TrueTomHarley

I’m just sitting here minding my own business, thinking up new insults for The Librarian and our “house” discreet slave, JTR.

This never happens. Everyone who is an elder remains an elder unless some are seen to no longer qualify. Judging from what you have written, that would have been the case where you hail from.
It often takes a big blowup of some sort because elders are like people anywhere—they tend to give others the benefit of the doubt, disinclined to judge the “straw” in their brother’s eye, on account of the “rafter” in their own. It is not an easy thing to delete a colleague or to persuade one to step down in the absence of some big blowup. In times of great blowups, it sometimes takes a circuit overseer or two to sort things out.

I’m just sitting here minding my own business, thinking up new insults for The Librarian and our “house” discreet slave, JTR.

Given that any hesitancy to report CSA for fear of causing reproach on the congregation has been removed, it is hard to see that anything damaging is “still in place.”
https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2019/02/the-reproach-of-child-sexual-abuse-falls-on-the-abu.html

Thanks for explaining. This was the impression I got from you, and it was reinforced with this other idea that you conveyed: that since the scriptures were only written to and for the anointed, we must take a kind of 'sit-and-wait' attitude until it becomes obvious who they are. You also have said that you think the end will not take place before the end of your own lifetime, an idea probably also partly based on the fact that no group of anointed has yet become so obvious in our day that '10 men are taking hold of them' because they can see that God is with them.
One reason I responded with an entire thread on this was because this overall idea seemed too passive. It really would lead to the idea that unless some group of truly anointed were making it extremely obvious that they were right in some inspired kind of way, then all of us can just sort of wait until that changes. But Jesus seemed to say that preaching and converting others through making disciples of him was going to be the way in which this message about God and his Kingdom through Christ would reach to the ends of the earth. To me that seems quite different.
Also, just my opinion, but I don't think we need anything except to keep our eyes open and see the works of various Christian brotherhoods to know whether or not Jehovah's spirit is acting upon them. By their works you will recognize them. It's not that works result in our salvation, but that the "works" of the spirit result in "love, joy, peace, patience, etc., etc." If our hearts desire Christian association with loving, peaceful, patient persons, we would find such ones to associate with. The nuances of doctrine (like "who is the Jew with the 10 men at his robes?") is completely unimportant. But a doctrine of peace that results in them not going to war with each other would seem quite important. Personally, I would not wait for a group that explains Scripture better than the next group. That has always just been a "sub-religion" much like the philosophies of the Greeks that they thought was real wisdom.
Scripture is already there for us. We don't have to understand it any further than what was already put there. In our hearts we know enough about Jesus parables just by reading the overall message. We have no further need of prophets, and voices, and tongues, and inspiration, because Jehovah has already put the basic message in our hearts from what inspiration has already written. This is one of the reasons that the book of Revelation was almost voted out of the 66 book canon. It was written in such a way that it took away from the idea that we need nothing further to be written to us (by future interpreters). Yet even this book exercises the depth of our Christian faith if we remember that it should not distract from the idea that the end could come at any time, and that we are not waiting for specific events to happen, but that it can happen at any time. 
On that topic, remember that Jesus said the end could happen at any time, and it would be a surprise, as if without warning of any kind. Of course, he also made it clear that it could happen at any time immediately after the Roman armies sacked Jerusalem, which basically happened in 70 CE. Your own view makes it easy to put this off, by waiting for an additional sign. Paul did mention an additional sign prior to 70 when he said that we weren't waiting for a group of semi-inspired anointed to watch for, but that there would be a semi-inspired powerful force that would have to come first. This kept the Thessalonians from getting too excited about the end coming when 70 CE had not even come yet.
He told them that we needed nothing to be written to us about the times and seasons of the parousia because it would come as a surprise, like a thief in the night, even though we are "awake" enough so that it will not overcome us as victims the way a thief overcomes his victim. He reminded the Thessalonians that people could be taking note of peace and security, and therefore it would be a complete surprise. But he also told them to prepare for the possibility that they would sleep in death before Jesus returned. But that semi-inspired or pseudo-inspired powerful force to watch for apparently turned out to be the many anti-Christs that John spoke of in his letters. Paul had put it in "apocalyptic terms" and I think the book of Revelation even more so:
I'll end on this because it's long, but I think it's curious that Paul's only warning sign prior to the parousia was about a man of lawlessness (the apostasy already at work) and a counteracting force of restraint that was almost out of the way. (This was apparently the apostles, but some could argue that it extends to our day as the apostleship continues to be represented by men governing the congregation.)
(2 Thessalonians 2:1-12) . . .However, brothers, concerning the presence [parousia] of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you 2 not to be quickly shaken from your reason nor to be alarmed either by an inspired statement or by a spoken message or by a letter appearing to be from us, to the effect that the day of Jehovah is here. 3 Let no one lead you astray in any way, because it will not come unless the apostasy comes first and the man of lawlessness gets revealed, the son of destruction. 4 He stands in opposition and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he sits down in the temple of God, publicly showing himself to be a god. 5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you, I used to tell you these things? 6 And now you know what is acting as a restraint, so that he will be revealed in his own due time. 7 True, the mystery of this lawlessness is already at work, but only until the one who is right now acting as a restraint is out of the way. 8 Then, indeed, the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will do away with by the spirit of his mouth and bring to nothing by the manifestation of his presence. 9 But the lawless one’s presence is by the operation of Satan with every powerful work and lying signs and wonders 10 and every unrighteous deception for those who are perishing, as a retribution because they did not accept the love of the truth in order that they might be saved. 11 That is why God lets a deluding influence mislead them so that they may come to believe the lie, 12 in order that they all may be judged because they did not believe the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness. John, possibly the original apostle by that name, apparently outlived the year 70 CE, and he still says something similar, but his solution is that all of them were anointed and all of them therefore have no need of someone or some group to continue teaching them, because the anointing itself teaches all of them the truth.
(1 John 2:18-27) 18 Young children, it is the last hour, and just as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared, from which fact we know that it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of our sort; for if they had been of our sort, they would have remained with us. But they went out so that it might be shown that not all are of our sort. 20 And you have an anointing from the holy one, and all of you have knowledge. 21 I write you, not because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and because no lie originates with the truth. 22 Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. 23 Everyone who denies the Son does not have the Father either. But whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also. 24 As for you, what you have heard from the beginning must remain in you. If what you have heard from the beginning remains in you, you will also remain in union with the Son and in union with the Father. 25 Furthermore, this is what he himself promised us—the life everlasting. 26 I write you these things about those who are trying to mislead you. 27 And as for you, the anointing that you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to be teaching you; but the anointing from him is teaching you about all things and is true and is no lie.. . .

