TrueTomHarley

There were a crazy number of mistakes - typos, misspellings, juxtaposed words, and so forth in No Fake News and Dear Mr. Putin. I was chasing those around for the longest time. It is ever so hard to proof your own writing, because you read, not what is there, but what you THINK is there. There were very few in ’TrueTom vs the Apostate!’ because I wrote in a different venue, with no thought of connecting it at first, and proofed it as I went along. I have also discovered that putting it on a blog first and proofing it on a device- the smaller the better - is a tremendously effective tool. Even so, I have made some corrections to TrueTom and added two entire new chapters, one on the Christensen trial coming right down to the wire (Chichalov speculates that the court keeps delaying a verdict because it is in a panic over the import of Putin words:) and one chapter on a 1933 Ruthrford letter to the Fuhrer.

The trouble with this view is that the only way to know that a person is anointed is that he or she says he is.

Paul’s endlessly run-on sentences are unmistakable. I often imitate him, except I tend to lose my way in the middle and sometimes don’t emerge until days later, whereas he generally came out the other end without undue fuss. Only recently did it dawn on me that Paul, as the scholar, connects all the dots to the Hebrew Scriptures in a way that fishermen could not be expected to, thus bringing his ‘gift to the altar’ to such an extent that persons who have never seen real unity, and thus cannot imagine it, credit him with practically forming a new religion.

I believe it was at a District Convention, and the speaker was exhorting those not to believe every dumb thing, when the he related the one about the sole Witness walking the gritty streets at night with all the Society’s money and how he escaped mugging on account of the huge angels walking alongside. ”What was he doing alone at night with all the Society’s money?” the speaker said. “I’m sure the Society would like to know.” I’ll overlook this bit of clumsiness just once. The byline for ‘TrueTom vs the Apostates!’ is a Dylan line: “The game is the same, it’s just up on another level.” It is best to blame things like this on autocorrect. May its inventor rot in hello.

In fairness, he has downvoted me, and he will no longer have occasion to downvote @James Thomas Rook Jr.. For the next year, James says, we will hear nothing from him...zip...zero...nada...as he writes the successor to Asimov’s trilogy. Of course, I am keeping a sharp eye out for that work. I may already have spotted it in a recent novel of a mysterious visit from a planet of apostates! “We come in peace,” they say slyly upon deboarding their craft. “See? We have shaved our beards. Take us to your leaders. How many are there of them now? Seven? Eight?” I don’t trust them. There is a earthing character whom everyone likes named TrueTim. He approaches and extends a hand of welcome, only to be savagely rebuffed. “Get your hands off us, you damned dirty ape!” they bellow.

Who is this newcomer so skilled in verbiage... and strange tongues?

“Mornin boys,” Fred greeted the room. “They say it’s going to be cold in the MidWest for the next two days, mighty cold.” At once two thirds of those in the room voted with him that it would be so. And then.... sigh... I guess not.

“I was hanging in the suana with Fred thumbing a soggy copy of Ray’s book that Dan had squirreled out of the safe, hoping Albert wouldn’t go off on some spiel on UFOs or whatever, and that he would postpone his latest jetting around the globe gig, where he always made me ride baggage class, when...” uh oh, I’m not that sufficiently gets the job done.

There is a certain Paulesqe quality here that is not such a bad thing at all - the ability to be content with an abundance or a lack.

“Western media excoriates him, but we should not let the propaganda of one king mold our view of the other. I was very careful, in writing the book, Dear Mr. Putin – Jehovah’s Witnesses Write Russia, not to do that. In the event it was ever read by anyone that mattered, I did not want to sabotage it by being disrespectful or accusing. “It wasn’t that hard to do—for example, by spotlighting the two, likely three, times that Russia, not the United States, saved the world from certain nuclear war. Lieutenant Colonel Petrov spotted an incoming missile from the U.S, judged it a malfunction, and against orders, did not relay the report to the excitable Kremlin. Second-in-command Vasili Arkhipov refused to sign-off with his two fellow officers to launch a nuclear attack during the Cuban missile crisis—the decision had to be unanimous. Nikita Khrushchev arguably brought that crisis to a close with his last-minute telegram to President Kennedy. ”However, in refraining from criticizing Putin personally, I was not just being expedient. I honestly came to feel it not likely that he was one of the instigators. I admit that feeling wavered in view of the abuses of the last few months, with Witnesses physically accosted by police, but now it intensifies. Promisingly, he is not cut from the same cloth as many in high government. He was not born to privilege in the ruling class. He started from the ground up, as a regular office worker, and lived with his parents during the early days of his working life. He thus probably retains a feel for the interests of the ‘common man’ that his co-rulers do not. In the end, it hardly matters, because ‘the heart of a king is as streams of water’ inJehovah’s hands. But it helps if it is neither ice cubes nor steam to begin with.”

