TrueTomHarley

Call me Ishmael. For many years I sailed onboard the Pequod with the crazed Captain Rook in his maniacal search for Moby Geddon. "Captain, whale sighting dead ahead!" seawoman Anna shouted out. "Maybe you're wrong!" Rook muttered and shoved her so violently that she toppled overboard, petticoats all aflutter. "Captain Rook," seaman JWI stated. "My calculations indicate a 78% probability of the while whale's proximity within 23 cubits. Of course, accuracy is necessary, but if you triumverate the trifecta intersect, the conclusion is justified. Look, if you will, at page 673 of 'Nautical Nocturnal Habits of Northern Hemisphere Mammals' that I brought from my private library, which along with others, explains why the entire ship lists six degrees. It clearly indicates (see chart) that...." "Gag this fellow, and get him out of my sight!" roared Rook. Moby Geddon breached and the consequent splash soaked every square inch of the vessel. "Captain!" seaman Goneaway shouted, "I sense the whale is near!" "Liar!" Rook shouted. "Throw him in irons below!" "I'll handle that gladly sir, hehehehe ))))))" seaman Srecko responded. Moby Geddon breached again and this time its tail caught the stern of the Pequod and spun it like a pinwheel. "Captain!" seaman Truetom cried, "Surely the whale is near!" "Throw him to the sharks for calling me Shirly!" Rook bellowed. "I'll have respect here, do you hear?!" "Now hear this, you scurvy dogs! I have a great job offer in Port Zaire, the best I've ever had, and I mean to get there straightaway. Don't cross me, or I'll have you walk the plank like I did seaman Franz and Shroeder long ago!"

Betty Crocker reached for the parsley “You can’t touch that, it’s cake” restaurant manager Rook shouted. ”It’s not a cake until you mix the ingredients,” she replied.

“Aye, look ye sharp up there, Jack, for the approaching ship TerribleA! She’s out there! Oh yes, she’s out there!” ordered Captain Goneaway. “But I forgot what I was supposed to do,” whined Jack. ”Very well, me lad. I’ll send Second Mate JWI up there to give you some pointers about what to look out for.” “NO! NOT HIM! I REMEMBER HOW TO DO IT. I WAS JUST FUNNING. I DIDN’T MEAN...” screamed Jack in a panic. But it was too late. Second Mate JWI joined him aloft, with his reassuring manner, he having sailed in the old days with Captain Schroeder and Captain Franz. Aye, JWI was his usual pithy self when he put his arm around the inexperienced sailor, and gave him some reminders: ”This is a question doubtless that many ask themselves, viz: "How soon will our change come?" This change many of us have looked forward to for years, and we yet with much pleasure, think of the time when we shall be gathered unto Jesus and see Him as he is. In the article concerning our change, in December paper, we expressed the opinion that it was nearer than many supposed, and while we would not attempt to prove our change at any particular time, yet we propose looking at some of the evidences which seem to show the translation or change from the natural to the spiritual condition, due this side or by the fall of our year 1881. The evidence that our change will be by that time, increases since we have seen that the change to spiritual bodies is not the marriage. While we thought the marriage to be the change, and knowing there was three and a half years of special favor to the Nominal Church (now left desolate) from 1878, we could not expect any translation this side of 1881, or during this three and a half years. But since we recognize that going into the marriage is not only being made ready (by recognizing His presence) for the change, but also, that going in includes the change itself, then the evidences that we go in (or will be changed) inside of the time mentioned are strong, and commend themselves to all interested as worthy of investigation. Aside from any direct proof that our change is near, the fact that the manner of the change can now be understood, is evidence that we are near the time of the change, for truth is "meat in due season," and understood only as due. It will be remembered that after the spring of 1878, (when we understand Jesus was due as King) that the subject of holiness or the wedding garment, was very much agitated. And aside from the parallel to the end of the Jewish age, and favor at that time being shown to the Jewish nation, which implied the presence of the King, the consideration of the wedding garment, was also proof of the correctness of the application, for "the King had come in to see the guests," [Matt. 22:11] and hence all were interested in knowing how they stood before Him. Now as the inspection of guests is the last thing prior to our change, which precedes the marriage and we are all now considering the change. It would seem that the time for it, is nigh.  We shall now present what we adduce from the types and prophetic points as seeming to indicate the translation of the saints and closing of the door to the high calling by 1881. . . . [skipping a large portion on these evidences, some of which were considered "proofs" of 1874 that evidenced the correctness of 1881.] If this be a correct application (and it seems harmonious) and the time of building is seven years, then we would expect our change by or before the fall of 1881, as from 1874 to then would be the time given for building. . . . by coming into a knowledge of the Bridegroom's presence, etc., during the seven years harvest [from 1874 to 1881] . . . and as the seven years are about complete, that we will soon follow by being changed. Matt. 25 and the parallelism of the Jewish and Gospel ages, seem to teach that the wise of the virgins "who are alive and remain" must all come in, to a knowledge of the bridegroom's presence, by the fall of 1881, when the door—opportunity to become a member of the bride—will close. . . . We suggest as quite possible, that the change may come to some prepared before that time. . . . "Yet seven days [years] and I will cause it to rain upon the earth," should be significant, because we have expected trouble, in a special sense, about 1881, and, according to the type, we must enter in by that time. . . . We used to think it would be in the midst of a great trouble that we would be changed, but now we do not. . . . If the three years mentioned in connection with Aaron has any bearing, then it would teach our change as coming this side of 1881, as three years from 1878 would bring us inside of that time. . . . We now have taken prophetic measurements and allegories together, [R182 : page 5] five different points seeming to teach the resurrection of the dead in Christ and change of the living between the fall of 1874 and 1881. Two or more witnesses are enough to prove any case, as a rule, and certainly God has given us abundant evidence. We are also glad to notice that all these things only corroborate previous truths, thus proving to a certainty each application as correct and causing the old jewels to shine brighter. The five lines of argument briefly stated are these: 1st. The days of Daniel ending in 1874, at which time the resurrection commenced, and since which, the dead have been going in to the marriage. 2d. The end of the seven years from that time, as marked by the parallel, of the end of the "seventy weeks" in the Jewish age ending in our year 1881, at which time we all should be in and the door closed, being the end of time of special favor to the nominal church before commencement of trouble which follows our change.  [skipping more, etc. etc. etc.] There are some cautionary statements built into the article, and statements that this is not proof, just evidence. But note what is done with the evidence. Intelligently-minded people know what this evidence means. And spiritually-minded people know that the faithful and wise servant is providing "food at the proper time" [meat in due season] and that this is the proper time for wise virgins to distinguish themselves from foolish virgins. Also, all this evidence is only evidence on its own, but as it adds up, it becomes "proof" to those who appreciate that God is giving us this evidence in abundance, and that even two of these five lines of evidence should therefore constitute enough to "prove any case" as a rule. Here are some statements from the May 1881 Watch Tower magazine, p.224, on the same topic, now that the time for hesitation was due: The WATCH TOWER never claimed that the body of Christ will be changed to spiritual beings during this year. There is such a change due sometime. We have not attempted to say when, but have repeatedly said that it could not take place before the fall of 1881. This was a true statement. The Watch Tower had not claimed that the body of Christ will be changed in 1881, only that the evidence about 1881 should be seen as proof by intelligent and spiritually minded persons who have a true faith and appreciation for God's truths. From this point forward, after failure was obvious, it would be easy to cherry-pick quotes that showed that no one had specifically said it would happen by the fall of 1881 -- even though it was supposed to obvious that for some it would likely happen even before the fall of 1881. But even this is just technicalities and semantics. It's true that they hadn't said it would definitely happen. Still, there is dishonesty in the attempt to sweep all the embarrassment away. It's in the phrase: "We have not attempted to say when . . ." Is this a true statement? Was there really no attempt to say when the change would take place? That previous article on the topic of when, in January 1881 --only four months earlier-- might as well have been called "When Will the Change Take Place?" It was nothing if not an attempt to say when! The claim might be technically true. But is it honest?” he said.

