TrueTomHarley

Even from Genesis times, the kings think nothing of killing someone, but they will not disregard the institution of marriage. 
If the Lord could only see you now.

I have never seen anyone so willfully stupid in my life. If JW HQ so much as pays their light bill, he charges they trust in man for power, not God

Well—I mean, big deal. It’s true with anyone. Anyone can go anywhere at any time. It is not that profound of a statement that he makes.
He encourages me to keep venturing “out of the organizational box.” Why? Because he either thinks that by doing so “my eyes will be opened” or someone will lower the boom on me, because “we must walk in lockstep.”
These guys are nuts! They are squirrelly. Because the irresistible bug of being free from all restrictions! bit them, they are convinced it will bite anyone—and they hope with all their hearts that it does.
I know the meaning and value of relative freedoms. Anybody of common sense does. His wet dream may come true of me (or anyone else here) jumping ship, but at present it seems not too likely. I know where my home is, I know when to yield, and I know when to press forward. I have written of it before:
https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2020/01/a-bad-boy-turns-over-a-new-leaf.html

This is reassuring to me. My books have suffered from this, too, and one of them positively reeked with errors, which took forever to ferret out. Several times I announced that all corrections had been made, only to find more blips.
Not long ago, I purchased a homeopathy books from someone supposedly renowned. I was amazed as how slipshod was the formatting, and how much beneficial editing could have been done but wasn’t.
It is a sign of the ebook times, and I am reassured that even Rulf the scholar is afflicted with it. Ideally, you proof a work with professionals, but that is pricey and with ebooks being so cheap, with no guarantee of sales, either you do it yourself or ask well-meaning (but essentially hobbyist) friends to help you out. It is a far more daunting task than it first appears to do it yourself, because you tend to read, not what is there, but what you recall being there. You can do tolerably well for a short article, but if we are speaking of an entire book—good l**k on that!
I even face an additional challenge. If I ask brothers who might be in position to help me out to do so, many will be unconfortable with the material and duck out. It’s frustrating. If I wrote a book about how the Easter Bunny was pagan, they would be lined up 5-deep to proof it, but if I confine myself to what seems more interesting, it is not that way.

I feel so low-class. My wife and I have rediscovered Perry Mason.
The show is historically accurate, though. There were cars with such tail fins. Last night Perry impaled the villain on one of them just after he confessed and tried to flee the courtroom.

Even from Genesis times, the kings think nothing of killing someone, but they will not disregard the institution of marriage. 
If the Lord could only see you now.

Anything done can be done another way. I know that. Everyone does. Anything with upside will have a downside. While I may present my dream list—everyone has one—as to what I would like to see—I tend to work with what is.  I  may read this book someday, especially if I get the free copy I deserve as a fellow scholar, even if a pseudo one, and I can see why someone with your background would do so immediately. I’m glad that you do, and others. That way you can tell me about it lest it takes me awhile to get to it or even if I never do.
I tire of these fellows who are so fascinated by the devices of power that they become like the inside-the-beltway policy wonks who actually can’t do anything themselves so they specialize in critiquing what others do. At least RF has a track record, but that was long ago. Does he convey any sense that Jehovah is running the show or is it all political maneuverings with him? That is among the things I would be looking for. And what is he doing, not back in the day, but now? The pull of speaking to the choir rather than the householder Is irresistible to some; you spoke of some in Bethel who were like that, and one can begin to fear for them. Has he become like that? Like Paul at 1 Cor 4:19 muses, I am not so interested in his speech, but in his power. Has he severed himself from the ranks of those doing the work of Jesus to become a policy wonk? Dunno, but that is what would interest me.
I live and breathe the truth and I have for nearly 50 years. When I read outside of this forum, the Bible itself, and what is preliminary to my own posts, I tend to read secular material that I am not so intimately familiar with. It is fine that someone should write a book, but anyone can write a book—I’ve written four of them. I can read your remarks—there surely are enough of them—and assemble them into my own book on your behalf. The same can be said of many other prolific ones here. 
I’m still reading the book of the brother who survived Rwanda—a chapter at a time—I’ve gotten distracted. There’s over 8 million of Jehovah’s people and every one of them has a book in them. Just because they haven’t got around to writing it yet and maybe don’t have the wherewithal to do so does not make it any less interesting. 
The way this Norwegian apostate (not RF, but the one with the webcast) coos on about ‘scholarship’ irks me. Scholars put their pants on one leg at a time like you and I. They disagree no less than we regular mortals. Look to the world that scholars have collectively built—for the most part, this system of things is run by highly educated people—to properly evaluate ‘scholarship.’
I don’t despise it, but neither do I worship it, as it seemed that Norwegian fellow did—so impressed at Rulf’s educational achievements. It is like when I rode in Frankie’s new van and all the brothers were oohing and ahhing over its every new tech feature and I got fed up. “Frankie, does this car have a radio?” I said breathlessly when it was my turn. But Frankie is cool, not wound up too tight, and is truly a fine man. He reads how things are going. “Nah, it doesn’t have one of those,” he says.

