TrueTomHarley

He forgets also that there really aren’t any typical Witnesses here. Everyone here (for any length of time) falls well outside the Bell curve in one way or another. Plus, one never knows who is just a pretender.

It seems to me that they have taken the very opposite tack—assuring every member that there is no stigma arising from reporting child sexual abuse to the authorities. https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2019/02/the-reproach-of-child-sexual-abuse-falls-on-the-abu.html

All the rest needed saying too. There was a time during which putting things in context was thought a responsible thing to do. Today it is raising a straw man, not to be tolerated by single-issue people.

This is factually wrong on one very significant point. It is not the “leaders” that were being kept track of. It is members in general. Later, the writer inadvertently admits this Here leaders are not mentioned. It is anyone within the church. The reason behind repackaging the second statement into the first is to blacken as much as possible the reputation of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Without such repackaging, the picture that presents itself is that leaders who are molesters among Witnesses are extraordinarily rare, whereas in most other organizations it is the pattern. Be it Church, Scouts, the UN, private schools, foster care agencies, even the US gymnastics Olympic team, it is the leaders. With Witnesses, it is almost always the members. Indeed, there is no mechanism to track molesters in the general population of these other organizations. The reason that there is with Witnesses is that they track wrongdoing of all sorts, in the spirit of Romans 2:21-23. “Do you, however, the one teaching someone else, not teach yourself? You, the one preaching, “Do not steal,” do you steal? You, the one saying, “Do not commit adultery,” do you commit adultery? You, the one abhorring idols, do you rob temples? You who take pride in law, do you dishonor God by your transgressing of the Law?” They don’t want to dishonor God, so they keep track of all forms of wrongdoing and, the discipline meted out in an attempt to correct persons. This will strike more people than not, I suspect, as a responsible thing to do—so it must be repackaged into a wicked scheme to cover up. What is at root a proactive and responsible action is being distorted as being evil. For a writer who is normally clear, this article is decidedly muddled in places—seemingly to obscure the fact that the deviant now in prison was not a leader. At one time he had been an elder, but that was ten years prior to the event being tried. A lot of degradation can happen in ten years All this does not necessarily mean that there is not a CSA scandal among Jehovah’s Witnesses. However, it does mean that the scandal is unlike that of the others in which leadership itself produces the molesters. If confined to just this criteria, Jehovah’s Witnesses rise head and shoulders among anyone else, for it is only the Bible standards they adhere to that succeeds in producing such upright leadership. If not confined to just this criteria (of upright leadership) then it is very difficult to portray Witnesses as public enemy #1–which is the goal of its most determined opposers. If not confined to this criteria of upright leadership, then Jehovah’s Witnesses simply fall back into the ranks of everyone else who also did not rush to expose their dirty laundry before the world. It may be that it will be to JW’s everlasting shame that they relied upon affected parties to report, and did not override in cases where they did not—cases that proved to be very numerous, since many proved loathe to “bring reproach on God’s name.” That is why a study article of May, 2019, is so appropriate: https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2019/02/the-reproach-of-child-sexual-abuse-falls-on-the-abu.html Time will tell. Such are the issues being litigated these day. For now, I point out that the current challenge is to find an outfit NOT being sued over CSA, and in nearly all cases, it is the leaders COMMITTING the abuse—something very rare with Witnesses. With them, it is members committing it and leaders criticized for not forwarding the information.

