposers.’ I spoke of the paragraph about discouragement—one of the four sharp arrows. “What discourages me most,” I said, “is that apostates are taking public shots at the God and the community that I hold dear, and they are catching the ear of many who take to heart what is said and sometimes ignore us in our ministry because of it, and I want to provide an answer and defend the truth, but I can’t because I don’t know what they are saying.” It is not true for me—I do know what they are saying—but for most publishers it is true. I spoke of the hypothetical youngster who cannot resist, whose curiosity or desire to defend the truth leads him to go to where the bad boys hang out, where he hears distortions that he has never heard before and is totally unprepared for and he is stumbled, at which point no one is able to help him because no one here knows in any detail what he has come across. It’s a lose-lose. I did not say (you always think of your best lines too late) that if you leaned on youngsters not to have illicit sex, and yet one did anyway and acquired an STD, you would not stand by and watch him die. You would educate yourself any way that you had to so as to provide backup rescue. There is only so far you can go with this reasoning because they only understand what they are counseling you about from just one angle—the spiritual angle, to be sure, which is the most important one, but still only one angle, and not the angle from which there is a huge non-spiritual vulnerability. They hear and acquiesce to all the points made—they may all be facts—but they are like people anywhere, and certainly displayed daily on this forum—just because they are facts does not mean they are the overriding facts. They keep coming back to counsel not to engage with apostates. Do they mean engage like a military general confronting the enemy or engage like a man putting a ring on the finger of his future bride? You almost can’t go there, because they themselves maintain such distance from the topic that they can’t readily distinguish between the two and consider it inappropriate to get close enough to try. The brother taking the lead is very smart, very loving, very much a balm to everyone. I’ve known him for the longest time and there is no one whom I value more. I have no question that he is primarily and genuinely concerned about my spiritual welfare. I feel bad that I should be the cause of he and some brothers before him feeling obliged to buy out time to speak with me over this—they have other things that they could be doing. I know this because for many years I was an elder and I had many things that I could be doing at any given moment—yet he and others have bought out significant time for me. I’m a bit embarrassed over it. “How has my spirituality been affected?” they ask. Possibly they are anticipating an answer such as might be on a video: “Well, I have to admit, my spirituality is suffering. I’m not finding the joy I used to....etc.” I tell them that my spirituality, as near as I can tell, gets better all the time because I am able to fire when I see the whites of their eyes—and even that my healthy spirituality is plainly reflected in how I conduct myself and how others view me. “Well, pray on it,” one advises. Gingerly I suggest that what if I have prayed on it and then afterward have decided that it is okay, in fact, just the ticket, to do as I am doing?” Nevertheless, how can one turn down the invitation to pray? Sure, I will pray—and in fact, presently I think of the degree to which they may be right and how I might modify my conduct. As is my M.O, I think best when I am writing. As is my M.O, I write best when I realize I am writing before a varied audience ranging from supportive to apathetic to dismissive to opposed, and imposing the discipline upon myself to choose words that will be as effective as possible to all four. They say things like how Jehovah has all bases covered. He sees that we have the proper direction when we need it, and so forth. While the things I say may be so, and certainly my action is well-meaning, what about just being obedient to counsel? There they have me. Because I do believe that Jehovah has all bases covered and I do believe in following the lead of the older men—it is part of the package that I signed on for. I can give them a hard time: “Don’t worry about my spirituality—I’ll be just fine—it’s enough to worry about your own spirituality!” but why would I do that? Is that not almost inviting disaster? a al ‘Let he who is standing beware that he does not fall.’ I can tell them to buzz off and mind their own business, but why would I do that? These are the men—all of them friends of mine—who will lay down their life for me should the occasion arise, as in John 15:13, for example. Not only will they die for me, but they will live for me, and they prove it continually. The right-in-their-own-eyes opposers on this forum will not die for me. Even were they inclined to, they live on perches of self-isolation and say “Who needs organization?” so that if i get into hot water they will not know of it until they read my obituary. I should give my elders a hard time or interfere with that dynamic of living and dying for me? No. All they want is for me not to cross swords with apostates. They probably are not crazy about my going there in the first place, but that is not the topic of discussion. If I go there to scope out what the enemy is up to, I set no bad example—nobody knows of it. If I go there to refute, I publicly do what the ones I respect for taking the lead have asked me not to do. How do I know that they are not right? How do I know that I am not like the fellow signing out on the city wall after Hezekiah has told the troops to zip it? If I am