TrueTomHarley

When my aunt died, the entire Catholoc family converged on my uncle's house after the funeral, where they ate, laughed, visited and caught up on family. Meanwhile, he lay inconsolable on the couch, and was left alone. I recall thinking what a horrible spectacle it was. But now I think it is one of those things which must be. The best way to help anyone cope with such a blow is for family to gather around. He sees that normal life continues, and in time, it may be a long time, he joins in. And no, I did not witness to him. I would have had to have done so before everyone, none of whom were Witnesses, and I did not have the comfort level and freeness of speech that I have today. Today I would have done it, even if it was before all. It might even have been better that way.

DR. TOM "HAMMER" URABI ANSWERS YOUR BIBLE QUESTIONS! Dear Dr. Urabii: Why is there both Lord and LORD in Psalm 110:1? Is there something underhanded going on, like trying to hide God's name? Answer: Nothing to see here, people. Move along, now. #jehovah #jehovahswitnesses #yhwh #divinename ........ You have been listening to Dr.Tom "Hammer" Urabi. He hammers home the answer so that you will KNOW and can IMPRESS YOUR FRIENDS!

I played with this one for a while: DR. TOM "HAMMER" URABI ANSWERS YOUR BIBLE QUESTIONS! Dear Dr. Urabii: Who was it that first removed God's name from the Bible. Why? Answer: It was Jack LORD, who went on to star in the original Hawaii 5-0 For career advancement. Duh. #jehovah #jehovahswitnesses #yhwh #divinename ........ You've been listening to Dr.Tom "Hammer" Urabi. He hammers home the answer so that YOU will KNOW and can IMPRESS YOUR FRIENDS!

It was Jack LORD, who later went on to star in Hawaii 5-0. He wanted to advance his career.

No, it is another newspaper with a grudge against the Watchtower, having run three anti-Witness articles in the span of a few weeks. Easily searchable.

Yes, it reminds me of the Newsweek cover a few years back emblazoning the headlines of recent disasters on all fronts, then concluding (on the cover) with a nice reassuring message for the children , because it didn't want to frighten them: "What the !@!* is next?" it read. http://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2011/04/what-the-is-next.html

You are right, and it does not. I will admit, however being surprised as the suddenness of the onslaught. This makes the third of three entirely separate reasons to viciously attack Jehovah's Witnesses, in Russia even banning them. It appears to be like Jesus said abut the theif not announcing his presence beforehand and so the householder must keep on the watch. To the extent ones have done that, they are probably glad of it. It appears to be getting near to crunch time.

A major American newspaper has published material meant to be damning to Jehovah’s Witnesses, which refers to a group of elders at a 2017 meeting, where they were supposedly advised to destroy handwritten notes of meetings and notes of internal documents due to the potential legal harm such pose. Presumably (though it is not explicitly made clear) these are notes relevant to child sexual abuse investigations. The reason? A Witness representative reportedly states: “Well, we know that the scene of this world is changing, and we know Satan’s coming after us, and he’s going to go for us legally. We can see by the way things are shaping up.” It is not hard to imagine what certain ones are doing with the explanation that “Satan’s coming after us.” The reason the Witnesses have whatever child abuse records they do is that they sought to investigate this evil in their midst at a time that others did not. Should they destroy anything, it merely puts them on par with everyone else, who never left a ‘paper trail’ in the first place because they never were proactive. Seen in this light, it does indeed seem that Satan is ‘coming after them.’ It is the quintessential example of the cynical phrase: ‘No good deed goes unpunished.’ On the other side of the world, the Jehovah’s Witness organization during the same year was banned in Russia. Government and media have partnered to whip the public into a froth, hurling many virulent accusations about the faith. Yet, child sexual abuse allegations have played no part whatsoever. Chivchalov states that nobody has heard of it there. Only after the ban did the Russian Embassy, in response to one of my tweets, respond with a Western headline of pedophile charges. In other words, they found a completely separate reason to ban Jehovah’s Witnesses. Keep in mind that we are speaking of the faith whose members are universally recognized as ‘pacifist’ – who will on no account resort to violence or support war efforts. It is highly unusual for a large group of people to have absolutely no blood on their hands in this regard, but they do not. Is it so crazy for the Witness spokesman to say: ‘Satan is coming after us?” Given the foregoing, it would almost be crazy for him not to. Among the most heated charges in Russia are those of Jehovah’s Witnesses refusing blood transfusions, stemming from their interpretation of scripture. It is an issue that has largely been put to bed in the West because of the success of bloodless medicine and the growing recognition that transfusion therapy poses many risks. Still, it does happen from time to time that such refusal costs a Witness his or her life. Russian media rages over this, labeling leaders of the religion murderers. Surely, somewhere along the line it should be acknowledged that Jehovah’s Witnesses have absolutely no deaths at all attributed to illicit drug abuse, overdrinking, and tobacco use, save only for when someone is slipping into old habits. Witnesses could multiply transfusion deaths 1000-fold and still not not come close to the mortality record of the overall world. Far and away, they are the ‘safest’ religion out there. Yet they are said to be the murderers. And we are to laugh when they say: ‘Satan is coming after us?’ One thing we know about opposers: they will always overplay their hand, giving honest-hearted persons a heads-up. How can it not be getting near to crunch time? It is in the free ebook (soon to be in print), ‘Dear Mr. Putin – Jehovah’s Witnesses Write Russia,’ with chapter 12 devoted to pedophile accusations. I had no idea when I wrote it that the book would so quickly become so relevant. https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/815620

I wonder why they would choose that theme? Yeah, like how police have shown up in Russia, typically in full riot gear, to arrest members of the faith.