Perched high up in the mainsail crowsnest of the good ship JesusDefender, crewman Jack gazed at the horizon. ”Look sharp, up there,” First Mate Rook bellowed, “but not too sharp! I’m enjoying the best meal I ever had down here in the Zaire galley. Don’t screw it up!” “Belay that order!” Captain Goneaway roared. “Keep on the watch up there! The dreaded pirate ship TerribleA is in these waters, trying to catch us with our pants down!” ”Yeah, whatever,” crewman Jack replied, as he removed his pants on account of the blistering heat. “This ‘keep on the watch’ stuff can be overdone. I’ll spot the TerribleA when its bow crashes through the deck and pinches my toes!”

There is someone online (not Jack) who is doing his darndest to stir up trouble over this, mostly by cherry-picking statements and presenting them without context. I wrote up a post on it on my blog and here: It is ever the pitfall of zealots that they are so eager to prove a point that, in their haste, they will grab something that proves just the opposite, yet continue to gloat as though have found the smoking gun. Such was the case when atheists at Friendly Atheist tore their hair out over “some truly horrific advice to women in abusive relationships,” from the December 2018 Watchtower magazine. They were to stay in them no matter what! Well, that does sound truly horrific and there were many who immediately condemned the scoundrels who would give such a vile command. Others went to the article first, where they discovered that it says nothing of the sort. IsnÂ’t this just atheists depriving women of the right to choose? It is ironic because they generally claim to be champions of that right. The article makes clear that a woman always has a choice, that she need not be railroaded into an action just because it is societally popular. Some leave amidst these very trying circumstances. Some stay. Either action works from the congregationÂ’s point of view. They have the right to choose. How is that the Watchtower ‘urging them to stay with an abusive mate no matter what,Â’ the accusation of the atheists? If a woman wants to try to salvage a marriage, what business is that of theirs? It may be an unwise decision, or it may be the best decision she ever made, but either way, it is her decision. Given the staggering cost of family breakup, emotional, mental, financial, and long-lasting damage to the kids, if a woman decides to stick it out more than athiests approve, with a view towards salvage, who is to say she is crazy? Possibly reading this post are veterans of two, three, four, or more failed relationships who wish they had put more effort into a given one. If she pulls it off, she has gained something very good. These are not short-term hookings-up that we are speaking of, latching on to some loser that you cut loose as soon as you see what he is. These are marriages of years or decadesÂ’ duration. In some cases, they never used to be abusive but they have become so due to who knows what factors? Dignify the woman as having the judgement to decide, based upon history, pressures affecting her man, and factors only she might know, as to whether he should be jettisoned or not.  If the lout has to go, he goes. Just donÂ’t let some third party push you into it. The choice is always hers. It is as though the grumblers cheer at the breakup of a marriage, oblivious to the damage left in its wake. It is as though they would prevent one from trying to repair theirs. Let her try if she wants to, or even put up with one far from ideal, if that be her choice. Sometimes when you are between a rock and a hard place, you donÂ’t assume or let the atheists tell you that the hard place is really a bed of roses. It isn't always that way. I mean, it is not exactly as they will be around to repair the damage, is it? Okay, granted, they like marriage over there in the JehovahÂ’s Witness world. Until fairly recently, everybody did, and considered family the bedrock of society. Witnesses consider it a divine institution. That doesnÂ’t mean others have to, but surely it means Witness women should be allowed to. They let their view be bound by biblical injunctions. Adultery is the one acceptable ground for ending a marriage, but even then, it does not have to be; it is always possible for the innocent mate to exercise his or her right of choice and forgiveness. Several decades ago the Witness organization took note, as did all of society, of the increasingly visible neÂ’er-do-wells who, while they might not be unfaithful, were nonetheless ugly to live with. It took another look at 1 Corinthians 7, a chapter that deals with marital matters, and sometimes people are surprised at how it says a husband and wife both owe each other sex (no, not ‘on demandÂ’ – donÂ’t even go there) and should not be depriving the other of it. Specifically, they looked at verses 12 and 13: “If any brother has an unbelieving wife and she is agreeable to staying with him, let him not leave her; and if a woman has an unbelieving husband and he is agreeable to staying with her, let her not leave her husband.” 'Maybe a marriage mateÂ’s conduct says he is ‘not agreeable,Â’ regardless of what his words say,' they reasoned. For some time, therefore the guidance for women (or men) in not-so-hot marriages is that there are three conditions that any one of which might justify separation sans tongues clucking: if there is extreme physical abuse, if there is willful non-support, and if there is absolute endangerment of spirituality. It is at once apparent that much in is the eye of the beholder, so from time to time Watchtower publications revisit the subject, so that congregation members are guided by what they signed on for in the first place, and not unduly influenced by what is all the rage elsewhere. If the bad egg must be fried, let him fry. A woman always has that right. But she neednÂ’t feel railroaded into that choice by a flood of outside pressure. Any Witness woman knows this, because she has read and considered the entire article, not just the cherry-picked paragraph, and she has taken into account how it fits into her overall framework of knowledge. You almost begin to think what causes the steam to emit from atheist ears is another possible benefit of the womanÂ’s forsaking her right to leave: Maybe the ‘unbelievingÂ’ husband will become a believing one. How is that a bad thing?  If the guy makes it as a Jehovah's Witness, he will have made significant inroads against what makes him such a loser in the first place. Read the entire article here. Â

