TrueTomHarley

These amounts are generally reduced upon appeal and sometimes thrown out entirely, as was the previous record-holder. The much ballyhooed $4000 a day penalty imposed by some court, which ultimately became a substantial sum, was thrown out by a higher court as judicial overreach, just as @AllenSmith34, practically alone as I recall, said. In that regard, although chased around so much that he had to employ 100 aliases, though nobody else suffers too much for being offensive, he proved himself the MVP of the forum. Nevertheless, I would never say that they are nothing, nor that they do not add up. Time will tell. It may be that our version of truth will prevail in time and not yours. Will Jehovah go to bat for those who, to the best of their ability, carry out his will? If he does, it will be like putting his finger on the scales. So substantial is his finger that whoever sits on the opposite scale goes hurtling off into oblivion. To the extent that you succeed in your goal you impede the most selfless and efficient disaster relief program the world has known. Will God allow that? Time will tell. Please don't carry on about 'they only help fellow Witnesses.' The reason that they only (for the most part) help fellow Witnesses is that they are mostly volunteers using vacation time, and cannot do everyone. The best they can to is to set an example in selflessness that others can follow, if their heart moves them. So far, their example is not followed by others, who prefer established charities where everyone must be paid and sometimes unbelievable waste occurs. Such as here: https://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-red-cross-raised-half-a-billion-dollars-for-haiti-and-built-6-homes This is the model you have chosen, John. Half a million dollars. Almost all of it flushed down the toilet. Embrace it, John. It's yours. JTR too, I think, for he has also waxed enthusiastic over the prospect that the JW relief work may be slowed.

What is the phone number of your WT conductor?

I managed to torpedo even that. After the paragraphs carrying on and on about Tom’s misguided suspicions, I raised my hand and said: ‘In hindsight I was embarrassed over the whole thing, and I’m glad that I didn’t blow the brother in.’

Well, I certainly donÂ’t see any downside here. IÂ’ll just put back on the shelf that Twilight Zone episode, ‘To Serve Man,Â’ and be on my way.  Say, did you hear that the report that Bethel was on the ropes was completely phony. Apostates had orgasms over that report, I recall, and every opposer here, even many of the faithful, swallowed it hook, line, and sinker. There really is something to be said for that recent study article on avoiding the liars. Â

Actually he probably was. Not exclusively, but that was probably in the mix. Jesus said they would be “lyingly saying every sort of wicked thing” about his followers. History records they were accused of cannibalism. While not pedophilia?