I think not. The contexts are completely different. 
The superfine apostles that Paul fought with in Corinth were men very impressed with the wisdom of that Greek culture that Paul deliberately set aside. The first three chapters of 1 Corinthians makes that clear. Paul determined that he would know nothing among them except Christ impaled. He probably could have gone toe to toe with them in “wisdom” in a way that most others could not because he was educated as a Pharisee. He decided not to. Consequently he came to them with “fear and trembling” since he effectively approached them with “one hand tied behind his back.”
Does this in any way fit the GB? They never have such “wisdom” of the educated world and are roundly derided for it. Their formal education stops at high school in almost all cases.
The superfine apostles were that way, but the telling circumstance is that they hadn’t done anything to merit it. The GB are not that way, in my estimation, but the telling circumstance is that they have done something to merit it if they were.
The superfine ones were comfortable men who wanted Paul’s authority but not his work. The GB have taken on his work. Paul almost loses it in his second letter comparing how his record bests the superfine ones in every way. So this, too, doesn’t fit the GB at all. They do have circumstances approaching that of Paul, as the superfine apostles did not. They have usually served full-time for decades, often in circumstances more lowly than of those that they would later lead.
In no possible way can they be compared to the armchair superfine apostles of the Corinth area.
 

I think not. The contexts are completely different. 
The superfine apostles that Paul fought with in Corinth were men very impressed with the wisdom of that Greek culture that Paul deliberately set aside. The first three chapters of 1 Corinthians makes that clear. Paul determined that he would know nothing among them except Christ impaled. He probably could have gone toe to toe with them in “wisdom” in a way that most others could not because he was educated as a Pharisee. He decided not to. Consequently he came to them with “fear and trembling” since he effectively approached them with “one hand tied behind his back.”
Does this in any way fit the GB? They never have such “wisdom” of the educated world and are roundly derided for it. Their formal education stops at high school in almost all cases.
The superfine apostles were that way, but the telling circumstance is that they hadn’t done anything to merit it. The GB are not that way, in my estimation, but the telling circumstance is that they have done something to merit it if they were.
The superfine ones were comfortable men who wanted Paul’s authority but not his work. The GB have taken on his work. Paul almost loses it in his second letter comparing how his record bests the superfine ones in every way. So this, too, doesn’t fit the GB at all. They do have circumstances approaching that of Paul, as the superfine apostles did not. They have usually served full-time for decades, often in circumstances more lowly than of those that they would later lead.
In no possible way can they be compared to the armchair superfine apostles of the Corinth area.
 

