TrueTomHarley

“THAT WAS MY DRINK I WANTED SHAKEN NOT STIRRED, YOU IDIOT, NOT MY CAR! MY BEAUTIFUL ASTON MARTIN—WHAT HAVE YOU DONE TO IT?!”

Why is it, then, that tracts of the past were written with more substance? Is it because they were all smarter back then, having gone to college? Why don’t you ask JTR about that? (However, DON’T try to tap him for the next generation of tracts.) No. They are simplifying the tracts to reflect today’s reading level. No need to read anything more into it than that.

That sentence from yesterday’s Watchtower study called to mind an experience: From paragraph 17: “A brother recalls appreciatively: ‘I saw tears well up in the eyes of one elder as he contemplated my situation. That image will always remain in my mind.’” I was sure that the kid at the tire repair show had lost my specialty tool when I had my tires switched. The dopey mounted snowtires (that somebody talked me into buying) require a unique socket—it is not standard and it is not metric. I have two of them so it is not that big of a deal, but when it was not in its designated place after I picked up the car from the shop (it could only be there and nowhere else because I always put it there) I drove back to the shop and let them hear about it at the front counter. “He’s got it in his toolbox, somewhere,” I said, “just absentminded, not theft—he is just careless. Make him check for it.” When I returned home I found the socket. I know how companies bully their employees. I figured they must have leaned into him pretty heavily. I drove back to apologize—not to the front counter, but to him personally. Nah—they said it wasn’t necessary. I said it was. No, it was nothing, they said, don’t worry about it. Look, I know that “the customer is always right,” I responded—he probably was made to feel some heat. They said no—not a problem. (what’s the big deal? They just didn’t want to pull him out of the shop and interrupt his work flow.) Did I tell you that when I get something in my head I am not easily put off? I said that I could probably just walk right in there and say it quick—which bay is he in, anyway? and made for the door. When they saw that I would not be dissuaded—what were they going to do? toss me out on my ear with a showroom full of customers looking on? they fetched him for me. He looked defensive, as though I was going to yell at him. Instead, I apologized. I said that I was sure that he had lost the tool, but when I got home I found it. Very likely someone had made him sweat about it. He was a Spanish speaking kid and he looked like someone who doesn’t get apologized to that often. A little to my embarrassment, I felt some tears welling up, just like the elder in the paragraph. I mean, several were looking on. I probably made a fool of myself. And maybe it was completely unnecessary. Maybe they had all had a good laugh over the jerk who griped over his “lost” tool. Dunno. But it didn’t matter. It is not a bad thing to show empathy. The elder in that Watchtower paragraph not only benefited the congregation member by tears welling up—unless I am very mistaken, he benefited himself as well.

That is because you are a hillbilly. If you’d get your head out of your own still, you would see that such styles are widespread. The world is bigger than you. Tony sees that.

So. You don’t wear tight suit pants yourself. You probably agree with everyone else that they look ridiculous. You also probably agree that they are ‘manipulative’ — they are the product of a highly sexualized fashion industry that seeks always to highlight sensuality. When these ones turn their attention to children, they put them in clothes that suggest they are hookers. Mothers—and I do not mean just Christian mothers, I mean just protective ones—have to buy boy’s gym shorts for their daughters so as to make them not a target for pedophiles. And yet you giggle on like a adolescent about “tight pants Tony.” What’s with that?

You actually cut a pretty fine figure. Whatever happened? This pic suggests that you were with Moses, and that whereas he led all the other Israelites out through the Red Sea, you hightailed it in your fancy car.

You bring this up so frequently (and HOW old are you?) that I have become curious over something: Please post a full-length photo of yourself. If, as I suspect, it shows you wearing spray-on pants, that will explain a lot.

