TrueTomHarley

When everyone else has viewed and written about something, that means you do not have to. Just read what they said, note what they did not say - it's a slam-dunk as to why - and you are golden. You can hit it with 90% accuracy. Mine is a forensic review. That's why I put the word in quotes. Before you choke in indignation, recall that forensic techniques are used all the time in many fields and people never discard the results on that account.

When I heard that the Philly reporter hangs out at the Reddit site, and then I later saw him there myself, as though reporting back to the 'faithful' and promising them further salvos, I thought maybe other reporters might do that too. So I have posted there several times, as JTR immediately detected at his Apostate Control Center. In any community where ones do nothing but repeat and reinforce, in time the subject becomes skewed and misrepresented. 'They need some education over there,' I said, not regarding the chief priests, but the third parties that may pop in or even take their main nourishment from that source. I don't expect to turn anyone around. I hope only to present another side so that should a reporter broadside us, he at least has a better feel for who and what he is broadsiding. On posts that are lengthy, which is most of them, I usually post just a few paragraphs, and link to the remainder on my own blog, where I can keep track of it and it is not quickly buried. Do you know, Ms @The Librarian, that I have never once been called for 'spamming' on the 'apostate' site? In writing specific replies to each Philly article, then an overreaching one incorporating all three, I begin to imagine, I hope not too immodestly, that I become a 'news source' in my own right. What I write I have seen no one else write in a comprehensive fashion. This is also true of my 'review' of the Apostasy movie and an upcoming post or two about the BITE model that everyone is swooning over. Though some get all bent up that specific replies are not forthcoming from the theocratic organization on whatever dirt opposers think they have dug up on us, and fume that responses cannot be found on the official website, I think they cannot be expected to appear there or anywhere else. To do so would require our brothers go the 'low road,' from the Bible standpoint. Jesus said (Matthew 11) that they will bellyache no matter what you do, so shrug it off and go full speed ahead. David said 'all day long they muttered at him, and he responded by keeping mum.' The plowman that keeps looking behind 'is not well-suited for the kingdom of God,' so they tend not to do that. (Luke 9:62) It will be for others to defend them, and they may not even appreciate it. And they may not even appreciate it because it is not a good idea. Who can say? I just find that, having taken the time to get my head around things, I cannot let one-sided articles go by without posting a reply as complete as I know how to make it. Another reason, maybe the more important reason, for the organization's not jumping into the fray, is the principle of separateness. The fray is populated by those yet in the 'low sink' of 1 Peter 4:4. 'Water's just fine here in the low sink!' they cry. 'What are you, nuts, for staying out?' It is just as Peter says, that they are puzzled about it for a time, but quickly figure out that the 'correct' response is to 'speak abusively' of those keeping separate. And few people are as quick to embrace values of the sink than media people - it is they who discuss the merits of "theybees," for example, while people of common sense dismiss it as stupidity on steriods. And don't get me going about people who were out of the low sink but dive back in. "Water is not so bad here, after all," they say, as they slap lipstick on a pig like varnishing a barn. The brothers cannot win by jumping into the fray. Pope Francis apologiizes in the wake of the Pennsylvanian report, and it is "too little, too late," to the Church's opponents. And no, JTR, it is not even remotely similar to the JW situation - please do not embarrass yourself still further by going there. It will always be 'too little too late' to those whose primary goal is to discredit what they don't like. Even were the brothers to decide that they have something that merits a public apology, the instant retort would be: "Well, what are you going to do about it?" Unless the answer is exactly the course that opposers want, the 'apology' will be dismissed as but empty words. We should not be naive. How do you face a squad that would convict you for not 'going beyond the law' in reporting? What sort of an invitation to Monday-morning quarterbacking is that? If it is so crucial to go beyond the law, then MAKE that the law. What is so hard about that? Jehovah's organization can make a new policy and spread it throughout every congregation in the world in no time at all. The overall world is, as usual, incompetent, and tries to foist the consequences of its incompetence on others - in this case the one branch of Christianity that knows that if you preach moral values, you had better take some measures to determine that your own people are doing them. How do you face a squad that says the standard of justice integral to Western law should be abandoned because bad guys escape through the net that way? Each time DNA evidence releases someone convicted on less strenuous proof from prison, we see the value of actually making sure of your facts. Doesn't matter to the zealots. Not long ago the British cops descended with huge fanfare - helocopters, I think, to bust some well-known person for pedophilia, with media giving the raid the greatest coverage. It turned out that when it was found that there was nothing to it, the man sued media and won a large award. It did not make a dent in their zeal. 'Alright, alright, so we destroyed someone,' they muttered. 'It is worth it in our quest to 'protect children.' In searching, I didn't remember enough to bring up the story, but I came up with this from the Michael Jackson trial (one of the most shameful travesties of 'journalism' says the HuffPost) which is almost better. Meanwhile, at Apostate Control, JTR does not miss an opportunity to malign Michael Jackson, as he does Prince, because he thinks he can hurt the Watchtower that way. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-thomson/one-of-the-most-shameful_b_610258.html Nonetheless, do what Jackson pleaded for before the ARC and the problem is solved. Both parties, congregation and government, can pursue their goals without interfering with the other. No, I think the organization will never go there, in answering charges specifically. It will focus on what it does best, make 'reforms' that it deems necessary, and press forward. It will take up the words of Russell about not kicking at every one that barks, because you don't get very far that way. Meanwhile, the Librarian, fine lady that she is, and who can blame her for blowing a gasket when I try to link to my blog three times a day? took a look at my blog, said it had an 'old look,' and made some suggestions. I had to admit that it did, so I went to Typepad and said 'what were they going to do about it?' It turns out they can make things more modern, even get it so that it flows into whatever device summons it. I will not get to it immediately, because it is a pain in the neck, but I wlll get to it. Thank you, Ms Librarian. (you old hen) My blog will not compete with yours. It is only a collection of writings I deem loyal. At most, I get one or two attaboys from allies, and seldom even that. "I don't want more,'" said the fox to the sour grapes. And what! You think I am going to let JTR go there without a leash? No. I want to write, not moderate comments. It is as you say: FB and the huge social media sites are squeezing out the bacon of everyone else. I took a four year hiatus from blogging to attend to some pressing matters. When I returned, it took awhile to restore former traffic. That has been done. Yet the commenting never reappeared. Come, we are allies in a battle that is not unimportant. I don't mean to take from here; I think it almost an impossible goal due to presentation and commenting differences, and if I link to myself, will only do so if it is directly relevent, and not just tooting my own horn for the sake of tooting it. Especially if Srecko links to an entire article, where a hit man writer luxuriates in slowing building his point, I ought to be able to counter with a post progressively building a reply.