what I meant is that I don’t plan to pursue it. 
However, JWI himself responded, so I will. He has extraordinary powers granted him by the Librarian (that old hen). He can divide into a separate thread if he wants to.
One college kid asked, when I proposed coming back, “To what end?” It was a question  I’d not been asked before.
I explained that in my ideal scenario I would return 100 times and engage in 100 different conversations and on the 101st I would ask him if he wanted to be a Jehovah’s Witness like me and at that time he should say ‘No.’ 
I even asked him to rehearse. “Let me show you how it would work. I am going to ask you to become a Witness like me and I want you to say “No.” Would you do that? He agreed. 
“Would you like to become a Witness?” I asked. “No,” he said.
“You see? Nothing to worry about. It’s just conversation. You’ll learn your way around the Bible in the meantime. The moment you tire of it, just let me know. No one is easier to get rid of than Tommy.”
The anticult people try to spin our calls as “recruiting.” That’s why the outrage some have over the recent letter expressing condolences over someone’s loss. If they just took it at face value, they’d be okay with it. We should not let those scoundrels define the game.
Are we “recruiting?” I suppose so, but in the most non-threatening way possible, so that only by really stretching the point could we be said to be doing it. And it is not an immediate goal—telling the good news of the kingdom is. College is far more indoctrinating than anything having to do with Jehovah’s Witnesses. The typical student is separated 24/7 from his or her previous stabilizing routine and people—a classic tool of brainwashing.
(I didn’t actually go through the rehearsal with him. Our best lines always occur to us too late. But that does not mean that I won’t do it when the situation is right.)

what I meant is that I don’t plan to pursue it. 
However, JWI himself responded, so I will. He has extraordinary powers granted him by the Librarian (that old hen). He can divide into a separate thread if he wants to.
One college kid asked, when I proposed coming back, “To what end?” It was a question  I’d not been asked before.
I explained that in my ideal scenario I would return 100 times and engage in 100 different conversations and on the 101st I would ask him if he wanted to be a Jehovah’s Witness like me and at that time he should say ‘No.’ 
I even asked him to rehearse. “Let me show you how it would work. I am going to ask you to become a Witness like me and I want you to say “No.” Would you do that? He agreed. 
“Would you like to become a Witness?” I asked. “No,” he said.
“You see? Nothing to worry about. It’s just conversation. You’ll learn your way around the Bible in the meantime. The moment you tire of it, just let me know. No one is easier to get rid of than Tommy.”
The anticult people try to spin our calls as “recruiting.” That’s why the outrage some have over the recent letter expressing condolences over someone’s loss. If they just took it at face value, they’d be okay with it. We should not let those scoundrels define the game.
Are we “recruiting?” I suppose so, but in the most non-threatening way possible, so that only by really stretching the point could we be said to be doing it. And it is not an immediate goal—telling the good news of the kingdom is. College is far more indoctrinating than anything having to do with Jehovah’s Witnesses. The typical student is separated 24/7 from his or her previous stabilizing routine and people—a classic tool of brainwashing.
(I didn’t actually go through the rehearsal with him. Our best lines always occur to us too late. But that does not mean that I won’t do it when the situation is right.)

what I meant is that I don’t plan to pursue it. 
However, JWI himself responded, so I will. He has extraordinary powers granted him by the Librarian (that old hen). He can divide into a separate thread if he wants to.
One college kid asked, when I proposed coming back, “To what end?” It was a question  I’d not been asked before.
I explained that in my ideal scenario I would return 100 times and engage in 100 different conversations and on the 101st I would ask him if he wanted to be a Jehovah’s Witness like me and at that time he should say ‘No.’ 
I even asked him to rehearse. “Let me show you how it would work. I am going to ask you to become a Witness like me and I want you to say “No.” Would you do that? He agreed. 
“Would you like to become a Witness?” I asked. “No,” he said.
“You see? Nothing to worry about. It’s just conversation. You’ll learn your way around the Bible in the meantime. The moment you tire of it, just let me know. No one is easier to get rid of than Tommy.”
The anticult people try to spin our calls as “recruiting.” That’s why the outrage some have over the recent letter expressing condolences over someone’s loss. If they just took it at face value, they’d be okay with it. We should not let those scoundrels define the game.
Are we “recruiting?” I suppose so, but in the most non-threatening way possible, so that only by really stretching the point could we be said to be doing it. And it is not an immediate goal—telling the good news of the kingdom is. College is far more indoctrinating than anything having to do with Jehovah’s Witnesses. The typical student is separated 24/7 from his or her previous stabilizing routine and people—a classic tool of brainwashing.
(I didn’t actually go through the rehearsal with him. Our best lines always occur to us too late. But that does not mean that I won’t do it when the situation is right.)

