TrueTomHarley

Another sinister feather in the cap of the northern king. Did he want to tie in the Daniel prophesy?

One unanticipated personal consequence of going digital is that I read nothing until the week it is to be considered at meeting. I have not read the new Ezekiel book yet. Back in the day of subscriptions, I would read that entire Watchtower at the nearest opportunity. Doesn’t happen anymore. I never think to download the latest until I need it. In recent years I’ve come to think a lot about Paul’s counsel to follow the pattern of the healthful words. At first, the healthful words are retrieved and spit out verbatim—it is the nature of much of our research. But if you’ve been around long enough, you soon to learn to pick up on the pattern and you can originate them yourself. It is as Mike Tussin used to say, a real person from No Fake News whose name I changed with the most sordid upbringing and the most telling common sense. He would explain how it was with the GB (in the 1970s). “They study and study and one of them notices a point and discusses it with the others. After subsequent discussion reaches agreement, it gets into print. Now, in your own personal study, you may have noticed that point, too,” I can hear him explaining now, “and if this was Christendom, you’d go out and start your own religion over it.” For a brief time, he was a roommate of mine. He drove me nuts in taking literally the admonition to read God’s Word “in an undertone day and night.” In time, he learned that he had better not do it in my presence.

Have you not read of Trutom Harley, an underappreciated luminary who lived from 722-795 CE? Call him a “nowhere man”? Did he? Forgive me if it has already been mentioned. On what basis? The bomb was dropped in 1945–or is it that Sputnik is 1957? A hard sell, I would think. As for Nebuchadnezzar, so far my suggestion that he is the pre-type of Ralph Kramden has been unwisely ignored, and I hope the brothers survive the egg on their face when they come to realize how right I was. Ralph—just like Neb: 1) Unbearably boastful and obnoxious. 2) Absolutely abased each time with the greatest humiliation. 3) Learns absolutely nothing. The beginning of each new show has him at his blowhard worst.

I don’t think so. I’m playing a bit, I admit, but not to the point of being silly. Any historian will say that early Christians lived in expectation of the immanent end of this system. The Great Reawakening, or whatever it is called, from which Russell eventually emerges, invariably features expectations of just when the Lord will return. Branches of Christianity that do not concern themselves with this go an entirely different direction. They focus their efforts on improving the present world through education and charity. They abandon their resolve to stay separate from it. It may be part of the equation that the two—expectations of the short time till the end, and kingdom proclamation with the unique teachings that are JW alone—must always go together. Maybe it is the great Carrot and Stick game of God, knowing how we are. At any rate, I think it most unlikely they will ever tinker with the formula much. Is the 33-doctrine tinkering with the formula? By moving the beginning back in time, I think it will be hard not to also move the day off into the vague future. It may be that some are gingerly poking at the foundation, as JWI seems to think, but I would not expect any wholesale change.

