TrueTomHarley

Sigh...... Yes, it is because I am thinking of leaving the faith and I knew that you must have all the answers.

Sigh..... I answered a little snarkily because I was trying to avoid what i got anyway—yet another endless tirade that amounts to little more than they, the ‘bad’ anointed are doing it wrong and you, as one of the outmaneuvered ‘good’ anointed, would do it better. I just can’t take it anymore. No, I do not think they are the apostles. Nor do they. Yes, they are taking the lead of those who brought an accurate understanding of the Bible to me. I mean, it’s not as though I heard it from you.

I was comparing them to you and your constant complaining that have shoved you out of the spot where you think you belong. Just answering.

Nothing is foolproof. I don’t follow every single case. Shooting them is foolproof. My side doesn’t have that authority. Nor yours.

We have wronged no one, we have corrupted no one, we have taken advantage of no one.” (2 Corinthians 7:2) “Nevertheless, you say, I was “crafty” and I caught you “by trickery.” (2 Corinthians 12:16) ”There is nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9)

Right off the bat, she demanded a retraction and apology. She had not charged that we have no policy, she said. She had a point. She had not said it, but the implication was plain as day. However, she shot back that she had not implied it, either. I responded that had she but included the online paragraph, even to criticize it, her vows of pure honesty would be more believable, for it is clearly the most relevant writing on her topic. At that, she fired off a couple of zingers and then blocked me. If you want to block, just block. From my point of view, that is the sure sign of a desperation—to throw a new charge and then block any reply. Of course, JWs have mechanisms that amount to blocking, too. The difference is that we don’t pretend otherwise. There comes a time when you simply have to muzzle some people: (“It is necessary to shut their mouths, because these very men keep on subverting entire households by teaching things they should not for the sake of dishonest gain.” Titus 1:11) These folks, on the other hand, are constantly on the prowl for JWs to engage with.

Most of the New Testament is in the form of letters written to someone else. Those recipients, too, could have voiced similar complaints. I just find I write better when I am responding to a specific person or group of persons. I don’t deliberately set them up. I just write after the fact. Paul did too, apparently. As for money, I haven’t make enough yet to offset the outgoing expenses. Maybe that will change someday—I too, have a light bill—but I have resolved that the two most recent ebooks of opposition in Russia and in the West will always be free in some electronic format. That does not mean that other formats will be, or even that every ebook format will be, though it is so now. I would be surprised if I ever make any serious money, though if I do I will buy me a Cadillac-ac-ac-ac-ac. As for recognition, no matter how many people read these books, it is not enough. To my knowledge, both are the largest (and perhaps only) significant compilations of relevant subject matters. Billy finds everything offensive. Anyone who makes any comment on social media meant to be public is fair game for rebuttal. Until the late 70s, it was standard practice that anyone reproved would have that fact announced publicly—the reproof, not the wrongdoing that triggered it. At that time it was reasoned, that since a reproved person is such because he has been seen to be repentant, and the goal therefore become his healing, will he really be helped to recover by being exposed to everyone as a “practicer of sin?” (“Reprove before all onlookers those who practice sin, as a warning to the rest.” 1 Timothy 5:20) The “onlookers” was taken to mean not the whole congregation but those who knew of the wrongdoing, which might be just two or three. Only in cases where the wrongdoing was known or would soon be known to everyone would the reproof be made public. I think the policy you object to is just an application of the above, with the added caution that those who would truly need to know, parents of minors, would be notified. They could be trusted to pass it along to anyone who might need to know, such as a guardian. Don’t forget that this only is for those deemed repentant—cut to the heart and with expressed resolve to turn around. Rarely, if ever, are we speaking of forcible rape here, but some lesser form of molestation. Any degree of premeditation or grooming would cast serious doubt on any claim of repentance. This would almost certainly be the case with rape, and these ones are generally disfellowshipped, not reproved. When that happens, the same ones here that claim disfellowshipping is horribly cruel and excessive claim, in this case, that it is only a slap on the wrist and means nothing at all.

Maybe, just maybe, juusssstttttt maybe,.....the parents will tell the grandparents. At any rate, I cannot run these things by Alexandra. After a furious exchange, in which she was more shrill even than you, she blocked me. That makes three. Four, if you count Lloyd, who did not block me on Twitter, but did ban me on his website. These people do not like dissent. I have never been rude to any of them.

I don’t know. Very gradually, I think. It could be me.

Those Wt Study articles are more than an outline, but less than a stand-alone article. They are not really complete until they have served their purpose of being conducted, commented upon and discussed at the congregation meeting. Imagine—from yesterday’s article: Jesus was to be executed for BLASPHEMY. Of course he was troubled: “Now my soul is troubled, and what shall I say? Father, save me out of this hour.” (John 12:27) People do have a way of turning good into bad.

