TrueTomHarley

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

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.

What?!!! Never do that again!!

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.
 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
 

Word for word.

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.

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.
 

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.

It is very sad that you quote verses by the truckload and yet don’t get the sense of any of them.
If I took any liberties with God’s word, what I produced is exactly in harmony with it.
Did Jesus advise his disciples that they should strive to be popular with men or that they should not be concerned when they prove unpopular?

“And the disciples asked Jesus, ‘How will we know, in future times, what is truth?’
He answered: ‘Take note of what “most people think is unreasonable and unacceptable.” When you have discovered those things, avoid them like the plague. You do not want them to call you extremist.’”

Oh? 
And you have moved beyond the limits of the flesh to speak, not just things that you believe to be true, but things that ARE true?
Next thing you know, you will be joining Witness in claiming to be the “true” anointed

Everybody knows the book exists.
Pioneer service school also has a book not for general distribution. Everybody knows it exists.
They either know of it specifically or they know of it in the ’Well.....duh!’ sense that they know that any training of any class of any subject in any discipline just may feature a curriculum and textbook not for general distribution.
It is not a conspiracy. The world is not flat. GM did not invent a 100 mile per gallon carburetor that they have sat upon for umpteen years.

If Jack was not in such an all-fired hurry to prove racial prejudice, he would note that the above comment does exactly the opposite and is remarkable for its time (1952). The “worldly wise and powerful and noble” may look down on them (anyone care to argue that they didn’t at that time?) but God certainly does not, nor his organized servants. Blacks are paid the highest compliment for displaying godly traits that can be paid—of being “meek and teachable and form them comes a high percentage of theocratic increase.”
Even NOW overt racism is perceived by many blacks. It was 50 times worse a century ago. So, yes, the idea of not waving before a red flag before a racist world is not such a horrible idea. Given prejudice back then, the WT probably saved a lot of black lives by doing as they did.
Jack is just doing his usual Jack—trying to stir up hate when no basis for it exists.

Oh? 
And you have moved beyond the limits of the flesh to speak, not just things that you believe to be true, but things that ARE true?
Next thing you know, you will be joining Witness in claiming to be the “true” anointed

Everybody knows the book exists.
Pioneer service school also has a book not for general distribution. Everybody knows it exists.
They either know of it specifically or they know of it in the ’Well.....duh!’ sense that they know that any training of any class of any subject in any discipline just may feature a curriculum and textbook not for general distribution.
It is not a conspiracy. The world is not flat. GM did not invent a 100 mile per gallon carburetor that they have sat upon for umpteen years.