I like the online study feature on the website. I like the cart witnessing. I do wish that we were not so all-over-the-board with the door-to-door but would more-or-less settle on a consistent presentation, like working with the Good News brochure—‘15 chapters, 15 hour discussions, after which you have a working knowledge of the Bible—not everything, but a foundation. It’s what we offer—do you want it or not?’
This incremental doorstop study approach doesn’t work for me. I have little patience for it. It’s too hard to find people home to string several together. In view of the new privacy laws taking effect, the method is even going to be harder to pursue.
And I like the idea that once you engage with people in any way and that they come to learn of your faith, everything that you do becomes a witness.
Not to divert from you thread, though (as I sometimes do) Continue.

We are not exactly a seamless team.
Take it, Billy.

We are not exactly a seamless team.
Take it, Billy.

Any task of any sort is made easier if you don’t have other parties screwing you up, even if only through ineptitude. This is all that GJ was saying. You deliberately misrepresent his statement to suggest that he couldn’t care less about the problem. You should be more ashamed of yourself than even you usually should be.
What is he asking for? That laws about reporting CSA be consistent. That way he, as representative of one of the very few faiths that have attempted to monitor this evil, so as to mete out discipline and prevent miscreants from slipping unawares from one congregation into another (as they can anywhere else) does not have to do his job as though in a legal minefield. 
Why has what he pleaded for not been done? Given the seriousness of the problem and the stated priority of fighting it, seemingly no task should be easier.
 

Indeed it is not, but since you constantly compare the two, all that I have said is appropriate. The ones at a court trial who decide guilt DO NOT EVEN HAVE TO TELL YOU THEIR NAMES!!!!!! Where is your outrage about THAT?
Yes. That was the problem. Were it anyone else it would have been the sort of committee procedure that we all know about.
What was there about your behavior (the reader might make an educated guess by reviewing your outrageous posts, but no more than an educated guess) so that they resorted to methods that nobody else has ever heard of or can imagine?

Indeed it is not, but since you constantly compare the two, all that I have said is appropriate. The ones at a court trial who decide guilt DO NOT EVEN HAVE TO TELL YOU THEIR NAMES!!!!!! Where is your outrage about THAT?
Yes. That was the problem. Were it anyone else it would have been the sort of committee procedure that we all know about.
What was there about your behavior (the reader might make an educated guess by reviewing your outrageous posts, but no more than an educated guess) so that they resorted to methods that nobody else has ever heard of or can imagine?

Any task of any sort is made easier if you don’t have other parties screwing you up, even if only through ineptitude. This is all that GJ was saying. You deliberately misrepresent his statement to suggest that he couldn’t care less about the problem. You should be more ashamed of yourself than even you usually should be.
What is he asking for? That laws about reporting CSA be consistent. That way he, as representative of one of the very few faiths that have attempted to monitor this evil, so as to mete out discipline and prevent miscreants from slipping unawares from one congregation into another (as they can anywhere else) does not have to do his job as though in a legal minefield. 
Why has what he pleaded for not been done? Given the seriousness of the problem and the stated priority of fighting it, seemingly no task should be easier.
 

Now, now. “If it is not perfect, it is filthy,” does not fly with me.
Go argue it with Billy.

There it is again. An experience of writing letters containing “some comfort from the Scriptures.” Here is from the recent Watchtower article on ‘Show Fellow Feeling in Your Ministry.’
A letter was well-received in this instance of a family whose child had died. 
“‘I was having a horrible day yesterday,’ wrote the bereaved mother. ‘I don’t think you have any idea what impact your letter had on us. I can’t thank you enough or even begin to describe how much it meant to us. I must have read your letter at least 20 times yesterday. I just could not believe how kind, caring, and uplifting it was. Thank you from the bottom of our hearts.’”
And to think that there are some on this forum of malcontents who have all but popped a vein over this venue.
I can’t quite recall whether I have ever done this or not. I don’t think so, but it is possible. What I do recall is that in the mid-seventies, when the Awake! devoted an entire issue to the subject of depression—back when the topic was seldom breached in public, as though it were something shameful—that I was so impressed with it that I sent a copy to all the psychiatrists in the phone book. One of them responded—to point out that his own research had been included in the magazine.
 