Look, don't read the fine print. Just sign the contract.

Wasn't Nike a god of the Russians?

Since "some Bible teachers" were screwing up the works, I wonder how that might be refined with today's teaching committees so that Fred Franz doesn't expound without checking in with the rest of the brothers. Or did he? Say what you will about Brother Franz; nobody can say that he was not some Bible teacher.

No sooner did I liken Serena Williams to Queen Esther for her possible future role of exposing the evildoers, than someone said: “Um, sheÂ’s not exactly Queen Esther, you know. DidnÂ’t she appear bare-naked, unmarried, and pregnant on that Vanity Fair cover? And you know that birth is not like the one of Mary.” Well, I actually hadnÂ’t thought of that, if I ever knew it in the first place. Still, it changes nothing. She openly acknowledges she likes the faith but has not practiced it. Now she means to. Is it a bad thing when she has, in the past, called herself a JehovahÂ’s Witness? You know, ordinarily, yes. But in this case, not necessarily. People love celebrities and will usually concede that they live in a world of their own, facing unique pressures. For better or for worse, nobody makes a big deal of sex before marriage anymore. I don't even think the news writer of the article that her child wonÂ’t do birthdays thought to mention it, or maybe she did and it didnÂ’t register. That people do not make a big deal of it is 'for worse,' usually, because Word says that they should, the but in this case, it is 'for better.' Totally without evidence, based only upon a feel for the way people are, I think her vehement critics are ones who dislike JehovahÂ’s Witnesses, who spot the disparity of conduct and want to slam us with it. Besides these ones are many Witnesses themselves, who also spot it. Few others care. Has she lived up to the faith in the past? She says very openly that she has not. Now she reaches a point where she says she will. I think it is a very good thing. Okay, okay, so she is no Queen Esther. Call her the Samaritan woman by the well, a women who carried on more than Serena ever did off the court, yet lived to be a powerful witness for the Lord. Do we have a woman who is a mixed bag, having done things good and bad, and who now wants to make them all good? I'll take it every time. it is in the spirit of Jesus, I think, who came to save persons ill who had become aware of their spiritual need. She will straighten out all those things before baptism, of course, should she continue on the path she now says she was to pursue more single-mindedly. Love hopes all things and believes all things. Sometimes it is even proved wrong. But it keeps hoping and believing Moreover, to go back to the original point of my post, part one, this Reddit group has done Witnesses huge mischief. The Philly reporter used it as his source to write four incendiary anti-JW articles in a row to present a seeming scandal without the context that illuminates it. This group is trying with all its might to equate Jehovah's Witnesses with the sins of the Catholic church. It is a stretch, because abusers in the Church are clergy. Even after making adjustments for size, if you want to get the same 'catch' among Jehovah's people, you must broaden your net to include, not just 'clergy,' but everybody. That doesn't mean that some are not diligently trying to do it, and equate some 'non-reporting to authorities' in previous years to being actual incubators of child abuse. They are up to no good, and the alleged sin in such cases is generally 'failing to go beyond the law' in reporting such cases to police. I continually make the point that if it is so crucial to 'go beyond the law' then that should become the law, the same point that Geoffrey Jackson, a member of the WitnessesÂ’ Governing Body, made to a recent inquiry. If Serena was to prompt her husband, the Reddit founder, to weigh in on that group in our favor and expose them for what they are (see upcoming Part 3), I believe she would be forgiven 'a multitude of sins,' even if she never did manage to get it all together in her own life, as she seems to want to do. In fact, in the event of that outcome, and to bring matters full circle, that would be an example of something else Mordecai said to his niece. If salvation does not come through spotless Esther, it will come from some other source. Either way, IÂ’ll take it and say ‘thank youÂ’ to the Lord and see if there is more ammunition lying around. (Thanks to the Librarian, that noble embodiment of stately womankind, for providing a raucous forum in which I can test arguments and even write a book. For that reason, I put this post here as well as on my own blog.) (the old hen)

2025, but a Great Jubilee away from 1975, is only 7 years in the future. Moreover, seven is significant in its own right. And don't forget, for those of you who like science, Isaac Newton the Granddaddy of Science, said 2060 gets the job done. Truetom calls It: 2025.