What! Do you think I’m kidding? Yes, of course IÂ’m going to link to it. ItÂ’s unbelievable. Covert says: “Hey guys, please read the correction below. Really sorry this slipped through, and weÂ’ll tighten our process to make sure we donÂ’t repeat it. Again, apologies everyone. WellÂ….probably no big deal, and after all, he did apologize. LetÂ’s see what this is all about. His friend Lloyd says of his previous ‘reportÂ’: “Thanks so much for the kind comments. We really enjoyed putting this episode together and IÂ’m glad many of you seem to be finding it helpful and informative. Unfortunately, I need to offer an apology and a retraction. A trusted source passed on information to us that got included in the show notes but later proved to be incorrect. Specifically, the schedule of talks from which I was reading (including themes having to do with reduction and ‘centralizationÂ’ of branches) was apparently written by an ex-JW and was purely speculative and/or intended for satire [edÂ…it was a lie] Though we can see the funny side, we also take the accuracy and truthfulness of our work extremely seriously so I have edited out the relevant parts (edits may take a while to process and we are taking a close look at how we can more thoroughly vet our sources in the future. I can only apologize to the thousands of you who have already heard the incorrect information. The last thing we want to do is remotely contribute to affirming the “lying apostate” stereotype by passing on spurious information and we will certainly learn our lesson here. Thank you for your understanding on this.” Of course! I understood perfectly, and I instantly dismissed it all as ‘just one of those things.Â’ I did this even though it was the apostate lie ‘heard around the worldÂ’ and if you had tapped their phones and been listening in to some of them, you would have thought they were having sex in there, so loud were the orgasms. What was causing the ‘reduction and centralization of branches,Â’ according to the retracted report, was the fantastic news that the Watchtower was on the ropes financially and just a few more successful lawsuits would topple them for good. This is the stated goal of many of them, to litigate their former religious organization out of existence, and this glorious bit of ‘newsÂ’ was more welcome to them than if their team had, not only won the Super Bowl, but had been conceded the championship for the next hundred years. However, Lloyd is so responsible. He says he does not “remotely want to contribute to the ‘lying apostateÂ’ stereotype,” as though he is genuinely amazed that anybody could ever think such a thing, but just to be sure, he will take action to eliminate this mother of all lies and not repeat it again. I hope you understand. Look, if they ever succeeded in their stated goal of litigating the Watchtower out of existence, they would be proving themselves friends of child sexual abuse. There is good reason to think that JehovahÂ’s Witnesses enjoy considerable success in preventing it within their ranks, though with InvisibleChildren.org reporting that one out of five American children will be suffer molestation before 18, they clearly are not going to ever snuff it out. If they have enjoyed some success, then spread around whatever they have, and others will enjoy some success. It is not rocket science. It is not even ‘GodÂ’s spirit.Â’ If you hammer away at anything long enough, some of it sinks in. Relentlessly they teach family values over there in Witness-land, and they are the only organization on earth to have gathered each and every member via their 2017 summer convention and there consider detailed scenarios in which child abuse might occur, so that parents, the obvious first line of defense, can be vigilant. Moreover, since so much child sexual abuse occurs in settings of youth groups, surely it helps that they have no such segregation They donÂ’t even do Sunday School. You know, I donÂ’t really question LloydÂ’s sincerity in ferreting out an obvious lie, but I guarantee that he led the way with wet dreams when he heard that his former religion was on the ropes. Moreover, it improves matters only to a slight degree on his forum to take the blatant lie out, for the rest of it abounds with distortions of truth. They are often distortions hard-to-spot in a world gone increasingly atheistic. That is why I have declared him (for now) my #1 opponent and have written posts undercutting the hate that he spreads. For example, there is this article about women in abusive relationships. Is this hard on me? WellÂ…you know the expression that a writer needs a muse? He also needs a villain. Lloyd is dumbfounded at the moniker ‘lying apostate.Â’ How could anyone think that? He is also offended should anyone connect him with the atrocities against religious people in Russia, my own first of all, they alone are under ban and declared extremists, a label they share only with ISIS. No! He will not be accused. Why, he has spoken out against it. But of his anti-cultist-in-spirit, one Alexander Dvorkin, who aggressively pushes there just what he pushes here and is affiliated with anti-cultists in France, a human-rights expert has stated: “He enjoys disseminating inflammatory narratives and hate speech.” It is no different with Lloyd and his buddies. When you spew hate speech, eventually there arise people who act upon it. And what will he say then? ‘Hey guys, just want to let you know that we released the hounds of hell and they did more damage than we ever intended. Sorry.Â’  Â

HeÂ’s got a point there. The trick is not to primarily speak to him, but to speak to whatever audience may be in the background.

You make a start by following as many contrasting sources as you can on Twitter. Don’t just follow the ‘home team.’ Also, cover as many different disciplines as you can.

Why do you think I am called TrueTom?