Brother Quackenbush spent the weekend in the area and gave a talk at our Kingdom Hall. His visit was billed ahead of time. I played it up to my kids, calling him, for my three-year-old daughter’s sake, “Brother Quackenduck.” (Surprisingly, she tired of it. She is more mature than me.) Before closing prayer, he mentioned that he had received a love letter. It was in crayon from my daughter and had “i love you” and hearts & flowers & so forth. Everyone let out a collective sentimental “Awwwwww.” ”And my wife wasn’t even jealous, because she got one, too” he added.

You know, it IS a remarkable coincidence. I can see why you might think it. However Billy takes digs at everyone—even me, sometimes, though at the moment there is an tenuous truce between us.

There is more than one person named John. Why would you think that I am speaking of you?

No. This remark just reflects your personal orneriness and incessant faultfinding. It is the humanity that they spring from that is the problem. They work mightily to apply the scripture in their own lives even as they recommend it to others. It is hard for them to make headway in the face of ones like you. Fortunately, you are in the minority (even if the majority here). John carries on that if something is not perfect, then it is filthy. He doesn’t like the GB. Nor do you. He apparently wants a person or persons whose credentials and calling are as uncontested as they were with Moses. He neglects the fact that his (and your) counterparts back then did nothing but whine about Moses, also.

So do you. If we accept that the Bible is God’s prime method of communication to humans (which I do), sooner or later we are struck by the fact that very little of it is lecture. In contrast, if you went to college, almost all of it is lecture. What to make of this? Much of the New Testament, not only is not lecture, but is ostensibly not even written for us. It largely consists of letters written to other parties, from which we glean things about God, his thinking, and his dealings. What to make of this, too? When I mentioned this before and how it had influenced me, Srecko tried to bait me, asking whether I considered myself inspired like the apostle Paul (who wrote the majority of the letters). The answer is no. However, I am inspired by his example. If it is good enough for him (and for God, apparently, because it is included in the Bible canon) why should it not be good enough for me? It inspired in my blog an entirely new category: Skirmishes. https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2019/05/skirmish-970621-vastly-simplified-tracts-.html They are not all from this board. Some are from boards that are private. When they are, I do not reveal anything specific of the writer, but only my reaction to it. John will pop a vein over this, but in all cases they merely come from people who do not want to have their 15 minutes of fame before the whole wide world. In no cases are they “the smoking gun” that he strives so mightily to locate. The true smoking popguns are to be found here. He should consider a Hercule Poirot observation from one of the Christie novels—that in the course of a murder investigation, everyone gets cagey and evasive. The initial conclusion is that they all are somehow complicit, if not guilty of the crime investigated, but really it is because they do not want to explain other things that they were doing that have nothing to do with the crime but they had no intention of going public with—things that they imagined (usually correctly) were none of anyone’s business.

Look Magazine....what was I smoking?

This is my own personal bitching thread, after which I will get back to my normal supportive self, with only occasional caveats. What nettles me about the tracts, and many other things, is how we go on and on and on about what a blessing from on high they all are, as though THIS Item is the magic bullet that will turn the preaching work on its head, exactly what is needed at this particular time— and doubtless it will completely energize the work and swarms will thereby be attracted to the truth. I wish we wouldn’t do that. I wish we would just say “Here’s a new tool. We worked hard on it. Give it a try and see how it works.” I even think that our failure to do it that way is where a lot of the underlying conception that the JW organization is “smug” comes from.

Probably me. It drives me crazy—searching and searching in vain for something that you think you remember well. This was a multi-page article, uncharacteristically favorable to JWs, in one of the large and now defunct (or so altered that it might as well be) glossy newsmagazines that I strongly remember as Look, but maybe, just maybe, it was Life or Saturday Evening Post. (I’ll probably find it someday in Popular Mechanics.) The first paragraph or two was in the setting of some huge international convention, back in the days where there would only be one in a given year. The author framed it as threatening skies that looked like preparations would be for naught, but the brothers toiled on oblivious, as though confident that all would turn out well. And it did. Just before the convention was to begin, the skies cleared and the program got underway with nary a hitch.