ineffective, others come to help me out, against Hezekiah’s counsel. If I am effective, others are inspired to do likewise, against Hezekiah’s counsel. How do I know that they will not end up with an arrow through the head on my account? What am I doing when I am answering back the malcontents here? I am having a ball is what I am doing! But is it affecting my spirituality as the brothers asked? Well, no—for the most part—that has grown stronger. On the other hand—@arauna speaks of OCD and she ought to be speaking of it to me—sometimes I come here with a certain eagerness looking for “apostates” to beat up on. When one or another flames out, like Matthew4 5784 did a few weeks ago and reveals himself pure hate on two legs as respects Jehovah’s people, dropping all pretense of being here to help us, I paint an A on my fuselage and pump my fist! But is it good for me? I do get to hone my writing skills, but is that enough to override other matters? I am not exactly doing a “May Jehovah rebuke you!” am I? I am not exactly imitating Jesus in saying “leave them be—blind guides is what they are,” am I? Moreover, others come along for the first time, not knowing the history, read my retorts, and say, “Man, that brother is brutal! Can he really be a brother?” I’m going to turn over a new leaf with regard to interacting with these guys. It doesn’t mean I won’t still be here and it doesn’t mean I won’t still interact with those who strike me as on our team—even if I question their judgment sometimes. I’ll probably renege from time to time, and if I do I will forgive myself, but the effort will be to follow through on my resolve. If need be, I will write a reply to this or that fathead and then not send it—I’ll incorporate it elsewhere or just stick it in the file. “How’s that for praying about it and to see what comes out of it?” I’ll tell someone someday. Then, too—and I’m almost ashamed to put this last, since it should be first—though not necessarily from the reader’s point of view, which is why I place it where I do—my wife is far more conventional than me and has long been troubled by my online activity. She doesn’t for one second worry about my loyalty, but she does in some undefined way worry that maybe I will yet come to harm somehow. I’ll modify my approach for her sake as well. Are the brothers “brainwashed”—the ones who counseled me about a matter that they do not understand themselves from a fleshly point of view—the only point of view that is of concern to the greater world? I would say that they are in this regard—with the important caveat that there is barely anyone anywhere who is not. Follow the flag and get your head blown off in consequence, and only some of your countrymen will think your death noble—everyone else in the world will consider your death in vain. It doesn’t take some brainwashing to fall for that? Follow unquestioningly the overall goals of this system to ‘get a good education so that you may get a good job’—not a tad of brainwashing there that that is the path to happiness? When my wife worked as a nurse with the geriatric community, she said the most common thing in the world was for bewildered elderly persons to look around them in their waning years and say, “is this all there is?” These were not ‘losers’ in life, for the most part. These were persons who had had careers and loving family. But there was an aching emptiness at the end, a certain vague but overpowering sense of betrayal. It’s the result of being brainwashed by mainstream thinking, as far as I can see. Steve Hassen is not wrong when he says that humans are easily influenced by others. Humans are just that way. That is why some god-awful style comes upon the scene and within ten years we’re all wearing it, wondering how we ever could have imagined that those dorky styles of yesterday did anything for us. Where Steve is wrong in my view is that he gives a free pass to his side—the mainstream. I have said before that it is not brainwashing that he objects to—it is brainwashing that is not his. Just because he was naive enough to be sucked into the Moonies, what is it to him if people want to explore non-traditional paths? Of course there may be pitfalls along the way, but there are pitfalls anywhere. Among the most harmful examples of manipulation is advertising, whereby people ruin themselves buying expensive things they do not need with money they do not have to keep up with people they do not like. Why doesn’t he go there? If the mainstream he embraces successfully answered all the burning questions of life, he wouldn’t have to worry at all about ‘cults’ People would reflect upon how the present life and traditional goal rewards fully in happiness and life satisfaction, and reject those ‘cults’ out of hand.

Too often we play their game. Given the facts that they choose to focus upon, they are exactly right, It is the choice of facts that is significant—which ones are promoted, which ones are inflated, which ones are downplayed, which ones are ignored, and which ones are declared not facts at all. The Word makes clear from the get-go that those who serve love and serve God in the manner he directs and those who do not will have dramatically different ways of looking at things. They will have dramatically different goals in life. Once in a while (or even more than once in a while) apostates are pure loons. Once in a while (or even more than once in a while) some of us are. But for the most part, both groups act consistently with the facts that they choose to focus upon. It is really impossible to successfully argue against their facts without also arguing against their priorities, their “tastes.” And since the latter is plainly impossible, it does make one reassess one’s time spent in doing so.