If I from time to time poke mild fun at @admin, it is nothing to the fun I poke at the Librarian, the old hen. It is riotous. She really is a Jehovah's Witness, I think, though certainly an avant-guard one. She used to have for a banner an interior photo of a magnificent library; I thought it was the Library of Congress, but she told me it was some university library. It was gorgeous. Nonetheless, by degrees I have been able to portray her before the world as a petty mean school librarian, who really doesn't like children, but she is too arthritic and just plain tired to do much about it when they misbehave. Moreover, she is frequently on the bottle, and while she knows her pupils are tittering behind her back, and sometimes right in front of her, she spends most of her days counting down to her retirement. The strange thing about all of this is that she is actually a man. No, not a transgendered man; don't even go there. We started this gag long before transgenderism took the world by storm. @The Librarian and I made a deal long ago after she unfairly accused me of hawking my first ebook, Tom Irregardless and Me, on her forum. It was inexcusable for her to do this and the only conceivable reason that I can think of to excuse her vile accusation is that I was hawking my first ebook, Tom Irregardless and Me, on her forum. I have been very careful not to ever do this again, which is a shame because it is an excellent ebook, and unlike Dear Mr. Putin - Jehovah's Witnesses Write Russia, it is not free. I actually make a buck off it. Maybe no small thing for you, but a big deal for me. Do you have any idea of how my wife goes through money? So crack open your wallet and buy the thing already, will you? As books go, it is not pricey. https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/686882 The Librarian would scream at me for this, normally. But here I am in her library, her bad boy pupil, but her pupil nonetheless, and she has not shown up for work yet. I think she may have fallen off the wagon once again.

Of course! People want a universe that's good. Instead, they get one that sucks. They are bummed over this. Whatever is wrong with them? Are you sure you are a Witness? I mean, even as a renegade one, I don't see how it can be. Does the JTR version of Jehovah's Witnesses really read that life just gets better and better, until God from his heavens says: "I was going to chastise these fine people? Whatever was I thinking?" and then goes off to see if 'Gone Fishing' has an empty spot?

Exactly! Like the skyrocketing suicide rate of the young, who somehow don’t buy this bilge about life just getting better and better & decide to register their discomfort in the most telling way possible.

It is too early for @admin. He gets up late and then has to putz around for some time before checking the mail. I’ll answer for him. As Monk says, he’ll thank me later. Somewhat reluctantly, he finds himself hosting a religious JW forum, though he is not that way himself. No JWs on it are typical JWs because if they were typical they would be more acquiesent to their organization’s preference they not take part in such forums. One important reason their organization prefers that they abstain is the undignified mess that results when they do not. For a variety of reasons, some Witnesses go there anyway, and, to be sure, there are parts of the forum largely innocuous. I avoid these parts and go right to the hot areas. It has helped me hone my writing, and about half of my ebook, Dear Mr. Putin - Jehovah’s Witnesses Write Russia, can be found in about 500 fragments scattered throughout. Mr. Admin is thereby my friend. I owe him. As atypical JWs and their adversaries flail away, making points and counterpoints, some ridiculous, he has ‘lost it’ only twice to rebuke participants, once to say: “Jeez, you guys are a piece of work!” What could I tell him. That we’re not? It is so rare for him to chime in that when he does, it is like hearing a voice from On High. The only appreciable difference is that a voice from On High is unlikely to say, “Jeez, you guys are a piece of work.”

I think @admin will not mind this. it is clearly relevant and he is mentioned. Of course, he wants to keep traffic on his page. Every forum host does. That is why I do not seek to undermine his interests. I allow no comments on mine. Anyone wanting to do so must come back here. My post even links back to him. http://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2018/10/high-praise-for-chuckles.html

Believe me, you have nothing to worry about. It's unbelievable what they put up with around here. Even @admin holds his nose and endures. 'Well, the nutcakes are driving traffic to my site,' he says. His occasions for rebuke are rare. I can think of only one other time, when he said: "Jeez, you guys are a piece of work!" Ha! What could I tell him? That we're not? Tell him, Admin. Reassure the fellow. He means to stick around for a while, it appears. And he makes sense. Tell him 100 louts will go before you even think about tossing him.