 
 
 

There it is again. An experience of writing letters containing “some comfort from the Scriptures.” Here is from the recent Watchtower article on ‘Show Fellow Feeling in Your Ministry.’
A letter was well-received in this instance of a family whose child had died. 
“‘I was having a horrible day yesterday,’ wrote the bereaved mother. ‘I don’t think you have any idea what impact your letter had on us. I can’t thank you enough or even begin to describe how much it meant to us. I must have read your letter at least 20 times yesterday. I just could not believe how kind, caring, and uplifting it was. Thank you from the bottom of our hearts.’”
And to think that there are some on this forum of malcontents who have all but popped a vein over this venue.
I can’t quite recall whether I have ever done this or not. I don’t think so, but it is possible. What I do recall is that in the mid-seventies, when the Awake! devoted an entire issue to the subject of depression—back when the topic was seldom breached in public, as though it were something shameful—that I was so impressed with it that I sent a copy to all the psychiatrists in the phone book. One of them responded—to point out that his own research had been included in the magazine.
 
 
 
 

Ray Franz made it seem that way, too, much to the annoyance of those interviewing him. This is after he had departed from Bethel and had written many bad things about them, but he thought this topic was far overhyped.
Nonetheless, I take your point, and have stated that those brothers wishing to portray it as though CSA could never ever occur within the Christian organization have inadvertently caused that organization much reputational damage, above and beyond anything to do with the crimes themselves.
https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2019/04/lessons-to-be-learned-re-child-sexual-abuse.html
I am told by an elder of about 40, who is a relative, that these days elders strongly urge parents to report cases of abuse (only to find that many are reluctant) I accept this as the way things currently are, since this person was completely unaware of my interest in the subject or of anything I had written. 
 

The present policy of God’s organization is not to “taste” apostasy. I would never say that that is wrong. In fact, it is all but required by the Scriptures, such as at Matthew 11:19–they criticize you no matter what you do, so pay them no mind, and press full speed ahead. Or “Let them be. Blind guides is what they are.” That is why I am a bad boy for hanging out here.
However, just because a policy is right does not mean that there may not be a significant downside to it. As it is, many of our young have succumbed to the oldest temptation in the world, going where they have been advised not to, like the cat that curiosity killed. There they find material that they have never seen before. It is material that is mostly misrepresented, but they do not see how—some of it is presented convincingly.  It strikes a chord with some of them.
Ideally, parents or other older ones should be able to show them how it has been misrepresented and what is wrong with it, but they cannot because they don’t know what is there themselves—they have not “tasted” apostasy. That’s why I could see @Anna‘s point when she said that she kept on top of “apostate” things, lest one fine day her teenage son ask about them and she is not able to do more than say, “Don’t go there!” which the opposers unfailingly spin as evidence of trying to keep the kid in a “cult.”
As it is, last I heard, the kid is happily serving as a regular pioneer, has never displayed any interest in such things, and says: “Mom, what’s with all this goofy stuff that you read?” 
But he is not everyone.
 

Are you suggesting that Billy is out to destroy the GB? I never thought of that.

The apostles did not “compare themselves to God’s high standards,” for they knew that to do so would be smug. They tried to keep them. They knew very well that they fell short. 
Instead, they said things such as with Paul: 
“I find, then, this law in my case: that when I wish to do what is right, what is bad is present with me.  I really delight in the law of God according to the man I am within,  but I behold in my members another law warring against the law of my mind and leading me captive to sin’s law that is in my members.  Miserable man that I am! Who will rescue me from the body undergoing this death?”  Romans 7:22
You really did manage to miss a lot during your time as a Witness. In your own way, you are no less judgmental than Billy—perhaps even more so.
 

John says: Billy the Kid (born Henry McCarty September 17 or November 23, 1859 – July 14, 1881, also known as William H. Bonney) was an American Old West outlaw and gunfighter who killed eight men before he was shot and killed at age 21.
You say: (from history.com) “Just how many men Billy the Kid killed is uncertain. Billy himself reportedly once claimed he had killed 21 men-“one for every year of my life.” A reliable contemporary authority estimated the actual total was more like nine-four on his own and five with the aid of others. Other western outlaws of the day were far more deadly. John Wesley Hardin, for example, killed well over 20 men and perhaps as many as 40.”
I say: Come, come. I cannot be everywhere. I have to think about God. You two get together on this. Just how many did he kill?