Whatever happened to old Charlie, anyway? Did he ever get off KP duty?

Spongebob Squarepants?

“Boy, I sure am glad @James Thomas Rook Jr. quit that great job we gave him because his people thought the world would end! I thought he would end ours what with all his griping about the direction here. And the janitor tells me he was getting sick and tired up scrubbing off cartoon graffiti everywhere!”

He didn’t stray. He busted down the fence and bolted.

‘She could sing about a good for nothing man and still make it sound as though church’ is the best tribute to I have heard.

Of course. It is not automatic, though. Such ones have gone on to other things. What are you going to do, search the globe for them? If they have not gotten too carried away with their own brilliance, they can apply for reinstatement, and providing that that is the sole hangup, yes, they will be reinstated. This is not rocket science. It happens all the time. The Witness organization is very open about it. Many times they have adjusted a viewpoint to coinside with what somebody else years ago said. Alas, often that 'somebody else' is long gone. I think it was on a recent monthly broadcast. John says they went out from among us 'because they were not of our sort.' Part of being 'of our sort' is acquiescing to the theocratic direction that they signed on for. Look, if you want to belong to some outfit where everyone can have an epiphany and then become livid at everyone else for not falling into line, be my guest. I'll stay where there is a measure of sanity.

It never ceases to amaze me what things can be tracked.Â

I got banned at the apostate website! Can you believe it? I was the very personification of respect and good-manners. Of course, I was also the very personification of tenacity, but it was still me against a dozen others. Now that I have been muzzled, it may be me against 100. Cedars worked so hard to get me to engage and as soon as I did, he tossed me out! Actually, he wanted me to engage on his podcast, where you shoot from the hip. Again and again, he invited me there. I thought a forum in which you can think out your remarks beforehand was better. I put a human face on an outfit he is trying very hard to demonize, and I think that finally pushed him to his limit. After making six or eight comments on his site, I found this: Cedars: “I simply want to present the other point of view,” well, that’s partly true, Tom. You want to present “the other point of view” on your own terms – i.e. by trolling me in comments and tweets. You don’t quite have the guts to come on my YouTube channel for a conversation where you can express “the other point of view” (Watchtower’s point of view, which everyone is already aware of) in front of thousands of people. You’d much rather selectively violate the command to refrain from engaging with apostates as it suits you. Again, I wonder if there are any other commands from your masters “the Slave” regarding which you feel it’s ok to pick and choose? Or is your hypocrisy confined solely to this particular area of Watchtower’s rulebook?” When I tried to reply, I found I was blocked. There was nothing to do but take it on the Twitter street, where I found the same response: Cedars: “My point is you are already violating the rules by engaging with me (some would say trolling) on Twitter and my JWsurvey article. You may as well go the whole hog and come on my YouTube channel for an interview if you have something to say, but I doubt you have the backbone.” Tom: “I don’t. Better thought-out written remarks than shoot-from-the-hip debate. Did I really just get banned at your site? Despite 2 tries, my last reply to you did not stick. All were polite, respectful, and on-topic. None repeated. (1) “If that is ‘trolling’ it is not like the liar who pretended to be GJ, even tweeting “Pray for our brothers in Russia” before presently revealing he didn’t give a hoot in hell for our brothers in Russia. It was all a ruse to draw in the guileless ones. (2) “Let me post my blocked remark here and then call it quits for now: “Cedars, if I am misbehaving, you can toss me, and let persons reflect of the irony of that, since you repeatedly asked to me debate in the first place. 'Trolling' is in the eye of the beholder. (3) “I have not insulted anyone, On the contrary, I have gone out of my way not to on several occasions. For example, when someone here said: 'You calling us liars who exaggerate?' I made clear that I was not. (4) “On forums where there is a comment section, I have never blocked anyone that I can recall. I would if someone became an abusive and unrelenting pest, but I have not yet had to. (5) “In debate classes you are given an argument and assigned to take this side and then that. The clear message is that it is technique over substance. Better to write, where one can compose words with thought. Let both points of view be presented honestly, (6) “Jesus never debated. In fact, he routinely did things that would infuriate devotees of debate. He used hyperbole. He answered questions with counter-questions. He spun involved parables that he rarely explained as a means of reaching the heart. (7)” Cedars was not impressed with this exchange: “I'm amazed at your continuing excuses for refusing to come on my channel for a conversation (not debate, necessarily) when the real reason is: you are afraid you will be pulled into the backroom by your elders because engaging with apostates online is verboten.” Tom: “You are young and vigorous. I am older who perhaps must take care that my teeth do not fall out or my cane trip me up. Or like Paul (2Cor10:10) whose letters are weighty but whose personal presence is weak. Or slow of speech like Moses. I believe I did not misrepresent anything (1) “(2) I disagreed, which is not the same, always respectfully, and stood up for a group that you continually attack without check, and whose similar attacks have resulted in Russian machine guns literally pointed at the heads of some. “(3) A substantial blow for free speech on a site that purports to celebrate freedom. [I tagged a couple of journalists at this point] Of course, I take no comments on my site either, but in doing so forsake the flood of accolades and attaboys from my chums, which you clearly do not with yours, now as tight as the Russian press.” He did not take this lying down. There was a flurry of back and forth tweets: Cedars: “It has nothing to do with free speech. It has to do with you knowingly misrepresenting my views and opinions. You can do that on here as much as you like, but on my website, nope. “You get only one chance to not misrepresent/twist my words into something other than I meant or intended. You did this at least twice, hence you are blocked from commenting on JWsurvey, so please don't expect sympathy.” [Did I do that, misrepresent him? He gave two examples, quoting me: [Let the reader use discernment] 1) "Cedars’ outrageous video assertion that elders visit patients in their hospital room to make sure they toe the line on blood policy." - An oversimplification. I am sure some elders visit patients on compassionate grounds, but that is not the sole thinking behind the HLC system. 2) "Cedars assertion that when persons apply for reinstatement they do so just to reestablish social ties" - I never asserted that people only get reinstated to be reunited. I am sure many do so because, like you, they are simply indoctrinated and know no other way of living. He didn’t like me tying him in with the Russian persecution, either: Cedars: “You cannot blame me for what's going on in Russia, which I have spoken out against unequivocally. Backward regimes have been persecuting religious minorities long before there was Google or YouTube.” I declared war on these guys after the three (now four) incendiary anti-Witness articles in the Philadelphia Inquirer and I learned that the reporter checked in at one such anti-Witness site between articles, as though he were Trump firing up the base. It is the only reason I would engage: journalists hang out there. Maybe just one, but who can say? One is enough. So I weighed in to offer such ones context that they will not get otherwise. A journalist wants that. It is an abundance of anecdotal evidence at the anti-Witness site, and anecdotal evidence must always be given context so as to mean anything. In a world of 8 billion people, you will find countless examples of anything. There must be context so that you know what you are looking