I'll take a chance here. Srecko posts a Philly article damning to Jehovah's Witnesses. (though it has nothing to do with the thread - my thread) I wrote a reply to that article and sent it to the newspaper, cc to the reporter and an editor or two. I said they owed it to their readers to publish it or its equivalent as prominently as they had published theirs maligning a group of decent people. The letter of reply was not acknowledged in any way. Let's see if the reply can remain here. Srecko's incendiary link has stayed. Let's see if the response is permitted to stay as well. It is directly relevent and does not veer off in any other direction. http://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2018/07/an-open-letter-to-the-philadelphia-inquirer-because-they-did-not-acknowlege-much-less-print-the-sent.html The Philly paper went on to write two follow-up articles, the reporter checking back to Reddit. I replied to each of them, and then wrote a fourth piece summarizing them all: "Three Incendiary Articles from the Philadelphia Inquirer." She says she was 5 when another Jehovah's Witness raped her. The religion's leaders call such accounts 'false stories' They do not. It is the spin put on them that he calls 'false stories.'

I don’t, want to dump, on, the Church, but when I, stopped in,at, the office to, explain. my mission regarding, Celeste, staff assured me, that Father, so-and-so was an absolutely, wonderful man, who would. of course, help Do, you know. that, he never got back to, me? Unrelated, I recall Garrison Keillor telling how Pastor Inqvist unsuccessfully tried to jazz up his dull sermons by watching the TV preacher: ‘It was hard to follow because he was pausing in such odd...............places........that it confused people.’

I'll pick a fight with JTR and distract her. Though she might be on the bottle again and need no distraction.

I would link to my post about caring for a woman Celeste who was given to a lobotomy when young, as it is a favorite piece, and I atypically get to swear like a drunken sailor in quoting her, but I’m afraid of the Librarian. She might get mad. Canada, where GF resolves to, or is it Allen the Terrible in his umpteenth recreation, is a fine place. When they get out of line, we tip a Great Lake or two their way.