I don’t see any backing off of 1914 whatsoever. It was pedal to the metal at last nights meeting where the assigned reading was Revelation 10-12. Moreover, I thought of talks I had put together over the years, using some of the details in those verses. I thought of how I had made a big deal of Rutherford & crew unambiguously ‘advertise, advertise, advertising’ the King and his Kingdom at almost the exact same moment that the Federal Counsel of Churches was hailing the League of Nations as the political expression of the kingdom on earth today—each side publicly parting ways at the fork in the road. I read that background WT of how 100 years ago it could not even have been conceived that humans might “ruin the earth,” yet how that manifestly is a great threat today, as humans invent & implement new technologies without regard or ability to control the consequences. (I finally figured out why my wife had been able to get the Research Guide on her IPad but not me on mine—I had thought it was @James Thomas Rook Jr. messing with me from afar.) And now you propose that it should all go? What would be the effect of this strange new teaching of yours that Jesus began to rule in 1933–period, end of story—and that WWI was just “boys will be boys?” How will it affect “last days,” ‘urgency of the end,’ ‘the end of all things has drawn close’ ‘ridiculers will come with their ridicule’ and so forth? Do I understand this correctly? (Maybe I don’t) We have been living in the last days since 33? Constantine lived in the last days and should have been keeping on the watch? Napoleon lived in the last days? George Washington lived in the last days? Sleepy Rip Van Winkle lived in the last ‘Keep on the watch’ days? People couldn’t even read that there were last days that they were supposed to be keeping on the watch for until 3-400 years ago when the Bible began to appear in languages other than Latin! I think the “33 doctrine” effectively waters down the urgency of keeping on the watch to the point where the practical response is—why do it at all? I can envision several historic Watchtowers, to run in successive weeks: 1) We are out of harmony with the majority of ancient date scholars. Therefore, let us acknowledge that they must be right, and kick 1914 to the curb—Advertising, League, WWI, Atlanta—it all goes. 2) We are out of harmony with the majority of scientists. Therefore let us concede that Darwinian evolution is the bee’s knees and let us consign Adam and Eve to fairy tale. 3) Let us work on giving our children a “good education” so that they can get a “good job” and turn their talents to making a difference in the world—let us get in there and fix those problems! We can do it! 4) Let’s get Trump out of office and the sooner the better! He spreads meanness. Of course, we realize that some in the congregation will feel another way. They can buy another building and meet there. 5) Let’s focus more on love. Why should we care about what gender people are attracted to? The Bible was written a long time ago when people had different sociological needs and were less enlightened than now. 6) Let’s lighten up on the kingdom preaching work. Who knows how far off it is? I mean, if you have time on your hands and nothing else to do, that’s okay, but don’t let it get in the way of anything important. Let’s have our religion but keep it in its place. There are many roads and they all lead to heaven.

I was there about a month ago, having flown into Orlando for the wedding of my nephew. I arrived near closing time, and was only able to walk around the outside of the fort. But I had just before came from Ft Matanzas, about ten miles south, party closed due to hurricane damage. The next day I went to Ft Caroline, outside of Jacksonville. Ft Caroline was French. They send a raiding party to the Spanish Ft Matanzas, but the party got upended in a squall. When the Spanish discovered that, they took those French soldiers captive and slaughtered most of them. (Matanzas literally means ‘slaughter’—landmarks, businesses, and roads all around that area are named Matanzas this or Matanzas that.) The docent at Ft Caroline told me the Spanish commander sent a letter to the French king saying the prisoners were killed, not because they were French, but because they were Protestant. The few captured French soldiers that were Catholic were spared.

The steward that robs his master blind and the master ends up commending him. The unrighteous judge that will not grant justice until the widow nags him half to death and that judge is used to illustrate the Father. Just now I am spinning others (on the TDS thread) regarding current politicians who will provide my own underpinnings as Sect Leader. I know I will have at least one follower—JTR.

Unnecessary on his account. He is so bombastic that I can hear him in my sleep.

What?!!! Never do that again!!