I do agree with this. For several years running I was called upon to give talks in the District Convention. Most of them were family-oriented talks that you looked for a brother with a family to give, even if he wasn’t pioneering, which I wasn’t. They ceased after I turned one down, facing a perfect storm of calamities at the time. During that time, I might cook up my own illustrations, but I would never dream of adding my own scriptures. I knew it was not me that everyone had come to hear.
On the school talks that I give now, sometimes I take small liberties—seldom reading extra verses, but sometimes incorporating excerpts in passing. It is all clearly within the pattern of the fine words, done sparingly, and nobody makes a fuss over it. One conductor, though, observed: “You actually didn’t address the theme of the talk” “Oh—I changed that,” I said, and so unexpected was the reply that he almost fell over himself laughing. This was not “adding to doctrine,” or anything—don’t misunderstand—it was merely adding a personal touch to a student talk and everyone understood that. 
I gave a funeral talk in another congregation where one elder, a fine man but known to be a stickler, asked if I was using the Society’s outline, and I said that I wasn’t. He was most concerned because I was neither an elder nor servant, and I hadn’t even known up front whether I would be permitted to give the talk, only the widow had requested me—her husband had been my best man and we had always remained close. After the talk, though, he was content and made no waves. The talk did all that a funeral talk should, plus was personalized as only a best friend might do.
So there might be a few instances where you are the speaker and people wonder how you will handle this or that small part. But they would clearly end at the circuit level, and even at the congregation level, you would be very sparing of what was personal.

There used to be a local speaker in much demand who truly had a gift for speaking. He would twirl the globe he had brought up to the platform, quote Matthew 24:14, “This good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth” and then put his finger down upon this or that spot representing some local king’s sovereignty: “This good news of the kingdom WILL NOT be preached in MY part of the inhabited earth,” with the air of—who do you think is going to prevail?
He was a great speaker, a good man. But I visited his congregation once when he was conducting the Watchtower. He explained all the questions, and so blatantly ‘over-explained’ everything that I wondered how anyone could stand it. ‘Just ask the questions’ is what you should do, and make your own comments very few. There was no bad motive—he had just become a little full of himself—building upon an obvious talent.
Most often it is something more innocuous. There was another conductor who had some mannerisms—I hate mannerisms!—in fact, that’s where ‘Tom Irregardless’ comes from, he says it so much that I named him that—who would throw in after almost every one of his expressions, words to the effect of ‘That’s helpful, isn’t it?’ Once he announced the dates for the upcoming circuit assembly, and added, ‘that’s helpful, isn’t it?’ ‘I guess it is,” I thought.
It’s people. I love people. These days I find I don’t really like them very much unless they are a little quirky. Sometimes people misunderstand it as ridicule. It’s not. I present it in the spirit of Paul trying to rid himself of a ‘thorn in the flesh’ ‘No way!’ God told him, “I look good when you are a clod, because it is evident that no way could you be doing this on your own.”