I have never heard of this fellow. What’s with him? I read once in Look Magazine (if you know of it, please please please cite the issue) that Covington was unique in that he could “sass” the Supreme Court Justices and get away with it. Did Moyle argue any before the Supreme Court?

I don’t like the present series of tracts, but that does not mean that they are no good. I am very far from being typical. Nobody on this forum that claims to be a Witness is typical. I’m just carrying on some because I would love to see the ministry more fruitful that what it seems to me to be. I and many others here write more in a day that most people write in a month. So I can hardly expect the tracts to cater to me. The last CO cited figures from somewhere that the average youngster today spends 7 minutes with print (as opposed to 10 hours or so on some form of screen time) Going simple is obviously the way to go. The fact that I do not like it does not mean that it is not just the ticket for reaching the majority. Education is usually a last-place priority in today’s world. 1/6 of the world’s population cannot read. Most people barely know that these persons exist, and count them as nothing. Watchtower produces simplified versions of material already written simple so as to reach them. I defend the use of (vastly) simplified writing, even as I do not personally like it. “They can learn to read a few grade levels beneath them, if they are not too full of themselves,” is a line I put somewhere. I’ve learned to work around what is unpalatable to me, telling the high-brow people to consider this or that bit of writing as an outline, nothing more. Or telling them to not worry about whether this or that in the Bible is literal, but instead to take it as a metaphor and see if they can discern the underlying meaning of it. Mathematicians do something similar all the time: assume that this or that condition is true just to see where that assumption leads them. If it proves fruitful, then they come back and reconsider any initial objection to it. Just after 911, when people were unusually subdued, I grabbed that tract ‘Who Really Rules the World’ and had several good discussions with it. I’ve always liked Luke 4 for its clear explanation of Jesus declining Satan’s offer of gov’t control but acquiescing that it lay in his power to make the offer. Yes. There is a place for tracts. Everyone here beefs about everything under the sun, so I have joined in on what is our main mission—the ministry. I probably shouldn’t. It really is true that ‘bad association spoils useful habits.’ I’ll put it all on this thread and then do my best to zip it. The Bible is not a template for democracy, with every Tom Dick and Harry telling HQ how it ought to be.

Even Jesus used an expression for dogs, softening it to “little dogs”—puppies. That’s probably what I had in mind.

Having dispensed with the second part of this, let me go to the first. I did not say that you were mentally ill. I have said that any mental health professional would say that the type of thinking that you were displaying at the moment (most typically “all or nothing” thinking) is unhealthy. That is not the same thing. You also have to realize that I do not regard mentally ill as a pejorative label, and more than I would regard diabetic as one.

I gave an upvote here, and everyone knows that I am stingy with them. I don’t think I have ever given a downvote. My upvote is conditional. I am assuming that little bit of Latin does not translate into “TrueTom is a fink.”

Yes. When I signed on many years ago. They didn’t sneak up out of nowhere. Their role was known to me and everyone else from Day 1. That is why you are not a Witness. Everything is exactly as it should be. Given how you feel, you have done exactly as you should. Yes. Every Witness takes about a year to do that, studying and trying things on for size. Throughout, they are in their familiar home environment and routine. Perhaps 5% of their time is spent in unfamiliar surroundings. College is far more “manipulative” than anything with a Witness connection. Students are typically separated 24/7 from their former stabilizing routine, environment, and family—a classic tool of those who would brainwash. Plus, if you study with Jehovah’s Witnesses, you know full well that you are going off the grid—the very opposite of what brainwashers do. Going to college, on the other hand, is no more controversial than seeking good healthcare. You keep playing this as though it were your trump card, the coup de grace—as though it was something meant to be hidden. They are very open about it. They have called it “tacking.” As you say, they have called it “new light.” Don’t you think that means there used to be “old light?” Not usually. Maybe never. I said that your last bit of reasoning was infantile. I said that because it was. I didn’t say you were. Not totally, no. No one here, to my knowledge, is calling for anyone’s execution. It is what they stand for that is the target. Everyone knows that. Not everything that you say is silly. I have acknowledged that some points you have raised are valid. Not always to your face, because you are such a pit bull. But I have put them in other writings.