I wouldn’t worry about that. They are quite indulgent. From what I have seen of your manners, it will snow in you-know-where before you have any trouble from the bossman If you are a Witness, as are some here, you might want to avoid it due to the association. Don’t look to me to set the good example in this regard. I am being a bad boy, beyond all question. if it helps, I am considered a good boy in all other matters.

I did NOT say you are loony. (Or did I?) What I said was that you so closely resemble loony that I cannot tell the difference. See? I am willing to put the onus on myself. Imagine. Here I propose what has never been proposed before, at least by me, making a magnificent concession, and the big baby just keeps saying hateful things about the Christian organization.

I am not entirely sure of the meaning here, but it seems more and more likely that @admin had specific persons in mind when he blew his top at everyone, and that I was the one to sass him back, though I was the least of all targets. I do use humor a lot, sometimes to deflate those I think are whiners or windbags, (always on the other side of course, but this almost need not be said; none of my people would ever carry on this way) and humor often does not translate well. Ah well, if it is, it is. I’m not going to apologize to him again; I already did. I don’t necessarily read all comments closely, or even at all, before commenting. You cannot deduce everything through forensic methods. I miss some things. The threads drive me nuts, too, some of it. Admin and I may have more in common than he thinks.

Elizabeth Chuck wrote an article about Jehovah’s Witnesses and I would have preferred she write one instead about the PTA meeting in her town. It is a normal reaction, for it was news of a huge-dollar verdict against a religious organization I hold dear. Of course I hate to see it; that’s only natural. When you find yourself on the gallows you do not angle for a selfie with the hangman. Still, if you must hear bad news, hear it from Ms. Chuck, for her news in this case is straight reporting, not one of the hatchet jobs we often get. The topic is the most white-hot topic of all, child sexual abuse, and temptations to whip it into fever pitch are not resisted by all. She does resist it. That’s not to say I might not write it up differently. With every story, it is a matter of which facts you put where. But she doesn’t make any up or deliberately misrepresent them. Having said that, it is not to suggest that even those who do misrepresent do so on purpose, as I will outline. Well…I guess it is to suggest that, but only to suggest. It is not proof positive. When your own people merely say that they ‘abhor child abuse and strive to protect children’, but otherwise do not comment, what’s a reporter to do? Here’s what I like about the Elizabeth Chuck story. First of all, it is not like the Matt Volz AP article, picked up by many sources, that expressed seeming bewilderment that “the Jehovah’s Witness cases haven’t received the same national attention” [as the Roman Catholic Church]. Is not the reason a big ‘Duh’? The Montana case abuse under trial was all within a family and church leaders were accused of botching the handling of it, though blameless themselves. It’s a little different than church leaders actually committing the abuse, something which is very rare with Witnesses. Ms. Chuck correctly (and atypically) makes clear that a “two-witness rule” used by Witnesses “is only for internal modes of discipline and does not prevent a victim from going to the police.” She correctly points out that “there are very strict internal modes of discipline within Jehovah's Witnesses.” Yes. It is not an anything-goes religion. She correctly observes that being disfellowshipped is often a painful experience and serves as a negative incentive to do what might trigger it. So far so good. It might not be as I would phrase it, but it is certainly acceptable reporting. She stumbles briefly, though not seriously, when she says: “Jehovah's Witnesses are a misunderstood and very self-enclosed group, despite counting some celebrities among its ranks — including Venus and Serena Williams.” She is right that they are misunderstood. The only footnote I would add is about her seeming acquiescence to the common wisdom that groups are validated by having celebrities in their camp, many of whom are among the most silly people on earth, living radically different lives than