Not to worry. All is well.

The reason I asked about her is that the brother who aided me into the truth later became an opposer. Along with his wife, they both left the congregation. They afterwards divorced. Years later his wife returned and she is an active Witness now in another state. So I wondered about Franz’s wife, not that I was in any way equating the two couples.

Dennis Christensen “has spent the last 20 months in a cold cell with suspected drug dealers and only been allowed to meet his wife, separated by bars and a corridor, twice a month. If convicted, he could spend up to a decade in jail,” writes Andrew Osborn for Reuters. How much do you want to bet that those drug dealers now know their Bibles quite well? Alas, that may make them more unwelcome in Russia than had they landed the area distribution franchise for Drugs-R-Us. He must have his moments of despondency. He must. But you would never know it. He is serene in appearances, and sometimes even cheerful. Jehovah’s Witnesses could not have wished for better examples to face the Russian bear than he and his wife Irene. See how he typifies the spirit of 1 Peter 2:23: “Christ suffered...leaving you a model for you to follow his steps closely....When he was being reviled, he did not go reviling in return. When he was suffering, he did not go threatening, but kept on committing himself to the one who judges righteously.” Has he wavered in his love for his adopted homeland? He “does not regret that he moved to live in Russia. ‘It is one of the best decisions that I have made in my life, and it brought me much happiness,’” he tells the Reuters reporter. This despite his being anything but starry eyed. “To call me or other peaceful Jehovah's Witnesses extremists is the greatest stupidity that I have ever heard!" he says. “Of course I hope that he (the judge) will be just," he said. "But I also know which country I’ve been living in." Only a month ago, President Putin, when asked, stated that the equating of Jehovah’s Witnesses with terrorists was “of course...complete nonsense,” something “you need to carefully deal with,” and later, “so this should be looked into” since “Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christians, too.” We may soon learn just how carefully he means to deal with and look at it, as the time of Dennis’ sentencing has arrived. As for Irena, “I’m not afraid of anything and Dennis is not afraid either,” she told Reuters. I have never seen a picture of him in which he is not mild, even we’ll dressed. He actually broke into song at one hearing via Internet, before the guard told him to shut up. Could one ask for a better example? The symbolism is complete. His surname points to the one he follows. Even his carpenter profession lines up. Even his last project as a free man spotlights the idiocy of branding him an “extremist”—building a playground for the community children. Would members of the only other group in Russia officially designated “extremist,” ISIS, also build a playground for the community children? Maybe, but it would be a long time gaining my trust to let my children play on it. On January 23, the prosecutor requested a sentence of 6 years and 6 months in prison. Why not add 6 days to the request to make it a nice, biblical 666? It's déjà vu for Jehovah’s Witnesses in that country, whose period of freedom has lasted only 17 years. “The only difference is that at that time [of the Soviet Union] they were called 'enemies of the people'. Now they are called 'extremists'," says Irena. Journalist Osborn does what all journalists must do. He probes for the actual reason that Jehovah’s Witnesses are opposed. Usually all one must do in such cases is read the charges of the prosecution, but here in the Christensen case the charges are ridiculous, and the ‘crimes’ easily refuted. So Osborn hits on one spot of contention after another, but presently puts his finger on the real trigger: “Russia has been the most outspoken in portraying it as an extremist cult.” He refers, perhaps unknowingly, to a burgeoning anti-cult movement which finds conditions fertile in Russia for a perfect storm, but which is active everywhere. The reason that Putin declares it complete nonsense to call Witnesses “extremist” is because it is. As such, he and his in government would never have dreamt of doing such a thing. However much any of them may dislike Jehovah’s Witnesses, ISIS has taught them what extremism is. They are not so stupid as to confuse the two. Likewise, the dominant Russian Orthodox Church did not originate the ban against the Witnesses. That is not to say that some of them did not squeal with delight like kids on Christmas morning, but it was not their idea. The thinkers there are not particularly happy about it, for the same set of laws that declare it a crime to proclaim the superiority of one’s religion in the case of Jehovah’s Witnesses might easily be turned against them. No, problems with the Church and the suspicious government merely make for excellent tinder. The spark that sets it off Osborn identifies with: “Russia has been the most outspoken in portraying it as an extremist cult.” It is a determined anti-cult movement that sets the match to the tinder. It is not even Russian originated, but like Bolshevism itself, is a Western import. Religion writer Joshua Gill has outlined how a French NGO dedicated to protecting people from ideas considered socially destructive—the manifest goal of anti-cultism--sent a well-known emissary to Russia who spread that view with missionary zeal, maximizing his existing status with the Russian Orthodox Church. The anti-cult movement ever seeks to extend its reach. Only in Russia does it find conditions ripe for the perfect storm, but its influence is afoot everywhere. The match was even literal in 2018 Washington State, where six attacks resulted in two Kingdom Halls burnt to the ground. Of course, that is not the intent—to incite violence. Anti-cultists speak against it, for the most part. But when you yell “CULT!” in a crowded theater, who can say what will happen? The correct term, non-incendiary and chosen by scholars for just that reason, is "new religious movement." Assembling material in preparation for ‘Dear Mr. Putin – Jehovah’s Witnesses Write Russia,’ I became more and more convinced that the anti-cult movement was behind it all, and it is a conviction that has only strengthened since. In the book’s introduction, I wrote: “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.” I even went on to caution members of my own faith” “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.” That caution is repeated, with even greater applicability, in the newer ebook ‘TrueTom vs the Apostates!’ The book is not recommended to all Witnesses. Read it if you want a specific reply to charges laid against the faith. For those able to focus upon forward motion only, the book is not recommended. For those not, it is. The line that invariably gets the largest applause at Regional Conventions of Jehovah’s Witnesses is: “Would you like to send your greetings to the brothers in Bethel [headquarters]?” The hard work and integrity of these ones is appreciated by all. So not everyone will feel the need to check out every derogatory report. In some respects, the Witness organization appears to this writer to be out of step with regard to the attacks it faces today. With a long history of persevering in the face of religious threats to stomp it out of existence, it seems slow to acknowledge that religions are mostly licking their wounds these days, and it is the irreligious world, with anti-cultists in the vanguard, that most vehemently presses for its downfall. See Reuters article, by Andrew Osborn And one from BBC Russia, by Viktor Nekhezin