Another reason I follow politics is for its clarification of Pilate’s question: “What is truth?” It is a cynical question, as though mocking ones who say they can find truth. “I will never lie to you,” Trump promises his “base.” ‘He is the most lying President in history,’ opponents say. It doesn’t matter if you like him or not. How can one not look into that? It turns out that a lie is in the eye of the beholder. By May of 2019, the Washington Post claimed to have chronicled 10,000 Trump lies—“false or misleading claims,” and yet by any historical standards, they would not be called lies. NBCNews.com, hardly a Trump-friendly site, gives examples. https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-lies-lot-media-must-focus-what-he-s-lying-ncna1009986 92 times Trump claimed that “NAFTA is one of the worst trade deals ever signed in the history of our country.” That can be called a “lie?” The Post counts it as 92 lies. Speak to those whose interests have suffered on its account. At worst it is an subjective exaggeration. Trump says, “I have been the most transparent president and administration in the history of our country by far.” A lie? An unprovable boast, at worst. Daily tweets of whatever happens to pop into his head, in any historical context, would be lauded as the epitome of transparency. Here the pundits harrumph mostly because they are bypassed—they are used to spinning a president’s words before he can spin them himself, but here he does end runs around them. In fact, the nbcnews.com article recommends readers not to be so gleeful over counting his “lies” that one becomes like the little boy crying wolf. The “lies” are mostly boast, imprecision, exaggeration, hyperbole—and not actually “lies” at all. The article actually produces no “real” lies, even as it counsels readers to be on the lookout for them. That doesn’t mean there aren’t any. To be sure, that is not the purpose of the article, but you almost think that some would be there, if only for purposes to contrast the “not-really” lies with the “actual” lies. All we hear on media is “the lies of Trump” repeated full-throttle, and yet this article, by someone who is decidedly not a Trump fan, points to none. Now, one must be verrrrry careful in comparing the spiritual and the profane—even more careful in comparing words of the sacred with words of the politics. You do not want to be confused with the right wing church that mixes politics and religion so thoroughly as to make any smoothie maker envious. The School Guidebook observed that when you give an illustration, your illustration should parallel the reality illustrated in all significant respects. Otherwise, someone will point to the discordancy and the entire illustration goes up in smoke. It is why I do not care for those illustrations likening Witnesses to firemen who are urgent because lives are at stake. True, lives are at stake but they are not at stake at that very hour. Those firemen would not carry on so urgently if it was just to warn you that your smoke detector batteries are getting low. So you have to be cautious comparing the two. Manifestly, they are not the same in many regards. That’s why I like it that Alan brought up the subject (6 times!) and not me. Still, Jesus uses all types of people in illustrations—those “righteous” and those “unrighteous.”—like the “unrighteous” steward who robs his owner blind and the owner ends up commending him for it. (Luke 16:8) So you don’t have to run like a rabbit just because those you use to illustrate points are not saints. The same people that savage Trump for his “lies” would have savaged Jesus for his “lies.” In fact, for the most part, they do—the political left is far more irreligious than is the right. There are many excellent reasons to dislike Trump—reasons that do not hold true at all with Jesus. But here we are dealing with word devices that some would qualify as legitimate and some would qualify as lie. Jesus would have been a consummate liar in the eyes of these critics, and that fact is better appreciated for how they kick back at the commander-in-chief that they loathe. Hyperbole? Jesus uses it all the time. Yes, he puts it to more noble use than Trump, but he is not shy about using it. He thinks it not a “lie” to use hyperbole—it is plainly a tool in his tool box—and it has the added benefit that the critics are separated out—they miss the point completely so as to object to blatant and unprovable exaggeration. Many of Jesus’ parables are not only hyperbole, but they are quirky hyperbole, such as the unrighteous judge who will not grant justice to the widow until she nags him nearly into an early grave—and that judge is used to illustrate how you ought to persist in prayer to the Father! (Luke 