anyone else. However, the miscue is minor, and, after all, I make use of poor Serena Williams, too. Ms. Chuck does her homework. She consults experts on religion, such as “Mark Silk, a professor and the director of the Greenberg Center for the Study of Religion in Public Life at Trinity College in Hartford, Conn [who says of Witnesses] ‘They don't vote. They don't celebrate birthdays and holidays. They don't say the pledge [of allegiance]. They are not just another Christian denomination.’” It is not her fault if she does not know that the guy (likely) has it in for us, spinning his facts negatively, and the reason is revealed in his very job title: he is a professor at Trinity College. If you do not accept the Trinity teaching, you are toast in the eyes of many of these people. Nonetheless, what the professor about voting and not pledging allegiance is true enough. He does not mention that if nobody pledged allegiance to human institutions maybe the national king could not pit them so easily against each other in times of war, but that is beyond the scope of his information request. At least he doesn’t inaccurately charge that Jehovah’s Witnesses are disrespectful to country, for there are few people as scrupulous about ‘rendering to Caesar what is Caesar’s’ (taxes) than they. Reporter Chuck relates the words of another expert: “"Whatever belief they have or mode of internal discipline they have, they have a biblical justification for it.” I’ll take it. It’s true. We don’t apologize for it. I prefer it infinitely over church reporters saying we are not Christian because we do not accept the Trinity. The reason we not accept it is that its scriptural support is based almost entirely upon taking literally certain passages which, if they were seen in any other context, would be instantly dismissed as figure of speech. She relates dutifully the sparse words of the Watchtower organization that they “abhor child abuse and strive to protect children from such acts,” attributing the sparseness to “a penchant for privacy.” She takes it at face value. She does not imply that they are lying through their teeth, like Mr. Gambacorta did in the Philadelphia Inquirer, dismissing the words as ‘boiler plate,’ and even ending his article with an anecdote of spying artwork at the JW headquarters captioned ‘Jehovah loves children,’ and using it as a pretext to wink at his readers as though to say: ‘Yes, I guess we know just how they love them’ before returning to his Witness-hating base on a Reddit thread, where he is hailed as a hero. He made me so mad that I responded by letter, and when it was ignored I put it online (and I wish it got more play than it actually does, for it is good, not the whole picture perhaps, but what is? It represents facts not exactly shouted from the rooftops. It offers perspectives not heard anywhere else.) However, eclipsing her skill at side-stepping all these landmines is that she puts her finger on the real problem in the very first paragraph of her article: Jehovah’s Witnesses are ‘insular.’ She doesn’t even try to spin that into a crime, as do some. Most Witnesses would not agree to the label ‘insular’, but that is primarily because they are unfamiliar with it and unsure just what attachments might come with it. They will instantly, even proudly, acknowledge two closely related phrases: they are ‘separate from the world’ and ‘no part of’ it. It is a scriptural imperative, they will say, because if you want to lend a helping hand, you must be in a place of safety yourself. Not all will agree that life today is constantly-improving. Some will say the overall picture more closely resembles the Titanic floundering. Did I not just read that generalized anxiety has replaced depression as the number one mental health malady? Can that be because there is nothing to worry about in life today? I think not. It is the ramifications of these two views, society is ever-improving vs floundering, that causes most of the ‘misunderstanding’ that opponents of Witnesses speak of. Witnesses are ‘insular,’ biblically mandated, and here is an instance where that insularity has contributed to a significant tragedy. Witness leaders find themselves in a situation parallel to certain vehicles being exempt from normal traffic laws—say, cops and fire emergency vehicles. Yet, in making use of that exemption, a terrible accident results and the public outcry is so great that they are convicted even though following the