What became of his wife? I never hear about her.

It is hard for me to imagine how the brothers, or anyone for that matter, manage to endure such situations that you describe. Perhaps our turn will come someday, or if not in that way, in some other way.

I’d only do it for Anna and JWI. And even for them there would be height limitations.

I think that this is entirely the wrongheaded approach, to look at the shortcomings, real or imagined, of those taking the lead. Instead, you should look at what they alone have managed to accomplish. The best man at my wedding was a man 15 years my senior, crude in some respects, but he taught me how to look over a used car before purchase so as not to get fleeced. He was a lifelong mechanic with an uncanny instinct for instant diagnosis. He told me about a time when the book & computer, but not common-sense, young mechanics were unsuccessfully trying to fix a car. They had reached an impasse. All the diagnostics they ran confirmed that there was nothing wrong with the car. “There must be SOMETHING wrong with it,” Bud said, “since it doesn’t run.” He found the problem promptly & and it was some quirky thing not mentioned in any book. With the GB, the situation is just the opposite. You can scrutinize them for all the dumb things that you think they are doing, the things that you have proclaimed “a big worry.” Or you can look at and say “They must be doing SOMETHING right, since it DOES run.” Whatever is or is not “wrong” with them, if history is any guide, they or theirs will fix. It will not be “debate” with someone who has demonstrated only a mastery of the “harangue” that will do the trick.