Weighing in (I think) with @Space Merchant (was it on this thread or another?) here is a psychiatrist declaring that pedophilia is a legitamate sexual orientation, thus arguing for its recognition. This does not appear to be fake news. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/paedophilia-sexual-orientation-straight-gay-criminal-psychologist-child-sex-abuse-a6965956.html

What I cannot fathom is that you (supposedly) still attend meetings and and engage in field service. This makes no sense to me, and does not fit the pattern, and for that reason, I half-don't believe it. When someone grouses eterally over what eventually drives them apostate, they lose EVERYTHING they once regarded as spiritual. They do not 'reject the 85% that they regard as crap but cling to the 15%' still pure, or was it the other way around? They may do it in the short term. But long term, they reject everything. This, to me, is the 'mystery' of apostasy. Not that ones would go that route. That I find very easy to understand. But that, having gone there, they would not retain even a shred of what they once held dear. That to me is the mystery. If it is really true that, as someone alleged, you remain where you hate to be out of fear of social consequences were you to be outed, then you are most of all the one who is in need of courage, the theme at the Be Courageous Regional convention, though the content be not intended for that outcome.

Forgive an off-topic comment, if you will. I have long wanted to thank you, but did not know that you still hung around. I finished the book I was working on, 'Dear Mr. Putin - Jehovah's Witnesses Write Russia,' and you were the biggest help, since you continually posted updates of persecutions there. I am grateful to you for that. I also took it to heart when you chastised me for 'liking' the contents of apostates, which I had never done much, but resolved to do not at all henceforth. That is not to say that I have not exchanged barbs with the 'house apostate' who resembles, after a time, a big cuddly snarling lovable rabid old teddy bear. And even a Jack someone or other, whe has launched as many as ten petulant complaints in a single day. But 'guest apostates', like a certain one who used to sign off 'he he he )))))' until he discontinued it, apparantly realizing it made him look like a moron, I do not respond to (usually). It is well that you stay out of it. You have chosen the high road. I recall you saying that you had recently been appointed MS and married not too long ago, and that you wanted to focus on those real priorities. I hope things are going well with you.

There is a certain idiot on Twitter who has been trolling me lately and he has not been easy to shake. I do not converse with such characters, though I do announce to them. He said that he assumes I have JW friends and family that I would lose were it discovered that I had "chatted' (his innacurate word) with him. I replied that 'You know what they say about assuming.' While continually asking for clarification, he inserts observations such as me belonging to a high-control group. Lately I have taken to responding to all requests for elucidation with a link to somethng I have already written. Such as: "Here is another one for you,, since you keep asking. I really don't want to do this. But I am in a "high-control" group, as you say, and they are making me: http://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2011/04/what-the-is-next.html Incredibly, he perseveres, even after I sent him one that I said I called my "troll special." But I can outlast him. I have a lot of posts. This is called 'shifting responsibility.' it is what Adam did. My thread! My big beautiful thread! How it has been hijacked and divereted! That bad Anna.

You will be happy to learn that I got a G on my talk last night, which was written here. The deciding factor was when I threw in, entirely spontaneously, that Franklin was hung with a NEW rope and yet still complained about it Imagine. Even when the hangman goes to all the trouble and expense of procuring a NEW rope, it is still not enough for Mr. Fussypants. For those in Rio Linda, let us illustrate the situation thus: ”He would complain even if he was hung with a NEW rope.” Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! “He would complain even if he was hung with a OLD rope.” ? ?

You guys are all nuts. It only makes comedic sense if it is a new rope. Old rope is decidedly not funny and anyone thinking so should be observed for at least 48 hours. It is like new new prisoner puzzled that the mere shout of a number would evoke uproarious laughter until he was told that in a closed population all jokes eventually get told many times and so to save time all are assigned numbers. He asked if he can do one, too, and when he shouts out a number, it is met with dead silence. He asks why that is and is told: ”Some people just can’t tell a joke.”

This is incorrect. They should ALL complain about being hung with an old rope. It’s people that are so fussy that they would complain even were it a brand NEW rope that makes it funny. A good friend of mine used to say it all the time.