law. Or, to apply it more accurately, public anger is so great that the law is reinterpreted so it can be established that they did break it. I am not a lawyer. I can quickly step out of my depth. Yet most persons reading this section of the Montana child abuse reporting laws would, I suspect, agree that the Witness organization followed the letter of the law as stated. They make every effort to do that. The prompt appeal of any Witness judicial committee to their Branch organization is not to see how they can evade child abuse laws, as their opponents often spin it, but how they can be sure their actions are in harmony with them. On the very bottom of the document ‘Montana Mandatory Reporting Requirements Regarding Children’ is a section labeled "Members of the clergy or priests are not required to report when the following condition is met....a member of the clergy or a priest is not required to make a report if the communication is required to be confidential by cannon law, church doctrine, or established church practice.” Even “established church practice?” It seems extraordinarily loose, and yet there it is. It is a part of a doctrine called ‘ecclesiastical privilege.’ It has long been encapsulated into law, as has the privileged nature of the doctor-patient relationship and the attorney-client relationship, on the recognition that these relationships cannot function without the expectation of confidentiality. If such is the law, why is the Witness organization found culpable despite stringent efforts to follow it? Because the war today is against child sexual abuse, deemed the most critical crusade of our time, and they were expected to ‘go beyond the law’ so as to facilitate that end. Thus, the law was reinterpreted so as to allow that they did violate it. The Witness organization finds itself in a situation similar to that of Joe Paterno, the coach who was universally praised throughout his life as an excellent role model but then was excoriated beyond redemption when he merely obeyed the law regarding an unspecific allegation he heard of child sexual abuse but did not 'go beyond it.' He followed it. He reported the allegation to his superiors. But he did not ‘go beyond the law,’ reporting it directly to police. When the allegation turned out to be true, his career was over, and even his life, for he died two years later. If it is so crucial to ‘go beyond the law,’ then make that the law. This is exactly what Geoffrey Jackson of the Witnesses’ Governing Body pleaded for three times before an Australian Royal Commission. Isn’t that the purpose of law – to codify what is right? Make the law clear, unambiguous, and allow for no exceptions. Jehovah’s Witnesses are universally recognized for meticulously following secular law even as they are primarily guided by biblical law. Make universal mandating the law, with no exceptions. Requiring parties to ‘go beyond the law’ only enables Monday-morning quarterbacking to assign motives, invariably bad ones, to unpopular parties failing in this regard. An article in the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle dated November 20th, 2011 observed that: “it's a mistake to think that the failure…to report the abuse is a rarity....Studies over the past two decades nationally have consistently shown that nearly two-thirds of professionals who are required to report all cases of suspected abuse fail to do so....."I think that we fail miserably in mandated reporting," said Monroe County Assistant District Attorney Kristina Karle...” Is it not hopelessly chaotic to excoriate those who did their best to follow the law when two thirds of all professionals, for a variety of reasons, do not? Does anyone charge, as has been done with Jehovah's Witnesses by their opponents, that two thirds of all professionals do not give a hoot about children? Plainly there are other factors at work. Yet when the crusade against child sexual abuse reaches fever pitch only one factor is deemed to have any significance. (The Democrat and Chronicle article is behind a paywall. Snippets of the above quote exist here and there, but to my knowledge, the only complete package is found in a JoePa follow-up article I wrote at the time. All is not lost. Your employer will pay to get you behind that wall, and probably already has an account. Alas, my employer is me, and he likes to cut costs, seeing no need to return there, as he already have what he needs.) End of Part 1. Part 2 to follow soon.