“but, to you who suffer tribulation, relief along with us at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with his powerful angels in a flaming fire, as he brings vengeance upon those who do not know God and those who do not obey the good news about our Lord Jesus.” 2 Thess 1:7-8 I’m not one to pound verses like this to death, but there is something to be said for not misrepresenting scripture, particularly when you claim to own it, presume to explain it for everyone else’s benefit, and quote it more than everyone else here combined.

In the spirit of full disclosure: I wanted my online name to be just Tom Harley, but I found that it was already taken on various platforms. So I thought of RealTomHarley, but I didn’t want to be confused with Trump. So I settled on TrueTomHarley. It has a certain ring to it that squares with us referring to the faith as “the truth,” but I did not choose it for that reason.

This is so silly. It is so infantile. Every project needs leadership. Once you grant persons that leadership, you refrain from undercutting them at every step. Why in the world should that be so hard to understand? You don’t set 15 rows back and swipe at the bus driver, “you missed that turn, you could have avoided that pothole, you hit the brakes too hard, why didn’t you know there was a roadblock ahead?” You know that the roads are poorly maintained, that the route is unfamiliar, and that the weather is terrible.” There are any number of things I am not crazy about with regard to the theocratic organization. If you read with any sort of critical skills you would know that. That does not mean that when I appear on a forum where the majority seek its destruction and level one attack on it after another, I will say “you know, you’ve raise a good point there.”

The suggestion to lead with a scripture is not something original on my part. From time to time it has been suggested by the theocratic organization. I have run with it as a staple more than is usually emphasized, but the idea is not mine. I mean, how can it be going off on one’s own tangent by leading with a scripture? If one finds that it works well. one tends to do it more and more, and that has been the case with me. Similarly, the working with the video ‘Would You Like Good News’? which leads to the ‘Good News From God’ table of contents & the invitation to the householder to choose any one he/she likes was not my idea at all. That came from the circuit overseer on his last visit. I was at almost every meeting for field service and he worked to make us all familiar with how videos could be used. Not once did he mention the current CLAM presentation of ‘Where are the Dead?’ Was he going off on his own tangent & thinking he knew better than God’s organization? No, he is just showing that there are a lot of ways to present the good news and he was putting emphasis on a method that works well. Q: Recently I went out with one of our elders and was a little disappointed when he was only delivering tracts. He was not trying to initiate conversation at all. Q2: Different ones will often fall back on old habits, even bad ones (and even Elders). Q2, I am going to be very very bold here and suggest that if he is merely offering tracts and making no effort to start conversations it is because he finds the suggested presentations cumbersome and awkward, and he would benefit by trying the scripture-first or the video one. I mean, he is an elder. He wants to be seen taking the lead. Everyone varies the pace and settings vary, as does one’s mood on any given day. Yet limiting one’s ministry to offering tracts with no effort to converse is faithful, but it is not taking the lead, and unless I am very mistaken, his conscience is letting him hear about it (unless he has switched into auto-pilot, turning it off.) One disadvantage of some of the CLAM presentations is that they require getting one’s head around. They require preparation. One advantage of the scripture-first or the Would You Like to Hear Good News presentation is that they do not—to just read a verse with a sentence or two as to why you chose it is not hard. We all know the experience of working with a new presentation and the first householder or two becomes a lab rat while we work the bugs out. The problem is gone with scripture or video first. Q3: I also try to talk about something that is interesting to any person, to cite a scripture and direct the person to our website at the end of the presentation Yes. Whatever works. By all means give the suggested presentations a try, even a workout if you like, but don’t feel that they must be adhered to in order to be following Jehovah’s direction.