Ben Franklin courted the widow of his good friend, but the woman turned him down flat: ‘I could never be untrue to my husband.Â’ Then, in a dream, he went to heaven and met his good friend. They exchanged pleasantries until the friend presently said: “You must meet my new wife. SheÂ’ll be along soon.” Ben Franklin couldnÂ’t believe it. ‘Your earthly wife is more loyal than you!Â’ he said. She turned me down cold on your account!Â’ ‘ThatÂ’s too bad for you,Â’ the friend said. ‘She is an excellent woman and I missed her terribly at first, but now it is time to move on.Â’ As Ben Franklin grumbled, the ‘newÂ’ wife showed up and it was BenÂ’s own deceased wife! Ben Franklin turned his rebuke on her, but she said: ‘I was a good and loyal wife to you for 50 years. Let that be enough for you!Â’ It is a mangling of Luke 20: 34-36, most likely, botched, but nonetheless used as a starting point. No need to say what is wrong with it. Suffice that it addresses the changed nature of relationships after death: “Jesus said to them: ‘The children of this system of things marry and are given in marriage, but those who have been counted worthy of gaining that system of things and the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage. In fact, neither can they die anymore, for they are like the angels, and they are GodÂ’s children by being children of the resurrection.’” For the longest time JehovahÂ’s Witnesses took those verses to mean that those who lost a spouse in death would not reunite in the earthly resurrection. After a certain public talk years ago that had mentioned the verse, a sister raised her had during the chairmanÂ’s remarks, something I had never seen before and have not seen again. She was new in the faith, widowed, and she looked forward to reuniting with her husband in the resurrection. She quizzed the chairman until the speaker himself raised his hand and said he would clarify the verse for her afterwards. About 30-40 years ago, the Witness organization looked at the verses anew and said maybe she could reunite. They didnÂ’t want to be dogmatic. Maybe the verses just applied to those having the heavenly hope, as they were the ones in abundance back then. It canÂ’t even be said of earthly ones “neither can they die anymore.” They can, and surely will, if they show a rebellious spirit. I mean, if you were raised up to life on a paradise earth, would you grumble about the ground rules? Grousers who say that JehovahÂ’s Witnesses flip-flop on doctrine miss the point. TheyÂ’ve never said they didnÂ’t. They do it all the time, re-examining verses in the face of accumulating knowledge. It has been called ‘the light getting brighter.Â’ (Proverbs 4:18) It has also been called tacking. The only ones who say they canÂ’t do it are the grousers themselves. That said, the major teachings of JehovahÂ’s Witnesses regarding the nature of God (no Trinity), the nature of the soul (not immortal), who goes to heaven (not everybody good, but only a minority), have been firmly in place for over a century. Ridding the false doctrines that make knowledge and a close relationship with God all but impossible is part of the job of ‘the messenger preparing the way.Â’ The first thing you do in preparing the way for a building project is to take out the trash. (the Ben Franklin writing is called 'A Proposal to Madame Helvetius')

"This next lesson is mighty important." "Bullwinkle is a dope." "NOT that lesson. This lesson:" (Rocky and Bullwinkle) Still, if studying the 1000 years book twice was for misguided purpose, for what reason was it directed that we study the Greatest Man book four times? (and again, in its new version)

In the broadest sense of the word, nearly all human interaction is political. This is not the sense of the word the people normally use, and everyone here except for one person 'groks' it. It is similar to the 'political' involvement of previous WBTS presidents. The accusations are so obviously and lovingly culled from apostate websites, everyone else rejecting it as the obsessive nonsense that it is, that I find, although there is a part of me that would like to answer it, it is too stupid to answer.

And to think that I once called this brother ‘Allen the Terrible.’ Not only does he prove the resurrection; he proves the rehabilitation. A few Bible verses say it all.

Actually I said that “Witnesses love this guy.” I wouldn’t put it that way. Offense is more like it. Admittedly he is a cultivated taste and it is well that he is one of a kind among Watchtower ‘brass.’ But nobody would ever deny that he is genuine, nor of his concern for the flock. In a world of phonies obsessed with outward appearance that is a decided plus. In general, the more ‘lowly’ our people are, the more they like him. The more enamored people are with the TV anchorman as role model, the more they choke on him.