Once again, I have no idea what you are talking about. “Dear Mr. Putin” has 3 sections—now 4, because I added one for updates. Nobody here has had any “input” on any of them except me. Part 1 is simply a real-time retelling of events in Russia as they unfolded. Input came from monitoring news reports, plus my own experiences throughout the letter-writing campaign. Initially, Part 1 was all I had in mind. In time, I began to envision more. Included in the introduction is both the charting of an added role and a caution that it was not for everyone: Does Kuraev really mean to suggest that prosecution presented no intelligible arguments at the Supreme Court trial? An observer of the trial might well think it. He might well wonder just what does the government have against Jehovah’s Witnesses? There must be something, but it is not stated. At one point the judge asked the prosecution (the Ministry of Justice) whether it had prepared for the case. A decision had been plainly made somewhere from on high and it would fall upon the judge to rubber-stamp it. Of course, he did, perhaps because he wanted to remain a judge. The actual reasons behind anti-Witness hostility were never presented. So I have presented them in Part II, along with how they might be defended. Some Witnesses, truth be told, will be uncomfortable with Part II and might best be advised to skip over it. They will love the idea of defending the faith but may be unaware of the scope of the attacks made against it, some of which are truly malicious. Deciding to sit out this or that controversy will earn them taunts of “sticking one’s head in the sand” from detractors, but it is exactly what Jesus recommends, as will be seen. Not everyone must immerse themselves in every “fact,” for many of them will turn out to be facts of Mark Twain’s variety: facts that “ain’t so.” You can’t do everything, and most persons choose to focus on matters most directly relevant to their lives. Part II thereafter rolls into Part III, which suggests an offense—not a legal offense, but an overall moral one. Okay? So I made significant effort to protect any Witnesses from “apostate” thinking. Go to Part 2 if you want, I told them, but know what you are getting into. Similar passages are included in “TrueTom vs the Apostates!” This is done deliberately, out of respect for counsel from the slave about not engaging with “apostates.” Go there if you must have an answer to the unsavory things being said these days on major media. But know that you are crossing a line of counsel as you do it. Counsel is counsel. It is not law. What is law is the law of love and the corollary that closely follows about not causing dissention or divisions in the congregation. For that reason, one must give serious thought as to whether it is wise to hang out with those determined to shoot down the faith. It really is no more than 1 Corinthians 15:33–“do not be misled—bad associations spoils useful habits.” But “apostates” have caught the ear of the media in some cases and they drive much of the current opposition. It was even true in Russia. Kicking back at negative articles in the media almost cannot be done without some interaction with those who inspire them, and some of them conveniently hang out here.

Let no one ever say that Lady Gaga is not a showperson.

The distribution of wealth worldwide and even within a country is obscene and is something no government has been able to address. Usually, it is just exacerbated.

This is why I never jump into the arms of any of my fans here. Some of them look awfully clumsy.

To get a 4 day work week, sure, I’ll promise to work smarter. A few weeks after I secure it, I will revert to working dumb as ever.

I once took a university course taught by Albert Einstein. It was a mistake. He graded on a curve, and his curves were such that after one exam I ended up on a parallel universe.

I do appreciate your helping me hawk them. As to “sloppy input” and “poor research,” I really have no idea what you are talking about. Specific points made are very well attested to, and are selected to make a thorough defense of the Witness organization before any inclined to criticize it. “Dear Mr. Putin” is heavily documented for sources—a rough guess is that it contains about 600 endnotes. A lot of work went into it, and there is nothing else like it. There exists no comprehensive history of JW persecution in Russia with regard to the present ban other than my work. It is a huge international story, perhaps the story of the year with regard to freedom of worship, and yet it is nowhere completely covered (that i know of—I’d be happy to learn if there is any other) except for in my ebook. It is not primarily written for the friends, but for journalists, human rights and policy persons the world over. The fact that it is written by a Witness means that it is written from a Witness point of view, and that can hardly be a bad thing. Other books are not “research” per se, but a relating of events. When you relate events, all you have to do is relate them. The books insult no one, threaten no one, and are not disrespectful even to those with whom we disagree and to those who are causing us substantial problems. It may be simply the fact that they are written with a substantial light touch, even a sense of humor, that gets to you. Otherwise, I am not sure why you would keep harping on them.

No matter how many ebooks TTH has sold, it is not enough. Besides, the two most recent, one on the opposition to JWs in Russia, the other on their opposition in Western lands, are free—not sold at all.

Imagine if I had made such a statement about any one of the Governing Body. Witness would deluge me with verses about not idolizing humans and it would take me weeks to dig out.

How can one Matthew claim to be Matthew 9969? Methinks you are reading too much into this, trying to get a squabble going.

Let her be your anointed one, then. She clearly wants her anointed credentials to be recognized by somebody. You’ll do. You may have to tell her that you don’t believe in God first.

Invariably the ones who examine themselves closely over broadcasted reproof are the ones for whom it was not intended and do not need it. The blockheads for whom it was intended simply dig in their heels and press on afresh.