There used to be a local speaker in much demand who truly had a gift for speaking. He would twirl the globe he had brought up to the platform, quote Matthew 24:14, “This good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth” and then put his finger down upon this or that spot representing some local king’s sovereignty: “This good news of the kingdom WILL NOT be preached in MY part of the inhabited earth,” with the air of—who do you think is going to prevail?
He was a great speaker, a good man. But I visited his congregation once when he was conducting the Watchtower. He explained all the questions, and so blatantly ‘over-explained’ everything that I wondered how anyone could stand it. ‘Just ask the questions’ is what you should do, and make your own comments very few. There was no bad motive—he had just become a little full of himself—building upon an obvious talent.
Most often it is something more innocuous. There was another conductor who had some mannerisms—I hate mannerisms!—in fact, that’s where ‘Tom Irregardless’ comes from, he says it so much that I named him that—who would throw in after almost every one of his expressions, words to the effect of ‘That’s helpful, isn’t it?’ Once he announced the dates for the upcoming circuit assembly, and added, ‘that’s helpful, isn’t it?’ ‘I guess it is,” I thought.
It’s people. I love people. These days I find I don’t really like them very much unless they are a little quirky. Sometimes people misunderstand it as ridicule. It’s not. I present it in the spirit of Paul trying to rid himself of a ‘thorn in the flesh’ ‘No way!’ God told him, “I look good when you are a clod, because it is evident that no way could you be doing this on your own.”

Well—I mean, big deal. It’s true with anyone. Anyone can go anywhere at any time. It is not that profound of a statement that he makes.
He encourages me to keep venturing “out of the organizational box.” Why? Because he either thinks that by doing so “my eyes will be opened” or someone will lower the boom on me, because “we must walk in lockstep.”
These guys are nuts! They are squirrelly. Because the irresistible bug of being free from all restrictions! bit them, they are convinced it will bite anyone—and they hope with all their hearts that it does.
I know the meaning and value of relative freedoms. Anybody of common sense does. His wet dream may come true of me (or anyone else here) jumping ship, but at present it seems not too likely. I know where my home is, I know when to yield, and I know when to press forward. I have written of it before:
https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2020/01/a-bad-boy-turns-over-a-new-leaf.html

Well—I mean, big deal. It’s true with anyone. Anyone can go anywhere at any time. It is not that profound of a statement that he makes.
He encourages me to keep venturing “out of the organizational box.” Why? Because he either thinks that by doing so “my eyes will be opened” or someone will lower the boom on me, because “we must walk in lockstep.”
These guys are nuts! They are squirrelly. Because the irresistible bug of being free from all restrictions! bit them, they are convinced it will bite anyone—and they hope with all their hearts that it does.
I know the meaning and value of relative freedoms. Anybody of common sense does. His wet dream may come true of me (or anyone else here) jumping ship, but at present it seems not too likely. I know where my home is, I know when to yield, and I know when to press forward. I have written of it before:
https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2020/01/a-bad-boy-turns-over-a-new-leaf.html

Sigh....tell me about it. See: ‘Pop Goes to the Movies’
https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2007/06/pop_goes_to_the_1.html

This is reassuring to me. My books have suffered from this, too, and one of them positively reeked with errors, which took forever to ferret out. Several times I announced that all corrections had been made, only to find more blips.
Not long ago, I purchased a homeopathy books from someone supposedly renowned. I was amazed as how slipshod was the formatting, and how much beneficial editing could have been done but wasn’t.
It is a sign of the ebook times, and I am reassured that even Rulf the scholar is afflicted with it. Ideally, you proof a work with professionals, but that is pricey and with ebooks being so cheap, with no guarantee of sales, either you do it yourself or ask well-meaning (but essentially hobbyist) friends to help you out. It is a far more daunting task than it first appears to do it yourself, because you tend to read, not what is there, but what you recall being there. You can do tolerably well for a short article, but if we are speaking of an entire book—good l**k on that!
I even face an additional challenge. If I ask brothers who might be in position to help me out to do so, many will be unconfortable with the material and duck out. It’s frustrating. If I wrote a book about how the Easter Bunny was pagan, they would be lined up 5-deep to proof it, but if I confine myself to what seems more interesting, it is not that way.