18:5) Metaphor? Strictly speaking, a metaphor is a “lie.” “The tongue is a fire,” says James. ‘It is not,’ would counter the Washington Post and you can almost imagine them testing this statement, evaluating the claim with a thermometer. “God is the potter and we are the clay,” says the Word—and the Washington Post logs two “lies.” “He that feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has everlasting life, and I shall resurrect him at the last day,” declares Jesus at John 6:54. Call that not a metaphor? It is even a metaphor that contributed (says Bart Ehrman) to accusations of cannibalism that served as a pretext for early Christian persecution. Ad hominem attack? That’s a type of lie, Trump’s detractors say, since they are stated “without evidence”—to borrow a media clarification that is now routinely applied to the President but has never been applied to any of the other countless scoundrels and blaggards of history. Jesus used ad hominem attack all the time. Pharisees were the “blind men leading the blind”, the “whitewashed graves hiding every sort of filth.” He would have been called out for lying each time in the Washington Post. Ask Jesus a question, and he will not answer it. He will ask a counter question instead that makes you scared to ask another. This is a major no-no to critical thinkers today, who insist that their questions be answered without resort to raising a “straw man.” Still, Jesus doesn’t care. He raises straw men as readily as he raised Lazerus. (Mark 11:27-33) Head games? I don’t know what in the world was Trump’s claim of huge inauguration attendance, easily debunked as a “lie” by just viewing the photos—so easily that it becomes clear he is playing a head game of some sort, clarified when KellyAnne comes on TV to speak of the “alternative facts” he would like media to pay attention to. Are not Jesus’ parables head games of a sort? He would never explain them to his critics—only afterwards to his disciples would he “explain all things,” and it served as a way of separating the wheat from the chaff. (Mark 4:34) Would he have granted an interview with the Washington Post to explain all those parables? I have my doubts. About this time we can send Trump packing off to the stables. I was never too comfortable bringing him in to begin with, so I waited for someone with TDS to do it, and Alan obliged—allowing me to point out with but diminished spiritual damage that Trump illustrates certain aspects of communication so perfectly that he becomes invaluable for just that reason. You can even go further. Trump, by all accounts, represents “flyover country”—the common working people usually ignored by policymakers who are pursuing their own ends and careers. His enemies? Those policymakers—the “swamp,” the “elites,” the wonks that hail from Harvard and who live for the machinations of the beltway. And if you really want to get sacrilegious, you can recall that he descends on the golden escalator from his high and mighty perch, and announces to his “base:” “I am your voice.” You can even liken media’s relentless efforts to separate Trump from his “base” to the efforts of JW critics to separate the GB from its “base”—and for the same reason—that both might be better neutralized. I can think of only one other President who offered some of these same parallels: “The buck stops here,” “give em hell, Harry” Truman , who was despised by the “elites” then—even blue blood FDR kept his distance from his own “inferior” VP—on account of his crude demeanor and businessman origin. Like Trump, Truman’s elite enemies even gloated that they had won the election and later had to eat crow!—one of the iconic photos of American history is Truman holding aloft the (wrong) headline of his own defeat. He offers many of the same object lessons, but not as strikingly as Trump, mostly because people were more civil back then and opponents didn’t seek to gouge each other’s eyes out as they do now—a nod to the further applicability of 2 Timothy 3:1-5. (Wow. I just thought up the Truman parallel as I was writing this remark. The day I throw my hat in the ring to form my own sect, I will spin some sort of an anti-type out of both names beginning with ‘Tru”—what are the chances of that? And I will play on Truman being “True Man”—same as they did with Jim Carrey on the Truman Show. And wait till I get done with the fact that Truman started as a haberdasher-, the same as you-know-who. Yes, I like the idea more and more. Only....I cannot do this Mighty Ministry on my own! Send me your contributions—large or small!—(but large is preferred)—for the Lord’s sake I would gladly walk around in rags, but the fact of the matter is, I look so much better in the two-thousand dollar suit that I will buy with them)