at, and this is what I tried to supply until I was shown the trap door. I mean, it’s his site. He can do what he wants with it. But there is reason to hope no reporter will rely on it solely. Here is the context I offered, all remarks made on his site before the window slammed shut on my fingers, with introduction in brackets. At every comment, a click on my name would link to a short justification for the disfellowshipping arrangement: http://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2018/08/the-trump-card-of-christian-discipline.html [The subject of Cedar’s web post itself was disfellowshipping. Many of the participants presumably had undergone it. They didn’t like it.] Tom: “In any forum where participants simply reinforce the prevailing view, matters eventually become skewed and inaccurate. So, I add the counterpoint, which I present for consideration and leave it at that. You have been after me for debate since you became aware of my existence, and this is as close as you are going to get. You are correct that Witnesses generally decline debates. Should I debate on your podcast, with all your chums cheering when you land a punch & wincing and doing damage control when I land one, while my chums don’t go in for that sort of thing in the first place? I don’t think so. “When Kathy Griffin holds aloft the fake severed head of the President, are we to imagine that her Republican dad (if he is) says: ‘That’s my lass! She speaks her mind! It won’t affect holiday family cheer, though’? The example may help to explain how doing a 180 from previously held deeply moral views might cause a rift in the Witness family. “It has been about a dozen years since the word ‘disfellowship’ has been heard in a Kingdom Hall. Instead, from time to time, an announcement is made that ‘so-and-so is no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.’ If he has done a 180 from ‘witnessing for Jehovah’ can anyone say that he is? I can recall no talk or article saying: ‘this announcement means that.’ It hasn’t happened, to the best of my knowledge. It is even said by some on this forum that they are ‘fading’ and no announcement of any sort has been made, yet they still come to feel shunned, whether that word is the accurate description or not in such cases. Adding to the situation is that Witnesses do not celebrate the traditional holidays, occasions where family members customarily regroup, whether they like one another or not, leaving only funerals as the inevitable occasion for gathering. “The GB does not ‘tell’ people to shun family members. Instead, they say that if one has triggered what would cause separation, there is no reason to say that because he or she is family, that matters are necessarily different. Members apply that counsel as they see fit, but whatever they do, they do not have the sense that someone is telling, much less ordering them, to do so, but that someone alerted them long ago to relevant Bible passages on the subject, after which the Bible passages themselves guide them in what to do, as they consider whatever mitigating circumstances there are in their own family, often finding none, but not inevitably so. “The idea that Witnesses can turn off love for a family member is incorrect (given that there are variations in families). A separation causes deep pain in those remaining ‘faithful.’ It is not just the departing one who suffers. However, they tell themselves that the family member did bring it own him or herself, that Jesus said his words could cause division in the family, and should that happen, loyalty to God trumps that for even family members. The door that was closed as a last-ditch attempt at ‘discipline’ was never locked and it is always possible to return. “It is the notion of Christianity as a movement separate from the world, trying to serve as a beacon to it, pointing to something better, that is under attack, especially when people have gone atheist, all the rage today and a marked divergence from all previous history. The concept of ‘separateness’ from the greater world inevitably brings about situations such as the topic of this thread, yet it is a concept integral to Christianity. It is only by staying ‘clean’ that Christians feel able to lend a helping hand to others. I understand that will come across as very self-righteous, but it is not meant that way. Members freely confess that they screw up all the time, but that to the extent they are able to adhere to God’s standards, their lives improve, and their abilities to help others.” [I apologized subsequently for saying: ‘Many participants here are thinking people,’ which implies that many are not.] [One participant got ahold of a private elders’ book and waved it as though it was the smoking gun. In fact, it undermined his argument that at the drop of a pin members are dealt with harshly.] “Though the discipline of the congregation is admittedly rough on those who will not be guided by it (like Saul ‘kicking at the goads’) ones here expand it to make it seem much harsher than it is. Yet when @Maxwell actually quotes an elder’s handbook, (presumably giving it his best shot) he reveals something much less harsh than what he portrays. Elders “counsel and reason,” not exactly the same as “ordering.” In the event that a congregation member does not respond to counsel, he is not thrown on the spit but he “would not qualify for congregation privileges.” Is that not a big ‘Duh’? If you want to enjoy privileges anywhere, you must toe the line more than if you do not reach out for such privileges. “He would not be dealt with judicially” unless there is “persistent” [not occasional] “spiritual association” [not nuts-and-bolts association] or he “openly” criticizes the disfellowshipping decision, thus undermining the method of governance that he signed on for in the first place. “So it is not so harsh as portrayed. Moreover, it can be avoided, and once incurred, it can be repaired. The ‘crime,’ then, is the congregation’s desire to fulfill the Christian mandate of staying ‘separate from the world,’ the only position from which it feels able to render assistance to those who feel crushed under the latter’s weight. The book ‘Secular Faith – How Culture Has Trumped Religion in American Politics’ attempts to reassure its secular audience through examining the changing moral stands of churches on five key issues. The book points out that today’s church members have more in common with atheists than they do with members of their own denominations of decades past. Essentially, the reassurance to those who would mold societal views is: ‘Don’t worry about it. They will come around. They always do. It may take a bit longer, but it is inevitable.’ Jehovah’s Witnesses have thwarted this model by not coming around. The congregation thinks it important to stick to the values that they signed on for, and they knew from the start God does not work through democracy. In order to preserve this unchanging model, it is necessary to have practices such as under discussion here, which can be tweaked some, as has happened per previous comment, but cannot be abandoned. No one has been able to ‘hold the line’ through decades of time without them. “Cedars writes that he disapproves of Witnesses being arrested a jailed in Russia and I have no doubt that he means it. However, he disapproves in the same sense that the California arsonist disapproves of the state burning to the ground. One of the driving forces of the ban in that country is one Alexander Dvorkin, who pushes the same ‘anti-cult’ narrative endorsed by Cedars. He pushes it on many groups, not just Jehovah’s Witnesses, though they have been his prime target. He wants to ‘protect’ people by preventing them from hearing ideas that he thinks are ‘socially destructive,’ a goal not unlike some of the goals expressed here. The only difference is that he has seen it more fully accomplished. “Acting on his prodding sends a clear “open hunting season” on religious minorities. Various human-rights and law experts convened in France in January 2018, where one of them observed of Mr. Dvorkin: He “enjoys disseminating inflammatory narratives and hate speech.” The reason that Russian Jehovah’s Witnesses have not caved under his mischief (which is added to nationalistic and dominant Church pressures) is that they do not see themselves as followers of “eight men,” the meme pushed here, but of the Bible. Acquiescing to the authority of the eight men taking the lead is little more than