 You know, I really enjoyed Sunday’s Watchtower on the value of political neutrality, didn’t you? (sigh...every newbie begins with the assumption, as I did, that the house sorehead is sane and open to reason)

"My my my my my my my my my. What a mess." Tommy Lee Jones (The Fugitive)

This puts it in a nutshell and is overall perceptive and appreciative of the work of others. The reason that nobody knows anything today is because at the first misstep it is 'OFF WITH HIS HEAD!' leaving only inexperienced clods to run the show. There are new battle lines being drawn today, and they have to do with human authority. The trend today is to despise it in every setting, not just JW. It is also one of the trademarks of the 'apostates' discussed in Jude and 2 Peter. We have overall largely fought and won the battle of 'is there a Trinity?', blood transfusion, military non-participation, from the standpoint of nuetral observers. With determined opposers they will never be won, and each new 'weapon formed against you that will not succeed' will for them forever be a grand slam home run, but this is not where one must look. One must look at impartial parties. Today it is largely 'apostates' who are succeeding in doing what Jehovah's Witnesses could never do on their own: putting Jehovah's name at the center of all creation.' In Russia it is anti-cult. In the West it is anti-cult and child abuse accusations. None of the reports are groundless, but they are all misframed and misrepresented. The trick will be to frame and represent them properly. Amidst some of these accusations, Bethel seems to me to resemble 'a deer caught in the headlights' but it has shown many times in the past that it can adapt quickly. Sometimes I think that the lightning-like chariot image is applied too hastily, but then other times it actually moves lightning light and I am caught looking stupid for wondering about it. Responding effectively to some of the modern accusations is complicated by the fact that there are some places that Bethel just doesn't go, in accord with verses to not even say a greeting to certain ones. They like the model of the plowman who is not much good if he keeps looking behind at the furrows. They like Jesus saying wisdom is proved righteous by its works and so not responding to critics who lambaste him no matter what he does. It may be for certain perceptive ones to 'go to bat' for them, and knowing that they may not even think it a good thing to do, and that it may not even be. However, in many instances, Bethel is cool toward something until they see someone who makes it work. This is true of computer and internet developments. It was true of the quick-build arrangements. At present it is individual rights, all the rage today, versus individual responsibilities, which is downplayed and sometimes ignored. It is the rights of individuals versus the rights of organizations that would ensure some of those rights in the case of minority beliefs. "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country," are the words of John F Kennedy, thought noble for many decades after he said it. Today they would be the words of a cult leader. I think the operating verse will be the one in Phillipians: "True, some are preaching the Christ out of envy and rivallry, but others out of goodwill. The latter are proclaiming the Christ out of love, for they know that I have been appointed to defend the good news;p but the former do it out of contentiousness, not with a pure motive, for they are intending to create trouble for me in my prison bonds. With what result? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is being proclaimed, and I rejoice over this" We might never have chosen the particular battlefields that opposers have chosen for us, but that does mean we cannot respond to them. 'They will lyingly say every wicked thing about you' Jesus said to his followers. Tell me about it.

I would be concerned, if I were you, about posting your "office" set-up. #RussianHacking

There was an Awake interview of Michael Behe, who in the main supports evolution, but simply says that it has limits. It would not have happened if the two hated each others guts. I doubt the thousands of years from the model once applied to creation means anything anymore. Particularly since they have said :we don't do anti-types anymore.' You get almost as much bang for the buck, with no downside, by saying 'this reminds us of that.' Can anyone come along later and say that it doesn't? We can overthink things. Aren't there a few examples in theocratic histroy where memes competed with each other for a time before one emerged as the winner? I think, with the exception of Adam and Eve, they are saying 'to each his own' as to days of creation. Let scientists be scientists and Bible teachers be Bible teachers. Even with Adam and Eve, I invite people who I think might stumble over it to think of it as a metaphor and try to discern the underlying meaning. People love being thought perceptive enough to be entrusted with such a challenge. They can go back and resolve it in more detail for themselves at a later time, if they wish, as I did.

"At the home of Victor Vomidog, an alarm panel light pulsed red. Victor read the incoming feed. It was serious. Someone was saying nice things about Jehovah’s Witnesses. Instantly, he swung into action. There was not a moment to lose. He opened his door and whistled. The media came running. “Witnesses are selfish!” he cried. “They only think of themselves! Why don’t they help everyone? Why do they just do their own people?” That evening, media ran the headline: “WHY DON’T THEY HELP EVERYONE?” "But they had asked the wrong question. The headline they should have run, but didn’t, because they didn’t want to deal with the answer, was: “WHY AREN’T OTHERS DOING THE SAME?” The answer to the first question is obvious: Witness efforts consist of volunteers using their vacation time. Just how much time is the boss going to grant?" (from Tom Irregardless and Me) Of course, it is about opposers' efforts to denigrate the disaster recovery work Witnesses are known for. And to think I didn't even know you then.