I’m not really sure what “worshipful” means. When celebrities come into town, they are mobbed by fans. Are those fans worshipful? I might say yes, but the fans themselves will just say they they are flocking to them out of respect for their accomplishments. If brothers pose for selfies with the GB members (much to the latter’s annoyance, I am consistently told, someone said with the possible exception of Lett) are they “worshipful?” It’s in the eye of the beholder, I think. Though I have a great many faults, admiring personalities is not one of them. I would love to have a GB member stay at my house so I could ignore him. “There’s your room—make yourself at home. If you’d like to visit, that works fine, but you have many things to do and if you ignore us completely that also works fine with us,” Probably there are few words they could hear that would please them more. And no, @James Thomas Rook Jr., I wouldn’t present them with a list of my QUESTIONS that, as MEN of HONOR, they are obligated to answer,

I think that’s very unlikely. I mean, come on, are you going to cuss out an angel—dare him to a fight? Unless you no longer believe in angels, but then the phrase loses its meaning. I think it makes more sense, partly because of the above reasoning and partly because of the aspect of Law that Paul recalled when he cussed out the high priest: “You must not speak injuriously of a ruler of your people.” These ones of Jude had no problem with it. I think that expression is probably like what your mother used to say when upbraiding you for some act of disobedience, prefacing her scolding with: “I suppose you are proud of yourself, are you?!” She doesn’t actually think you are proud—just disobedient, maybe that you think you know better. And in the case of those Corinth elders, negligent—perhaps with some self-exalted view of “tolerance” as you suggest or perhaps just plain negligent. Arguing for the latter is the fact that when they did lower the hammer on this lout, Paul had to counsel them to let up in his next letter—the rebuke of the man had had its effect, but they were slow to see that—or perhaps just negligent once again in the other direction. Negligent is as negligent does. I played a little loose with the term, admittedly. Actually, to the extent that the GB are the successors of those who brought the truth of God’s word to us in the first place, they are the biggest whistleblowers of all time—blowing the whistle on the deceptions of religion claiming to represent God. A lot of detractors today pose as “whistleblowers”—unheeded reformers, who say they do not have anything against Jehovah’s Witnesses—they just want to curtail what they think are wrong practices. It’s hard to ferret out who’s who, here, because these persons mix here with ones who truly would like to see the whole JW structure AND the message they spearhead blown to smithereens. It is easy to overgeneralize, as @Arauna perhaps has done. Still, Shultz on my Twitter feed (of deVienne & Shultz) observed that whistleblowing in the case of JWs is often just a blind for not wanting to live the morals and principles that Witnesses do. It’s hard to believe that those slimy ones of Jude’s letter would have acquiesced to Jude’s description of them. It is far easier to believe that many of them would have repackaged themselves as reformers, whistleblowers, even escaped cult members. The congregation they left was simply too strict, too unyielding, even abusive in “forcing” its version of morality on others, and they would change that.

Word for word.

My suggestion would put your stupid contention to bed once and for all. They are unlikely to report the bad personal details that you hope. They are unlikely to release the good personal details that you should ask for in order to ascertain that it is not about personal details with them—good or bad.

I have a better idea, big boy. You write a letter—that way I do not have to—and ask about the specific reasons that Tim Cook was made part of the Governing Body. Specify that you want details.. Do not settle for “he was a pioneer for so many years, then a missionary, then a Bethel servant.” No. Ask about specific praiseworthy deeds, abilities, or accomplishments that made the others think: “We have to get this guy on the GB!” How bout it, sport? Write that letter. Make it certified. Send a copy to the BOE. Send a copy here, even, so that we can all see the answer. Hold their feet to the fire! My guess is that you will not get anything more than the generic, and you may not get even that. Instead, you may get references to verse like 2 Corinthians 10:12 For we do not dare to class ourselves among some or compare ourselves with some who recommend themselves. Certainly they in measuring themselves by themselves and comparing themselves with themselves have no understanding. or there might even be counsel not to fall into the pattern of “admiring personalities.” (Jude 16) When you get this reply, fire off another letter to them about how as MEN of HONOR, they owe it to you to SPILL when you say SPILL. Remind them of their scriptural obligation to TRUTHFULLY answer anyone who asks a question. Tell them that since you are asking them about good things, and not bad things, there is NO REASON for them not to oblige you. The reason that they still will not satisfy you is that they are not into honoring persons. It is very hard to get the laudable specifics about any individual. They view humans, even themselves, as placeholders used by God, and when this or that is accomplished, credit goes to Jehovah, not the GB character or helper or branch servant who dreamed it up or got the job done. You have only to watch Sam Herd giving the Gilead talk in the most recent broadcast, shaking his jowls like Nixon, parodying those slobbering over the “Govnin Body” —a skit that I am still trying to get down pat for imitation—before he says it’s not any of them doing anything—you could do the same were you in their place—but it is Jehovah who should get all credit. They are not into zeroing in on the accomplishments of humans. Humans are placeholders. The good things they do are attributed to Jehovah, the bad things to human imperfection. I doubt you will get specifics for either. Be a sport, JTR. Give it a go. Save me a stamp.

I confess that I am falling well short of the 100 times a day that I ought. I ask your forgiveness. Human limitations is the only excuse I have to offer. If you negate the upside, then all there is left to look at is the downside, and that is the case with many here. I keep coming back to a line from The Scarlet Letter: “It is remarkable, that persons who speculate the most boldly often conform with the most perfect quietude to the external regulations of society.” Nobody speculates more boldly, departing from the herd-like thinking of this world, than Jehovah’s Witnesses. True to that Hawthorn line, they have no difficulty conforming to the “external regulations of their society.” Though Hawthorn does not say it, the reverse is also true. Those who cannot “conform to the external regulations of that society” and so leave it, perhaps guys like Shiwiiiii, are the most non-bold thinkers of all. They are individualistic in superfluous ways, but conformist in all the ways that matter.