acquiescing to the authority of the teacher, boss, military leader, coach, parent, or consulted advisor, something that was once routine and unremarkable but is now portrayed as selling out one’s soul.” [“Because of that you shouldn’t even be welcome here,” someone groused.] “Andre, Cedars will determine that and I will respect him should he show me the door. Overall, I do respect him, though he is an enemy, for reasons stated above. He slants facts his way, but who doesn’t? He doesn’t make anything up, that I have ever seen, and does not seem to tolerate anyone that does go inaccurate on him. It is possible that even my own people will point me to the door, and I do not think that I am above them. They do not “order” me to stay out, as Cedars said (an example of something ‘slanted,’) but there is no question that such participation is not what is advised, by reason of some verses cited and some not yet. To some extent, I am being a ‘bad boy.’” [Someone misunderstood what I said about disfellowshipping, and I tried to clear it up:] “Sarah, when I said the word is not heard in the Kingdom Hall for a dozen years or so, I meant an announcement to that effect is not made. The phrase I mentioned, “so and so is no longer one of Jehovah’s Witnesses” is the announcement made from time to time. I did not mean to indicate that the word has disappeared from JW vocabulary.” [A journalist had ambushed one of our people and I addressed that] “When a person is unexpectedly accosted by a reporter wanting an answer to something that will take more than a sound bite to answer, everyone knows it is a cheap shot. That is not to say they do not cheer if it is an enemy, but they nonetheless know. People are not AI machines. His mind is a million miles away. Still, his discomfiture is inevitably and dishonestly painted as ‘proof’ that he is a flat-out liar. That is why respected sources content themselves with: “So and so was contacted but declined to comment for this article.” I don’t know if it was a good idea or not. Like Howard Beale, I just got ‘mad as hell and couldn’t take it anymore.’ After every comment there came a torrent of abuse. I changed no one’s mind and was routinely called a hypocrite, sometimes an a*****e. You have to expect this going in and you cannot take it personally. You certainly cannot get into tit for tat, nor should you be so dumb as to say someone does not correctly perceive his or her own experience. How would you know? It is the constant with all anecdotal evidence, which may (not likely) be understated, may be overstated, or may occasionally even be made up. You have no way of knowing, so you ought not touch it. You have to realize going in that you will lose. You must resist your urge to defend the Witness organization. It is perception. Everyone calls the other guy ‘arrogant’ when they cannot get their way. It is all parallel to the incessant Trump/Hillary wars, a development that I consider a godsend for Christians because it demonstrates the applicability of 2 Timothy 3:1-5 in overall society. Don’t be goaded into losing you’re temper and remember whatever you write remains forever, so you cannot ‘fire first and ask questions later.’ My engagement was all on account of the journalists, and maybe I just fool myself as to how many hang out there. Who can say? At each comment I was reminded that I am ‘ordered’ not to engage and ‘not allowed’ to be there. It turns out that I truly was ‘not allowed’, but not by the nefarious ones that the webmaster had in mind. [Someone brought up homosexuality. It is the common view today that if you do not accept another person’s tenets you must ‘hate’ that person, and I sought to counter that. Every comment was to counter something and to present a side not otherwise seen:] Tom: “One can sympathize here [with the plight of gay people who were once members]. I don’t know the answer. JWs do not ‘go after’ gays as do many churches. The 2018 Regional Convention devoted about 2 minutes to it in a video (which created an uproar) in a program lasting three days. Okay? They don’t crusade. And they certainly don’t do what evangelicals do to maneuver politicians into passing laws forcing gays to live as they do. Nor do they go in for simple-minded and abusive practices as ‘conversion therapy.’ “The meme ‘born that way’ becomes the dominant meme by endless repetition. However, the Wt has acknowledged that genetics might play a role. Alternatively, it might be environment, psych endorsement, discredited Freud-type ideas (discredited mostly because they are unpopular) universal gender-bending hormones/plastics in common use, even epigenetics. Who knows? One thing for sure: sexuality has proven far more fluid than anyone of my day would have thought possible. “The GB likely feels that they have no choice, given what the Bible, their guide to life, tells them. They take it as wisdom from God, who knows us better than we do ourselves. Gays within our ranks do not swim against the current, nor into it, both recipes for disaster. They are prepared to swim parallel to the shore, likely for a long time, in hopes that their urges will eventually realign. One could argue that their faith is stronger than most Christians in that they stick to what they believe is right despite the very real testimony of their own bodies. It hardly seems fair, does it? It is why I have the greatest respect for such ones, who will mostly remain anonymous, and ZERO respect for the frothing church types who rail against gays, as they are demanding the latter lift a load the comparison of which they themselves would not be willing to budge with their little finger.” [And another comment, to address Cedars' dumbfoundment in "Why would anyone want to be a Jehovah's Witness, anyway?] "Time will tell. The enemies of Jehovah's Witnesses have succeeded in doing what they could never have succeeded in doing alone, putting the Cause before the world. Russia persecution triggers international sympathy. Shunning and child abuse cover-up allegations trigger international frowning. All three are diluted by the fact that there are endless atrocities today to compete for people's limited attention. "Cover-up allegations and shunning complaints are bad. Invariably they are exaggerated, such as people are wont to do, but they are seldom manufactured. Countering the bad press will be the good things that Jehovah's Witnesses have to offer, things that are never alluded to here. "A recent development of the Witness organization is self-guided, online Bible study lessons at their website, addressing such age-old questions as 'Why does God permit suffering?' 'What happens when we die?' and 'Is there realistic hope for the future?' Is it only opponents that can use the web? People want such answers. Cedars says (pityingly) in a video that Witnesses 'crave certainty.' Isn't that a big 'Duh'? Anyone here enjoy playing Russian Roulette with their finances or health? The more certainty we can lay hold of the better. "Will Cedars ask me to leave, as Andre suggested? Maybe, but I don't think so. He strikes me as an honest man. He several times asked me to debate him. If I appear here and behave myself, is it not what he wanted? And if he did ask me to leave, after asking me to engage, surely THAT would indicate something. it is my own people who are more likely to ask me to leave, perhaps even kicking me in the rear end as they do so, and I will have to cross that bridge when I come to it. Ironically, should I vanish, people will fuss for some days over whether they lowered the boom or was it Cedars. "Bible answers are Jehovah's Witnesses' strong suit. Christians are directed in the Bible to stay separate from the greater world, as they offer it a helping hand. Anything with an upside will have a downside. The downside zeroed in on exclusively on this forum is real, but it does not negate the upside. Therefore it depends upon where is your focus. 