Another illustration—this one i gave at the meeting when it was my turn to comment—was that if there is someone in the audience who hates beets, I will not be able to argue with him that beets taste good. It is something that is beyond the scope of argument and I am proving myself pretty dense if I persist in trying. In the same way, the verse says: “Taste and see that Jehovah is good.” Some have tasted and seen that he is bad. It’s not something that does anyone any good to argue about. My 30 seconds were up and you can’t keep raising your hand like a jack-in-the-box. But if I was to extend the thought here I might point out that I love cake. It tastes good. That’s why I love it. Imagine my surprise upon coming here on the WNMF and discovering some dissing cake. How is that possible? Upon probing, I find that it is because the sweetness of sugar does nothing for them, so they just drop down a notch and focus on how you can get cavities and put on weight with cake. Well, yeah—if sugar did nothing for me, I too would drop down the list and harp on these other things. So it is with the ‘sugar’ of the Bible’s message. This is what does it for Jehovah’s Witnesses—that unique combination of accurate Bible teachings along with the united brotherhood that comes with it—a unity and love unparalleled—and a satisfaction of knowing that one is cooperating with God’s intent of declaring his name and purposes. But if for some reason none of that should matter anymore, than what is there left than to drop down a level and promote some complaints to first place? It is what the opponents here do. Is that not a distortion—the reprioritizing of facts? We tend to carry on here as though facts are islands unto themselves. They’re not. They are more like the ingredients of a cake—they work together. One’s appreciation for the baked product will depend entirely upon one’s taste for the different ingredients. We’re a little nuts when we come on here and quibble over facts, (nobody does this more than me) as though individual facts in themselves were what clinches the deal. Instead, it it the prioritization of facts that matters. Seldom is it that people argue with no facts at all. It is which ones they choose to focus on and which ones they choose to downplay or even ignore that matters. And that is of facts that are presented accurately—as many are not. For example, a Pew survey lists Jehovah’s Witnesses as bringing up the bottom of the income chart—collectively they are the financially poorest. A fact? Yes. Opponents take that fact to suggest that Witnesses are deadbeats, some by nature, and some made so by a controlling organization. A distortion? I think so. When I wrote a post on the topic I stated that, in view of what the Bible consistently says about money and the love of money, any group not toward the bottom of that list has reason to hang their head in shame. Their high placement affords proof that they do not practice what they preach and they do not trust what the Lord says. As to the WT’s own statement, ‘lies and distortion of facts’ might be more technically accurate if rephrased as ‘distortion of facts and lies’—I am not necessarily a fan of how the warning is made—but in the end, is it not the same thing? Consider: ”Is it really so that?” (a distortion of truth, designed to plant doubt) ”You will not die.” (a lie—nothing but) ”for God knows that in the very day of your eating from it...” (a bit of both, but mostly a distortion, for it impugns God’s motives) More is distortion than outright lie. But it amounts to the same thing. In fact, the distortion is worse than the lie, in most cases, for without the distortion to ‘prime the pump’ the lie itself will often be spotted and rejected out of hand. Who does the fellow with the ink horn mark on the forehead? Those who are sighing and groaning over all the detestable things done in God’s name. Some aren’t. They aren’t marked for that reason. In no case is any lie being told. Even the distortion of truth is not immediately apparent. But it is there. People made in God’s image should be sighing and groaning over the detestable things done in God’s name. And sighing and groaning is not the same thing as bitching and complaining—plenty of that around here.

They didn’t just say lies. They said lies and distortion of facts. Is it outright lies that we deal with here? Not so much. Is it distortion of fact? For the most part, yes. ”Distortion of fact” encompasses a lot and much of what it encompasses is in the eye of the beholder. If a point, in the overall scheme of things, is really quite insignificant, and it is made to seem all-important, is that not a distortion of fact? Suppose the spies that I have sent out under Allen’s prompting report back to me with a dossier of JWI’s private life that includes a few exasperating habits of his, like nose-picking. Suppose too that he has had one of two regretful episodes in his life that he would rather not broadcast. Suppose he flunked out of some school or was fired from some job. Suppose he made a few judgements as family head that blew up in his face—not only his face but the faces of those in his family. Suppose he let down brothers in the congregation at one time or another, and even stumbled one or two. ”Ah, here comes Allen, now.....Hi Allen, what do you have?....hmmmm......oh my...yes....hm......whoa! look at that. Looky looky looky” Now suppose with my voluminous commenting privileges I never again fail to focus on one or all of these blunders, and I dismiss as inconsequential whatever good others point out that he has done, even though these matter plainly be what defines his life. Am I not distorting facts? Have I told any lies? No. Have I distorted any facts? I have done nothing else.