Several months ago, Shultz tweeted to me the suggestion that —please don’t take offense, but I would probably benefit from a certain eighth grade English textbook. I decided not to take offense and I ordered it. Why can I not find it now? Did I give it to Rochester’s youngest reporter, a young man of tremendous gumption, but who—well, attended the city schools? I offered to, but the book never physically changed hands. Did I toss it because Mrs Harley thinks the house is too cluttered already with books? It drives me nuts. You would think I would have kept it as a reference.
I did order it on eBay as almost an impulse item, and I do remember cooling on the idea that I needed it—for the most part, where my language is sloppy, it is not because I do not know any better but because I do not bother. I know, for example, that you do not end sentences with a preposition (I remember a writer playing with the idea of how many he could string at end of sentence: “New York is a bad place to get something in your eye in,” and even “New York is a good place to get something in your eye out in) and when I take advantage of Covid time to review Dear Mr. Putin, I say of parts, “oh, my—what a mess!” and make corrections. About 80% of the book has now been gone through with a fine tooth comb. I cannot testify that there might be a comma where none is needed, but for the most part, it is okay. 
Alas, I favor long and intricate sentences. I flatter myself that I am being like Paul, and I take comfort that he is dead and is not going to call me on it. Maybe that is Shultz’s message to me—“learn to write more sparsely, will you?” Yes, I mostly know what to do, but still colons, dashes, and some commas drive me nuts in all their variant settings and I wouldn’t have the problem if I kept my settings more manageable. 
His writing is far more disciplined, and even some of his tweets are hauntingly beautiful—maybe not uniquely so—maybe I just have that impression, because he is on my radar and others aren’t (‘Confirmation bias,’ the learned Bernard Strawman calls it). There is a place for sparseness, because everything you say dilutes everything you have just said—extra writing doesn’t always magnify—it just as frequently dilutes. Shultz is given in tweets to chronicle the ordinary—his own health, for example. His niece did that, too. 
“It takes patience to sort my pills for the day. And when I've recovered from pill taking, it takes more patience to put the medicated cream on my poor legs. I'd rather have ice cream. ... email from grand niece. Such plans ... I was full of plans at that age too. I guess.“
He reminisces:
“Back in 1986 I bought a new, but previous years model deVille. Wife wanted to drive it home. When we got it home, she announced that henceforth it was her car. She complained whenever I drove it.”
And, of course, he tweets of his research:
”Mostly fruitless research day. You'd think these dead people would have realized that 150 years later I'd like to read their letters and such. Such ungrateful dead people!.”
He is altogether not a bad follow at all on Twitter. He used to pop up in my feed frequently. For some reason, Twitter now seems to be squelching him in favor of some firebrand brother who can hardly see a reference to a church without appending something about ‘false religion’—with everything there is a time and a place.
 

This is reassuring to me. My books have suffered from this, too, and one of them positively reeked with errors, which took forever to ferret out. Several times I announced that all corrections had been made, only to find more blips.
Not long ago, I purchased a homeopathy books from someone supposedly renowned. I was amazed as how slipshod was the formatting, and how much beneficial editing could have been done but wasn’t.
It is a sign of the ebook times, and I am reassured that even Rulf the scholar is afflicted with it. Ideally, you proof a work with professionals, but that is pricey and with ebooks being so cheap, with no guarantee of sales, either you do it yourself or ask well-meaning (but essentially hobbyist) friends to help you out. It is a far more daunting task than it first appears to do it yourself, because you tend to read, not what is there, but what you recall being there. You can do tolerably well for a short article, but if we are speaking of an entire book—good l**k on that!
I even face an additional challenge. If I ask brothers who might be in position to help me out to do so, many will be unconfortable with the material and duck out. It’s frustrating. If I wrote a book about how the Easter Bunny was pagan, they would be lined up 5-deep to proof it, but if I confine myself to what seems more interesting, it is not that way.

I feel so low-class. My wife and I have rediscovered Perry Mason.
The show is historically accurate, though. There were cars with such tail fins. Last night Perry impaled the villain on one of them just after he confessed and tried to flee the courtroom.

I feel so low-class. My wife and I have rediscovered Perry Mason.
The show is historically accurate, though. There were cars with such tail fins. Last night Perry impaled the villain on one of them just after he confessed and tried to flee the courtroom.

This is shocking. I have no patience with this sort of thing!

This is shocking. I have no patience with this sort of thing!