'Bible education' is the overall goal of the Witness organization, 'preaching the good news,' As the online study sessions demonstrate, with only some exaggeration, if push comes to shove, the essential components of the Witnesses' work can be run out a server in someone's dorm room. "Meanwhile, going atheist holds some attraction, mostly escaping anyone who would tell you what to do, as though one does not simply put themselves under the 'control' of other deep-pocketed parties telling you what to do, be it Trump, Soros, the Russians, Big Defense, Big Pharma, pro or anti climate change with the enormous economic and lifestyle consequences both bring. Atheism will appeal to some, but never all. The yeartext presumably agreed upon here is: "Sh*t happens. Get used to it. Maybe we can elect the right politicians to fix it." How's that project going, anyway? "No, that yeartext will just not cut it for everyone." Don’t misunderstand. I don’t claim to have ‘knocked it out of the park’ on anything. Causes for their disgruntlement remain. You don’t expect to change anyone, just inform anyone new, should they exist. Maybe I should have gone on his podcast, but I figured it might be like the time, long ago, when I filled in for a school bus driver in a very rough district, and one of the deboarding students spit on me, and then he and all his chums assembled to invite me on their ‘podcast’ just outside the bus. I decided to do like Jesus, who was not even driving a bus, when he was spit upon. ‘But they say that Cedars is very nice in person,’ his buddies told me. Doubtless he would pour me Kool-Aid with a smile to quench my thirst. I never entertained the idea, though I did stretch it out for a while: Cedars: “Welcome back Tom. Is your personal allowance for engaging with apostates online still only limited to Twitter, or will you be able to join me for a recorded chat on Skype?’ [I had come back. I followed this character in the first place when I discovered he would reliably inform me of things I might want to address. The moment he became aware, he wanted me on his show.] Tom: “As soon as one agrees to a debate, one agrees to the premise that debate is the best way to illuminate things.” Cedars: “There are lots of ways of illuminating things. Discourse is one way. I had no idea it was a competition.” Tom: “I have written three books. You have written at least one. Let that be your ‘discourse’ for you.” Cedars: “I think we both know your reason for declining an interview. It ain't your books.” [His chums joined in:] Chum: “Tom why on earth are you in contact with ‘apostates’? Do you think Jah can’t read twitter....and therefore judge you for it?” Cedars: “Tom has been granted a special exemption that allows him occasional interactions with the "mentally diseased" on Twitter.” Tom: “It is odd that anyone would mention "mentally diseased" in this context. The quotes are from a 2011 Wt and I posted about it at the time. Alas, I was more wordy then and it is 6 paragraphs in that the term comes up.” [I linked to a post I had previously written, which I have found is a fine way of shaking these guys should they come after you. With one such person (not Cedars) I even served up one that I called my 'troll special.' : http://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2011/10/mentally-diseased-and-political-correctness.html ] Another chum: “Seriously Tom, I’d be bricking it in your shoes! There’s no allowance for chatting with bad sorts (well, Jesus did it, but let’s forget that, and him, eh!).” [Forgive me if this gets tiresome. I want to assemble everything in one place. Feel free to skip a bit, or chuck it entirely. A bit later:] Cedars: “Me waiting for @truetomharley to accept my offer of an on-camera interview to discuss his views as a believing JW who doesn't have a problem engaging with apostates on social media.” Cedars: “BTW Tom, since you're apparently able to bend the rules by interacting with apostates on social media, are you feeling brave enough to go the full nine yards and join me for an on-camera Skype interview? Or does Jehovah's judgment kick in once you appear on camera?” Cedars: “I'm quite happy to have a civilized discussion in which we agree to disagree. We do have at least some common ground in both opposing Russia's ban of Jehovah's Witnesses.” Cedars: “…you've already rejected the offer citing some bizarre argument about being an author and not the true reason - that your religion prevents you from conversing with apostates.” Tom: “Perhaps I am not a good debater.” Cedars: “It doesn't need to be a debate, just a conversation.” Tom: “Unfortunately, I am not even good at conversation. “But I said: “Alas, O Sovereign Lord Jehovah! I do not know how to speak, for I am just a boy.” Jeremiah 1:6” Cedars: “You're not much good at following the rules of the cult for which you are a cheerleader, either.” Tom: “Many things I am not much good at. More things than not, actually.” Cedars: “There's simple mistakes and then there's straight up hypocrisy. Either it's "Jehovah's organization" or it isn't. If it is, maybe you should do as you're told and get your acre in paradise.” [Ouch] Tom: “You say I violate ‘rules’ and yet you would have me violate them further by ‘conversation’? Ha! You just think you can get me into trouble with my own people so that I will sulk and cross over into the Obi-wan Dark Side.” And now I must face the music from my own side, and there may be some. Cedars’ continual taunts at being ‘not allowed” were surely overdone, and it must have made him feel a little silly when I kept coming nonetheless, until he felt compelled to issue the order himself. Still, nobody here thinks it is the bee’s knees to engage with these characters, and I may hear about it. And they could be right. Maybe I am the yoyo on the Jerusalem wall singing out just when Hezekiah is telling the troops to zip it. But I just couldn’t take it anymore. The Witness organization probably cannot be expected to defend itself. It takes the scriptural view of Jesus at Matthew 11, noting that grumblers slam him no matter what he does, before finally saying, ‘Don’t worry about it,’ “wisdom is proved righteous by its works.” It is like David who kept mum as ‘all day long they muttered against him.’ ‘It is like the plowman who knows that if you look behind while plowing, the furrows get all flaky.’ They don’t do it. The common view of opposers is that the Witness headship is telling members what to do, while it cynically manipulates all from above. That view is wrong. They practice what they preach and do it themselves. It is scriptural. It is proper. But there is a downside. By staying mum on specifics, essentially our enemies get to define us to the news media who refer to a cover statement about ‘abhorring child abuse’ as “boiler-plate” and then go to former members who will eagerly fill their ears with accounts that we could counter by adding context but don’t. What’s a reporter to do? He goes to who fills his ears. The organization headship cites Hebrews 13:7 about ‘imitating the faith of those who are taking the lead among you.’ They don’t go on social media at all. They prefer a less raucous channel, and content themselves with news releases at the website that inform but do not kick back at the critics. It will fall upon the Witness journalist to do it, if it is to be done, and there aren’t many of them. If fourteen years of blogging, not shying from controversial things, does not qualify me to take a shot at it, what does? Still, one must not be presumptuous.’ I have noted that when anyone self-assumes expertise, they run the risk of becoming full of themselves. Sometimes they take offense that whatever they think they have pioneered is not adopted by everyone else. I try to safeguard against this with evening participation in the door-to-door ministry, often alone. It has a way of instilling humility. As you take note of the response, both favorable and unfavorable, you begin to envision the response that Jesus got. Neglect the door-to-door ministry at your own spiritual peril. Too, I have been sufficiently chastened by various circumstances of life that might be likened by an outsider to having one’s head stuffed in a toilet. Upon extracting that appendage, you do not say, “I guess I taught than toilet a thing or two, didn’t I?” It, too, serves to instill humility. If you are in a spiritual paradise, or even a vacation paradise, you do not have to concern yourself with removing the trash. It may be even dangerous to do so, because there is broken glass and used syringes. It’s not for everyone, and maybe for no one. But I thought I’d take a shot at it, and I at last got under this fellow’s skin, the big baby. (My apologies to @The Librarian, who must now clear a huge space on her shelves for this lengthy post, on her old, aching and wobbly legs, while looking suspiciously for any sign of internet pilfering, finally deciding that since there is no comment section and persons must return here in order to do that, it is marginally okay.)