You seem to correctly anticipate that I have still not read his book. Though I read all the time, I have read very little of this sort of material, which might seem surprising since I have written four books in support of Witnesses and their organization I could spin this as being 'obedient,' I guess, and it is that in part. But in greater part it is that I look at such material almost as red herrings that distract. Everyone has a history. Everyone has had experiences. Everyone has acted or not acted upon them. It's not people that count, ultimately, but God, and having been around long enough, you can pick up on and originate words that adhere to the 'pattern of healthful teachings' that Paul spoke about. The doings of others just distract, as they pursue their own service and relationship to God. As long as you do not become obstinate with regard to the earthly organization, you do fine (usually). If you do not, you take your licks, dust yourself off, pay whatever price you must, and get back into the mix. Maybe that will be your fate someday. Maybe (gasp!) it will be mine. But I think not in either case. If it should prove to be, the 'damage' is repairable. Almost everything on every thread here (at least the ones I frequent) are advancing or defending against an attempt to undermine the earthly organization. The appeal of undermining it is irresistible. That way, if you don't like something, you simply 'interpret it away' and there is no one to call you on it. No harm done. For once I will do a Butler and say that I am looking at things that are too great for me. What is the interplay of the divine/human interface? It's not anything that I am willing to say "this is" and "this isn't." Become minute enough and one might say that there is no interplay at all - that it is all but human politics, but then how does one account for the truly monumental building work that JWs have accomplished in worldwide support of the good news, a coordinated 'shout of praise' that nobody else manages to get off the launching pad? No, I think "too great for me" is where I will hold. 'Acquiescing' appears to be where it is at. For many decades now the emphasis has been on elder bodies reaching unanimous agreement, an almost impossible feat for humans to manage, and then, the 'losing' side to refrain from criticizing the 'winners,' with unity being the important consideration. It wasn't something that I was much good at, and if some 'blockheaded' brother won the day, I was hard-pressed to not carry on about it afterwards. Still, I managed to do it to a reasonable degree. Furious. The little creep. I don't have it in for him for writing his book, nor even his title. After a lifetime at Bethel, leaving with but a suitcase, what else is he going to do? I am even reasonably charitable towards a former Witness turned movie-maker that I write about in my book. He must be given credit, if only begrudgingly, for redefining the game. It is still winnable--how can it not be with Jehovah?--but it may call for a new approach in dealing with the malcontents.

Maybe what rankles is the title, Crisis of Conscience. Isn’t that a bit self-aggrandizing? Why not name it “Memo From One Whose Eyes Are Too Pure to Look Upon Trouble, Though it Apparently Doesn’t Bother My Colleages Any”? Now, had he named it TrueRay vs the Stalwarts, it would be a different thing entirely

You can get around that problem by being internally consistent.

Do you know of any other kind?

When they distributed food items at the Assembly Hall, I was placed in charge of the crew. A popular item was “a pasta salad.” I must have rechristened it a hundred times as “an apostasy salad” - long before I ever heard of The Librarian, and perhaps even the Internet.

There are at least six chapters on the topic. Failing to acquiesce to your point of view is not a crime, particularly when you repeatedly point out that you are but a simple man with limited education, and that many things are over your head, and that (the obvious upshot) you really don’t understand anything about anything at all, but you do know what you like and don’t like and you want your rants to carry the day.

A former Witness who departed for atheism expressed amazement that her former faith, oddball and backwater in her revisionist eyes, would become front & center on the world stage. Yet it has happened with Jehovah’s Witnesses, in both Russia and the West, for completely separate reasons. “Therefore settle it in your hearts not to rehearse beforehand how to make your defense...”. Luke 21:14 Actually I did rehearse a little. For the book ‘Dear Mr. Putin - Jehovah’s Witnesses Write Russia,’ I rehearsed it here, and I am grateful to both @admin and @The Librarian (the old hen) for providing the forum that made it possible...a forum in which ‘heroes’ and ‘villains’ freely intermingle. A writer needs more than a muse. He also needs a ‘villain,’ and here there are many. I never dreamed that a second book would come out of the forum, but come out it did (aided by Twitter). The title is even inspired by The Librarian (a fine woman), even though I was initially aggravated that she should assign me to head up that so-named thread, ‘TrueTom vs the Apostates’...I mean, it’s not as though I went out of my way to pick fights with these characters. All is forgiven now, and I have the sense...a big deal for someone who pretends to be a writer...of ‘bringing my gift to the altar’....defending the faith against attacks in Russia, and now in the West: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/917311 No cheap shots. No one disrespected. No patronizing. No ‘You’ll be sorrys.’ No one called a liar. As good a behavior as can be expected from a PIMI amidst many POMOs. Both ebooks are free.

“Now when they heard these things, they acquiesced, and they glorified God, saying: “Well, then, God has granted repentance for the purpose of life to people of the nations also.” (Acts 11:18) “When he would not be dissuaded, we acquiesced with the words: “Let the will of Jehovah take place.” (Acts 21:14) Sometimes a guy just has to acquiesce. There’s not enough acquiescing goin on here. When I wrote ‘TrueTom vs the Apostates’ I could have gone one of two ways: ‘apostates’ who remained believers and those who went atheistic. I went the latter - the only group I could get my head around. The former produces nothing more than ineffectual islands, so far as I can tell. It’s fine not to acquiesce if you want to give up on God. But you must if you don’t want to give up on him.