Never did I dream that I would one day tussle with @admin. And now I see that I have erred in attributing to him what in actuality originated with the Librarian (the old hen). I don't revel in the role. I am very grateful to both for providing a forum in which I could hone my writing skills. I have tried to repay both. Even though I put my stuff on my blog, some of the hottest items I also reproduce here. Even should there be a link within to my blog, I entertain no comments there, thus going there may even help the folks here, since if you want to beef about anything, you must do it here. I simply want to keep all my writing under one roof. I don't care if it also appears elsewhere. I make no money on it, and even the third ebook I wrote, ‘Dear Mr. Putin- JehovahÂ’s Witnesses Write Russia, with chapter 12 entitled ‘Pedophiles,Â’ is free. Should anyone want to ‘pay me,Â’ buy the other two. To date, the overall project is a money-loser, but that is not my chief concern. I will further repay by raising a new topic that I have not raised before: "Is it Time for Jehovah's Witnesses to Apologize?" It will appear here very soon. [Edit: Okay, here it is:  ]

This is a very good point. Recently I read a report of women who had been kidnapped by ISIS. They had been exhibited in cages, driven about in the back of trucks, raped any number of times at will by multiple men , burned with cigarette butts when they resisted. THESE are the people John’s lying new friends try to equate Witnesses with? C’mon! Even @admin will cease to think this an unseamly squabble between co-religionists and recognize it for what it is: Decent people that may not be his cup of tea, though decent nonetheless, under attack from the despicable. John does have one genuine circumstance that, in some measure, excuses his unhinged hatred. He has written, here or on another thread, of a truly horrific childhood involving sexual abuse. It had nothing to do with Jehovah’s Witnesses, a faith he discovered much later. But it appears to have seared him permanently. To that extent, I can sympathize with him.

Judith, I think John is just plain loony in his single-minded obsession over one and only one thing. But I want also want to be fair to him. He was assigned the title of this thread. He did not choose it himself, and he has griped about it. It often happens that a thread starts to go in multiple directions, and then an administrator will break it up into separate threads, choosing what he thinks is the most appropriate title, oblivious to how the title subject himself may not like it. It has happened to others. After slamming some ‘apostates’ I found myself heading a thread entitled ‘TrueTom vs the Apostates’. I protested. I don’t go out of my way to pick fights with these guys. I weigh in only like Elihu, when I spot three of them beating up on my friend Job. My protest fell upon deaf ears. I was stuck with the role. So I warmed to the task and went after them with such ferocity that the same @admin that put me on the thread pulled me off it, slapped me with an A for abuse, and removed the entire thread, something I don’t think has happened before or since! Should he criticize me for ‘attacking apostates’, I say, as did the Joker to Bstman: ‘I made you? YOU MADE ME!!!’ My, what a freak I have become.

Huh! Here is another one. Where have we seen the parallel of this before? 45 Therefore, many of the Jews who had come to Mary and who saw what he did [raised Lazarus from the dead] put faith in him, 46 but some of them went off to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done. 47 So the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered the Sanʹhe·drin together and said: “What are we to do, for this man performs many signs? 48 If we let him go on this way, they will all put faith in him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.” 49 But one of them, Caʹia·phas, who was high priest that year, said to them: “You do not know anything at all, 50 and you have not reasoned that it is to your benefit for one man to die in behalf of the people rather than for the whole nation to be destroyed.” 51 He did not say this, however, of his own originality, but because he was high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was to die for the nation, 52 and not only for the nation but also to gather together into one the children of God who were scattered about. He was going to kill Jesus himself so as to protect his own career! So he tries to pre-spin it as some holy event!

A little ‘gem’ from this week’s Bible reading: John 11:21 “Martha then said to Jesus: “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died. Yet even now I know that whatever you ask God for, God will give you.” Jesus had had two days advance notice, yet he just sat there. (vs 6) Martha did not have to respond as she did. Could she not have ‘gone apostate’ and yelled: ‘What in the world is wrong with you?! You might as well have killed him yourself!’

Honestly, John, I don't know why you act as though I am your adversary. Have I not stated that they wet themselves at the thought an elder may glower at them? I will go further to confess what I have never confessed before. Our BOE used to rent a prison bus to round up the publishers and make them go to the convention. They made me drive. I didn't want to, but they made me. Also, when they told me I had to drive, they made me applaud their words until I thought my hands would fall off. They publishers didn't want to go. None of them did. They used to hide in the bushes when they saw me pulling up in the prison bus. But the elders had ordered me to stuff them in nice clothes by force when necessary. Oh, how my conscience torments me not. I hate them I hate them I hate them That's nothing! I have seen children actually confined in oversized parrot cages until they finished studying their lessons, at which time, if they were lucky, they might be fed a cracker.