Look, I am trying to put lipstick on a pig, here. I think you have to be nuts to do something like this. Having said this, there are plenty of nuts in the world, and we have our share. Maybe even more than our share. Jesus said he did not come to call upon those who do not need a physician, but on those who do. ‘Spiritually sick’ is how it is usually spun, but if people are sick in one way they are often off-base in others. I feel no discomfort in speculating this. The people who have to shake your head at in wonder are the ones who can navigate the atrocities of today’s world without displaying some sort of disturbance. As a personal matter, I agree with almost everything you said about how this sort of ‘witnessing’ comes across. The only substantial thing I disagree with is The only reason that you split people up in this way is so you can further the ridiculous meme of JW member being exploited by WTJWORG company. It is the victimization culture on steroids, and nobody plays the victim card more than anti-cultists. The JW member IS the WTJWORG company. Other than that, yes, it is a terrible way to “give a witness,” and mostly for the reasons you say. It leaves a favorable impression on few, an unfavorable impression on many more, and a violently unfavorably impression on some others. Still, as the Bethel brother (and town) said, it represents someone’s individual choice. I have never seen such a suggestion in print. Nor have I ever heard of anyone doing it. Maybe it is one of those persons of whom it was said that when new they ought to be locked up for six months until they learn some discretion. Or maybe they are not new and the sentence should be extended.

Ahem

This is so only if you are spiritually impervious and the bulk of what is offered bounces off you like skipping stones on a stagnant pond. (I am being very mean to JTR lately. I want to apologize to him for a previous mean reply and I am just about fixing myself up to do it when he posts some crass &.attacking remark that recalls to my mind why I insulted him in the first place>)

In the late 70s, my Bible student spotted instantly what nobody else had ever noticed. The dressed-up gentleman pictured on the sign for the men’s room was smoking a pipe.

It does come across as sort of odd, I agree.

Yes, yes. All very eloquent. But where are you going on your vacation? Look, there is only so much seriousness I can muster for this. I don’t even know that it is genuine. If it is, it may be just a personal quirk, someone one-upping the request to know where people are in the event of an emergency. I have never been asked such a thing, nor have I ever heard of it from anyone. He probably is just making up schedules and wants to know when not to put people on them.

Turn away, please @The Librarian. (You old hen) Dear Brother Overseer I ain’t goin nowhere. I am too busy blaming others for something that happened 50 years ago. I barely have a pot to piss in. If only I had gone to college. If only, if only, if only. Then my life would be paradise. Everyone not going to college is a loser in life. Everyone going is a winner. Nobody that goes to college has problems. Whatever problems non-college people have is because they didn’t go to college. Make a bum decision as a teen and you are locked in for life. There is no opportunity to change course. Liars say that it can be done, but that it what you expect liars to say. I will never forgive them for giving me bad advise. Never never never never never never never never never never never never never never never never never never never never never Do you hear me?! NEVER!!!!!!!!!!! Cordially, Brother _______________

“Canada” - John “Florida” - Sam “Boise, Idaho - I have family there I visit”. - Sam “Spain. The rain in Spain stays mainly on the plain. Thanks for your concern” - George “The Adirondacks. We like to camp with the family. - Howie ”It’s none of your “G*****M” business where I am going on my vacation! What an invasion of privacy! Does your desire for control know know bounds?” - Jack For whatever it’s worth, I don’t think I have ever received such a request, but I would not lose my cookies if I did. I have been asked where I might go in the event of an emergency. Unfortunately, I am not sure just who would put up with me. Maybe the ol pork chop. “Be obedient to those who are taking the lead among YOU and be submissive, for they are keeping watch over YOUR souls as those who will render an account; that they may do this with joy and not with sighing, for this would be damaging to YOU.” - Hebrews 13:17 Whole lotta sighin over there in Jack’s congregation.

Well, I do. I tracked her down and addressed her post, both on her forum and mine. https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2019/05/misrepresenting-jw-child-abuse-policy.html

It is only because of the quick wording that the message might be taken that way. He scribbled it hastily to a handful of close people that he thought he knew well, people who would not take offense at his quirky way of phrasing matters. He had no idea that Jack was among them and was going to go squealing with it like a two-year old to the WorldWideMedia forum so that 1984-obsessed people could hoo-haw over it. “How can the shepherd say to the Master that he doesn’t know where the sheep are?” one elder put it.

Is it overzealous and crass? Of course. You never know the emotional state of grieving persons. But overzealous and crass people are to be found everywhere and we all must deal with them Still, nobody seems overly concerned about it other than Jack and his co-irreligionist. My guess is that 8 out of 10 people would roll their eyes at this and dismiss it as well-meaning but the work of somewhat kooky people. 1 out 10 would actually appreciate it, for it is not as though the question is irrelevant. For the sake of the remaining 1 out of 10, deeply grieving who will take it wrong—perhaps atheists, which anyone has the right to be—one ought not do it—blanketing the cemetery. However, I have obtained a rare copy of the Ryan Bible Translation that addresses some of Jack’s concerns. ”Jesus said: “Roll away that stone.” Mary was offended that he should have the nerve to prey on her when she was emotionally vulnerable... With that, they rolled it away. Jesus peered inside, shrugged, and said to Mary: “Sorry about your loss.” It is all very well for you to renounce God, Jack, That doesn’t mean that the whole wide world must do it also. It is as though he would chastise Ponce de Leon for searching for the fountain of youth. The idiot. Why didn’t he search for the fountain of death instead?

Ah. There lies the problem. Had you used a parachute you would not have landed on your head. (Okay, TrueTom, don’t be mean. You must admit that the ol pork chop has given a good answer.)

Are you sure that it is not you and sanity that are two ENTIRELY different things?

How coherent can it be? It is entirely based on an article that is factually wrong.

If he truly fancies himself a shepherd of the sheep, that is exactly what a shepherd would do.