So am I. So are you. So is JTR So is everyone here. The point is that “whistleblower” is in the eye of the beholder. No villain ever says: “I am the villain.” Always they are victims, unappreciated reformers, or “whistleblowers.” Jude says they, “indulge in dreams, defile flesh, despise discipline, speak abusively of glorious ones.” (vs 8 ) Do you think that they would have described themselves that way? Or would they not attribute their departure to finally having opened their eyes? Jude says they were “rocks hidden below water at your love feasts while they feast with you, shepherds who feed themselves without fear; waterless clouds carried here and there by the wind; fruitless trees in late autumn, having died twice and having been uprooted; wild waves of the sea that cast up the foam of their own shame; stars with no set course, for which the blackest darkness stands reserved forever.” (12-13) Do you think they would have described themselves that way? Or would they not have complained about “ad hominem” attacks and how their real, legitimate concerns were being ignored—just like malcontents do here? Yes, I know that Jude was the real whistleblower. I was playing devil’s advocate. And I hope that I do not get another disappointed chastisement from Witness as to how sad she finds it that I am now advocating for the devil. They are. I understated their cuteness. ‘Cute,’ too, is in the eye of the beholder, and in many respects, you are blind as a bat.

Are you any relation to the James Rookus of history who wrote to the older men in late first-century Jerusalem demanding, as they were MEN of HONOR, that they answer: 1 WHY they did not address the INJUSTICES highlighted by the WHISTLEBLOWERS that Jude wrote about? 2 HOW did they account for their NEGLIGENT track record so that John could “rejoice” that SOME of the children are walking in the truth. Why did they not shepherd better so that ALL of them would do so? 3. WHY did The PROMOTE the guy who KNUCKLED UNDER when Jews showed up and disapproved of him hanging out with Gentile Christians and who had a TRACK RECORD of knuckling under—even THREE TIMES on a certain evening? And that’s just for starters. Nah. If it is not the answer their enemies expect, they will just assume that they are lying.

There are few things more off-putting than condescension Not at all. If you negate the upside of something, your sense of proportion goes all awry. There is nothing left to focus on but the downside, and to bang away at it until it seems far more imposing than it truly is. In fact, if you negate the upside, ANY downside becomes intolerable. You have negated the upside. She has not. She knows there is a downside. She knows it is a price well worth paying in view of the upside. She knows that any human being or institution crumbles under relentless accusation. Even Job fared poorly at the hands of his three interrogators.

They are all backstabbers, here—the GB, the COs, the elders, the MSs, the.....really, everybody but me. But it doesn’t bother me. When I see them sneaking up behind my back to do this (which is always) I have learned to whirl around and take them out with a kick to the head like Chuck Norris.