Though it is not in a portion of the Bible known for prophesy, the most striking prophesy of all to me is Romans 1:26-28 “That is why God gave them over to uncontrolled sexual passion, for their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; likewise also the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males” Though the flavor of the verse is seems clearly “anti-gay,” for the purposes of this comment that need not be considered. When I became a Witness in the 1970s, I thought this verse was way way out there, not realistic at all. Of course, there had always been homosexuality, but to suggest that it would one day go viral seemed absurd. Yet it has happened. Even gays themselves, though they will be happy at the extent that they have been able to make progress, must be surprised at how quickly it has come about. The pace accelerates and spreads to new frontiers. Whereas gays have taken decades to enter the mainstream, the embrace of the transgender movement have taken mere months. Gayle King (I heard her say this on CBS This Morning) did not know what the Q stood for when she obediently appended it to LGBT. Did it mean “questioning?” Or “queer?” She didn’t know. But she didn’t dare not include it.

Actually I have. And I don’t mean chasing them away by being unpleasant. I mean by specifically cautioning a few, who seemed too unaware of their surroundings, that they should think it through before they continue to engage. I didn’t say that they shouldn’t do it—that is up to them—but that they should know the score before they did. @Indiana is the last one I did this with. Ask him if you doubt it. Yes, but I have taken it over, and it will now do what I want it to. You have helped me in this, by insisting time and again that I am the owner. No one else has done that. “If he gets people thinking that, then I might as well carry on as though it were so,” I have “reasoned.” It is amazing to me that this has happened, but there it is. Sometimes I even wish that @admin or @The Librarian (that old hen) will get fed up and ban me, for I sure do spend a lot of time here and maybe that time would be best spent elsewhere. Ah well...if Admin’s fears are realized, this site will not be around much longer anyway. I also feel strongly about not stumbling others and about not spreading contentions among brothers. When Bruce G carried on as though he had been stumbled after I liked the comment of an “apostate,” I decided not to do that anymore. I held to that resolve for the longest time, and I still almost never do it. Of course, that concern is partly offset by the realization that anyone so concerned about stumbling ought not be here in the first place, but I stopped “liking” comments of certain ones nonetheless. It is understood that this site is a collection ranging from atypical and avant-garde Witnesses to those who can’t stand them. This must be understood going in. (It is those few who did not seem to understand this that I have cautioned.) You can’t charge into someone else’s home and accuse him of not playing by your rules. You know very well that the organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses would not recommend your engaging here any more than they would me. They would not say: “whole lotta liars on that site, but not to worry—we have our man Allen to straighten them all out.” While I doubt very much that you have done so, I have candidly written the WBTS as to what I am doing. While I am “rogue” I do not want to be “out of control.” I respect their lead. I do not think that I am above them. Were I to hear: “What are you doing, TTH, singing on the wall when Hezekiah has told the troops to zip it—you’re messing everything up!” I would desist. I have not received any reply. It is true about much of this site—that it pretends to be what it is not. I stumbled across it in just that way, through an advertisement on Twitter. I was quite put out about the deceptive advertising—many of my early posts reflect that. Whether it was wise for me to stay I still do not know, but stay I did and I used the site to hone my own writing and parlayed that into some books. It has been a lot of fun for me, but no way is it conventional. If one transforms the whole place into a comedy club, that is another way of discrediting the malcontents who frequent here, which I believe you have said is your goal. And for crying out loud, Allen, it is not my site. Everyone else understands this but you—well, they probably do not all understand it at this point because I have played into it. But you made it all possible.

Of course. I said that you “could easily be accused of running ahead.” I didn’t say that I would do it. I would not. Everyone here “runs ahead” to one degree or another. Moreover, the censure of anyone here doesn’t matter. It is understood that the site has nothing to do with the congregation and does not attract any Witness that is typical. Yes. It was my answer that I never got around to making when CMP—or was it JWI?—presented his wish list of what the annual meeting might present. He wished for less emphasis on the nearness of the end, and even suggested that the last days should be understood to have commenced in Jesus’ time. “Angels are desiring to peer into these things” I almost said. “Are you going to tell them to straighten up and get back to work?” It makes the Bible come alive when we do this. One really can’t go wrong with this attitude. I do this myself—and all the more so since I am clearly “out there” for a brother. Whole lotta bending going on here, that’s for sure.