When the job has been fully accomplished I will tell them to cut it out.

Sorry, you seem to think I had you in mind with my remarks. I didn't It is just a general comment on when I hear people carrying on about shunning, not any specific case in particular, which may not follow the proper balance of justice, mercy, and common sense. I should have made that clear. My bad.

I'm ready!

Even as reached for my camera, before I had touched it, it shattered.

C'mon Big Boy! If you think it is such a little thing, why don't you try it? Right there, in your birthday suit, on Vanity Fair. Or are you scared the elders will counsel you for celebrating your birthday, hmm, you big chicken?

Ooh. Please tell me where so I can go there and tro.....uh, so I can go there and see if there are any fatheads who need to be set straight. And.....My thanks once again to the Librarian, the very stately essence of womanhood. Due to her observation, I discovered how to give my blog a new look and make it flow into all devices. Cool beans! And I even disabled the comment section so if I link to it (not that I ever would) the Librarian will not get mad (the old hen).

I guess I would be happier with all these shunning threads if they started with: "Well, we know how vital it is for worshippers of Jehovah to stay separate from the world, but ..." Or: "Well, we know how Christians must 'touch nothing unclean,' but...." Or: "Well, we know how God is a jealous God who hasn't exactly been cool in the past when his ancient people got too cozy with the nations, but.... However, they are framed that way. Always it is framed as a matter of individual rights, as though toeing the line in that regard cannot help but make God happy. I don't think it works that way. As much as you want to avoid causing upset to people, surely God fits in there somewhere. It is not a 'What is good for General Motors is good for God.' It ought always to be a "Let us make sure it is good for God, and then we'll see what we can do about not ruffling the feathers of General Motors.'