Probably true, Tom. I already knew that I would probably agree with plenty of his arguments related to his current view on the FDS and higher education. But so much more that he says, has already been said in so many words over here on this forum. Some of it very recently. The areas where many of us have long defended the Witness position with respect to war, neutrality, the two different hopes of salvation, use of God's name, identifying principles of the true religion, the value of a leadership body with respect to efficiently carrying out a worldwide preaching work, etc., etc. You'd think that he came over here and picked up a few ideas, although I'm sure he had already come to these positions through the WT publications and his own experience in defending them.
On higher education, he tends to present it a bit too positively, without enough warning about some of same dangers that have hurt Witnesses, sometimes spiritually, sometimes economically. I think he is too focused on how well it worked out for himself, and perhaps schools in Norway are more serious than some of the party destinations that attract students in the United States. To him most higher education is Biblically neutral, and he tends to promote higher education for those who can make room for it.
A lot of Witnesses (remember JTR?) have complained about the "dumbing down" of study habits and the lower levels of effort put into really learning scriptural and spiritual matters for ourselves. His issues with the NWT 2013 are also identical to things that have been said here in that regard. Furuli is not terribly consistent with his favorite subjects and pet peeves, but he has managed to explain the issues in very practical terms better than I've seen before.

I could have told you that beforehand.

These are challenging times to offer nuanced views of things. Few people accept nuances. Thus, if you do not accept every premise of your opponent’s view, you are ‘Brother Watchtower’ as that silly Witness says of me. But I don’t take offense. I don’t exactly flatter her, either.
It nettles me when I see brothers gush all over ‘science’ and ‘critical thinking.’ Why should they do that? It constitutes the prime tool of our adversaries. I’m not against science. It’s great stuff. Pour me a double-shot of it. But to rely on it as the be-all and end-all is surely to court folly.
Do not scientists, for the most part, urinate all over Genesis and blood? Are we to imagine that those are the only things that they are all wet on? Yet many brothers would seem to. The GB does not, which earns them my tremendous respect. They recognize it as a tool—not valueless, but also not THE GAMECHANGER. Scientists mostly lean this way or that? Well—take note of it but don’t let it ruin your day. Tomorrow you may see the headline, “Everything You Thought You Knew About Such-and-Such is Wrong!”
There is an ex-pharma VP online who makes just that point. ‘Nobody has any money,’ he says. ‘Universities don’t  Governments don’t. Think-tanks don’t. But Pharma has lots of money. It commissions scientists from one of those penniless outfits to study this or that new drug. If the outcome if favorable to Pharma, that outfit can expect to be funded for more studies. If it is unfavorable, that outfit will never hear from Pharma again. ‘No money has changed hands,’ he says. ‘No agreements have been entered into. But everyone knows what they must do.’
The ones who shove ‘science‘ down everyone’s throats are not necessarily even scientists, I am convinced, but are a second buttressing and uninvited layer that I call ‘scientist-philosopher-atheist-cheerleaders.’ Scientists just go about doing science, and many of them see no contradiction between science and the spiritual world—they are two different ways of examining things, and ‘one key does not unlock all.’
People who rail on about science tend to not notice when money hijacks their science, as in the Pharma example above. Scientists have to eat, too. They are also stubborn like anyone else—slow to yield to new data. They are not more so than others, but neither on balance are they less. One of the downfalls of ‘critical thinking’ is that those who espouse it most vehemently are prone to assume that they have a lock on the stuff.
As to Rulf—I’m not opposed to him. If he thinks that he will be DFed, as he has stated—well, who am I to argue? But I will accept it only when I see it. Brothers in charge have something that they did not have 40 years ago. They have a prior example to look at and to see how that worked out. They may or may not go a similar route. I’ll get my head around it regardless of how they go, but I won’t start until they go there.
Yes. And I note and agree that you put them as questions, not statements.

Same initials? Wait until Kos gets ahold of that one.

Of course. The reason that you give money to a religious organization is that you believe in and want to further their work. You don’t give money thinking it is a rainy-day fund or an insurance policy. That’s what investments and insurance companies are for. Everyone knows this, even Witness. The reason she carries on as she does is that she does not like the religious work Witnesses do and would like to hinder it.
In fact, there is coordinated relief for disaster circumstances, but for the most part, it is Christians sharing with each other, same as was detailed a few times in the NT record—sometimes the organization facilitated or coordinated such relief.
This USDA program came into existence because crops are being wasted as restaurant supply lines are cut. Everyone in the US has heard such reports. So here is an effort to redirect foodstuffs and nonprofits help them realize their goal of distribution. On balance, Jehovah’s Witnesses contribute to the public till more than most—they don’t try to evade responsibilities—while drawing on it less. They certainly are a suitable candidate for the program.