Sometimes things speak for themselves and I think that is nowhere more evident than with her comments—even more so with her manner than with the comments themselves. Imagine—invariably including a deluge of scripture—and yet none are selected unless they elevate her own piety and can be used to put down those she dislikes. I have never seen her make any other use of verse.

Arrgghhhh I have not spoken harshly about the Watchtower, and I don’t think I ever commented on jw.net. At any rate, the parrot was selected specifically for an identity here. Vic Vomidog is an fictional apostate from my first book—a “perennial” apostate, George Chrysiddes has called him—and he has not appeared on any other website than here. Possibly you are thinking of some comment meant to be humorous and the humor missed the mark, at least in your instance. You must understand that when I write of Jehovah’s Witnesses, I give away many a fault, but they are nearly always quirks and human foibles. This is deliberate and is not meant to convey any disrespect to the Watchtower. If we try to present ourselves as Rhodes scholars, people visit a Kingdom Hall and see through it in two seconds. No. We are ordinary people—with an emphasis on the ordinary, the same as was true of the early Christians. They did not “lift themselves up by their own bootstraps” later in life. They remained always “uneducated and ordinary” by the world’s standards, that description of the ones taking the lead in Jerusalem. Such is the nature of Christianity. Jehovah’s Witnesses have held on to that pattern. It is a working-class religion. It always has been. It draws disproportionally from that group. Ones more highly educated are welcome, but not to assume the takeover rights to which they are accustomed. My aim always is to present Jehovah’s Witnesses as earthen vessels, and they are more desirable on that account. Moreover, God is more to be praised on that account: “However, we have this treasure in earthen vessels, so that the power beyond what is normal may be God’s and not from us.” - 2 Corinthians 4:7 I don’t even kick back anymore when some scoundrel tries to present it as though JWs have higher than elsewhere incidences of mental illness. I have no idea whether that is true or not, but I say that if it is, it is exactly what one would expect from Jesus’s remarks that he came to minister, not to those not who do not need a physician, but to those who do. He is speaking “spiritual sickness,” of course, but sickness tends to overflow its banks. Ones truly “sighing and groaning over all the detestable things” may well display signs of emotional stress. This does not make them undesirable. It is the ones that sail full speed ahead, untroubled by the atrocities so clearly visible on all sides that you have to wonder about. With admittedly some exaggeration, I have stated: “When Jehovah’s Witnesses go nuts, they are still well-meaning persons who wouldn’t hurt a fly. When those of the greater world go nuts, you’d better call the SWAT team. Humor can make “the medicine go down.” People like humor. But it does not translate well, and there are some people with no sense of humor at all. If it does not translate well, then snark and sarcasm translate even worse. I use them all. My intended audience is not primarily the friends. I hope they like it, but I am not mainly writing for them. This is the reason that the Watchtower writes very plainly (some would say blandly). It is frustrating to those who love to read, but it is something that must be—they do not want their writing diluted when some take exception to what doesn’t have to be there in the first place, so they stick to strictly the spiritual aspects of things and touch on current news topic specifics to such a shallow degree that it is a turnoff to those imagining themselves better plugged in. It has to be that way. Just look at how JWI and Arauna are going at it over something that both concede is a sidepoint. It is perfectly okay for such to play out here, but the WT organization would never even touch the topic.

If you don’t stop it with this self-aggrandizing twaddle, I am going to ban you. Have you learned nothing from Allen Smith? Many times he has grumbled (with some bitterness) about how I have banned various ones of his group. Vic Vomidog, that perennial apostate, also went down. What makes you think that you are above my law?

For all that I have heard about the Duck Duck Go web browser that stores NO information, I have never gotten around to trying it. Inertia is a powerful thing. I even follow the company on Twitter.

HEY! I THOUGHT I BANNED YOU!!! Now you listen to me and you listen good, my fine mangy feathered “friend.” If you don’t stay banned once I ban you, I will wrap you around the end of a mop and swab the WorldNewsMedia studio floors with you!

Not that I know of. Besides, I don’t follow her. I said so. It’s news to me. I haven’t changed that much in two hours.