In my “practical wisdom” mode, not my “world is going to hell in a handbasket” mode, I start my door-to-door presentation with an invitation to consider a practical verse like Matthew 6:25. “Anxiety is a huge concern today. We read about it. We experience it. I want to read you a scripture on that theme, you tell me what you think, and I am out of here. Good idea?” You can throw in a factoid or two from somewhere, like something here from the New York Times, but I usually pass. You are looking for people with whom the idea resonates, and if it doesn’t, the New York Times will not convince them that it should. An affirmative answer to my offer will earn the householder the reading of Matthew 6:25. “On this account I [Jesus] say to you: Stop being anxious about your lives as to what you will eat or what you will drink, or about your bodies as to what you will wear. Does not life mean more than food and the body than clothing?” “That’s all I wanted to do,” I will say, “to get this notion on the table—that anxiety is something that you might hope to just “stop it.” He doesn’t say, don’t start being anxious. He assumes his listeners already are. He says ‘Stop it.’ The next move is the householder’s, and I tell him that he doesn’t have to make one. “If the subject piques interest, if you have views if you.....” and so forth. If he doesn’t (and even if he does), I will leave a tract—any of them will do—and call attention to the jw.org website and what is to be found there. If they do, then conversation might go a hundred different ways. Even so, I do not press every moment to stay. Rather, I offer every moment to leave. Even some lengthy conversations I have cut them sort, to the householder’s protest. “Yes, you say it now,” I observe, “but after I go you will say, “Man! I wanted to get some stuff done today, and then this Bible guy showed up!” Maybe I have grown sensitive to all the concerns of those who cry over “manipulation,” and so I am determined to not even give the appearance of going there. Of course, the extremists among these ones are babies to whom introducing any idea not mainstream is “manipulation,”—they decry all “brainwashing” except for the brainwashing that is theirs—and there is not much one can do about that, but I try not to attract the charge like a magnet. I can hear Anthony Morris giving the talk now at the 2016 Regional Convention in Atlanta. I wasn’t there—I was at another convention—but the talk was streamed. “‘Stop it!’ Jesus says. Just ‘stop it!’ as though addressing a child—and that was the idea that he went on to develop, that it was a controllable emotion. It was a meaningful talk for me. Anxiety had proven to be a weakness for me —it afflicts some in the family—and when I was hit with a perfect storm of calamities, I did not blame humans like JTR does. I did worse and blamed God. Believe me, I envy those brothers—I have met a lot of them—who say: “I’ve never worried a day in my life!” To be sure, that envy is tempered by the fact that some of these characters caused plenty of others to worry, and even when it was not so, they had other weaknesses to compensate or even more than compensate. We are all “pieces of work” in one way or another. I also know quite a few who, by choice, live very close to the wire. They have structured their lives that way. It is deliberate. They have determined to “make use of the world, but not use it to the full.” (1 Corinthians 7:31) They have decided to go light as to material things. The ideal among Jehovah’s Witnesses—which some have attained and some have not—is to acquire a skill that pays well, and then do as little of it as possible so as to have as large a share as possible in the kingdom proclamation work. I am not one of those people, either, but I sort of envy them, as the modern manifestation of Paul, who knew “how to be low on provisions and how to have an abundance. In everything and in all circumstances I have learned the secret of both how to be full and how to hunger, both how to have an abundance and how to do without.” - Philippians 4:12 These ones will crinkle a fender on their car and ask God what to do about it, since there’s no money in the budget for the mishap. What is God going to do about it? Time and again persons I know well have reported such things—they take it to God in prayer—and presently the answer presents itself in totally unanticipated ways, sometimes very unlikely ones. They thereafter attribute it to God’s spirit. Am I going to tell them that they are wrong? Why would I do that? How do I know? It is more likely—when you hear such things again and again—that they are right. I do what Mary did, with regard to different experiences: “Mary began to preserve all these sayings, drawing conclusions in her heart.” (Luke 2:19) Maybe they’ll do me some good someday, the same way they did her. Key is the confidence of 1 John 5:14: “And this is the confidence that we have toward him, that no matter what we ask according to his will, he hears us.” For it to work it must be “according to his will.” It seems that it will be very hard to dictate to someone else just how holy spirit is supposed to work. Almost by definition, you cannot. It is the wind of John 3:8 that you feel but cannot see. It is the angels that the cosmonauts did not see—and so concluded from that experience that there was no God. No, it operates as it operates and is one of those “taste and see” sort of things.

I think I didn’t miss a thing. You are either doing something unmentionable or you are making your escape—and not a moment too soon. Besides, I just made that line up myself. If it turns out that movie plagiarized it, they’ve got a major lawsuit on their hands.

What do you mean, ‘Shaken the bushes’? What are you doing there?

Not necessarily. As a "good" elder's wife, I didn't know it existed since I never looked into his briefcase; and as a "good" elder, he never told me it existed. Now, now. Tell the truth and shame the devil. Would you have been shocked to discover that, at a weekend school on how to be a good shepherd, he was released a textbook? Say in his secular work he is a manager at WalMart. Would you be shocked that he is issued some literature not made available to everyone else? Say he was not a manager but was a team leader there. Would you be shocked that he is issued some literature not made available to everyone else? Recall that I clarified just how JWs know the book exists: Not every piece of writing not made public is the smoking gun.

You completely misunderstand your purpose. What we have here is a failure to communicate.