Okay, now Allen, behave yourself. Seriously. It is excellent stuff that you contribute. Don't mess it up. You have made what appears to others as personal attacks and have been tossed on your ear several times. Have others engaged in attacks and not been tossed? I many times have been called a liar with no repurcussions at all. It doesn't matter. It is what it is. Nobody will ever say that you do not get worked up. You cannot afford the luxury. Please, never post a comment immediately. Take time to think it over and cool off if you are heated. The most brilliant comments that you, I, or anyone else, make are quickly buried. There is no need to be hasty. Take your time. Remember it is a public forum that you are on and people can (and do) say whatever they want. You cannot stop that. You have to work around it somehow when they post what seems malignant. If you hurl something ultra-harsh that gets you tossed, you have indulged your own fury, but fallen short of reaching your full power.

It is hard to comment on their policies or records, much less compare them with the records of anyone else, since others hid their heads in the sand and kept none. It is in Chapter 12, 'Pedophiles' of the free ebook Dear Mr. Putin - Jehovahs' Witnesses Write Russia, which I trust the Librarian will let me link to, since it is not like that time long ago when he took issue because he (correctly) thought I was hawking my first book which was not free. https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/815620

The reason they have whatever records they do, if it is child abuse records being referred to, is that they investigated a great wrong in their midst when others did not in theirs. Should they destroy anything, it puts them on par with everyone else, who never thought to attempt to root out the evil. Seen in this light, it does indeed seem to be "Satan coming after them.'

I did not think I would live to see a reason that I might thank @Jack Ryan for a post. Every day God tells me how little I know. I take back one or two of the mean things I have said about him.

Because it makes sense and is considerate. Some people have come from afar. Some are in no shape to cook. I don't think it is unique to Witnesses. I think it is more common than otherwise. In cases of family, I remember in my youth people lamenting that the only time the whole family got together was for funerals., as though love itself would not suffice, but only an obligation. I finally decided to run with it. It is what it is. Death in this system of things is a natural course of life. Use it as a metronome, to reliably bring everyone together from time to time. Kill two birds with one stone. Bring everyone together and use the power of family to help the bereaved one heal. Stay the course, and the time will come when there is no death.

Actually, had she passed on the Summer Olympics, the verbiage you favor would be close to appropriate. Wasn't it a couple hundred of those young girls who were molested by the team doctor, now serving several lifetimes in prison? Imagine, the sister passing on such a priviledge. What in the world is wrong with her, Jack?

The reason I chose Presbyterians is because that is what I was raised. We went to church once a week and I got out of it whenever I could, but it was not easy because Pop wanted the house free of kids so he could read the paper in peace. When I could not avoid it, I always opted for church rather than the Sunday School they always tried to shunt me off to, and this was more interesting, though I can't say I understood it. I always thought that the problem was mine - that I wasn't attentive enough or prayerful enough. I never dreamed that the problem was theirs - that they weren't teaching anything that made sense. There was absolutely no way any wrong conduct of mine would have reached the attention of the church. There was no mechanism to monitor such. They wouldn't have approved had they known of any, of course, but there was no way they ever would have known. My conduct there was impecable, the same as it is here, but that was not true of anyone. I wrote the following in Tom Irregardless and Me: Church discipline used to be a significant, accepted part of most evangelical traditions, whether Reformed, Methodist, Baptist, or Anabaptist,” [evangelical author Ronald]Sider writes. “In the second half of the twentieth century, however, it has largely disappeared.” He then quotes Haddon Robinson on the current church climate, a climate he calls ‘consumerism:’ Too often now when people join a church, they do so as consumers. If they like the product, they stay. If they do not, they leave. They can no more imagine a church disciplining them than they could a store that sells goods disciplining them. It is not the place of the seller to discipline the consumer. In our churches, we have a consumer mentality. Okay? There may be exceptions, but this is the pattern, says Sider. The seller does not discipline the consumer. It is unimaginable. So how likely is it they are going to learn of illicit conduct in regard to child sexual abuse. Since the church does not look at it, are we to imagine that when police nab abusers in other contexts they ascertain their religion? I'll leave it for others to dive into the numbers you have provided, and discern just what they mean. In view of the uproar over the last few years, probably everyone is trying to produce stats of some sort that show they have their eye on the ball. To what degree this is the case here I will leave to others to explain. But since, per Sider, they have long looked away, I don't know from how they could have been arrived.

60. And don't get me going about the Methodists.

Well, I think it is no more than common sense. If someone abuses a child and both happen to be Presbyterian, will that connection ever make media reports? If it happens right there in the church, yes, or if it is in some church-sponsored retreat. But if it happens in pure social settings, when is the connection made? In Witness cases, however, the connection is always made. Most cases are in settings having nothing to do with the Kingdom Hall, yet the proactive organization investigates wrong conduct regardless of where it occurs. Yes. Would that they would also consider that Jehovah's Witnesses were virtually alone in making them during the time period in question. When Star Fleet command feels it necessary to discipline Capt James T Kirk (not Rook) and crew, they take into account that he was "boldly going where no one has gone before." There is no question that victims have suffered and do suffer. It is legally enabled and it is a consequence of "innocent until proven guilty.' "Innocent untli proven guilty" could be, and increasingly is, spun as "protecting the accused, rather than protecting the victim." In fact, the bad guy does not always get nabbed, preferable though that outcome would be. When the offense is vile enough, people say: "To hell with evidence ... we want to see someone behind bars.' Some prosecutors even seek to make names for themself, sending people up on evidence they know is sketchy. The 'justice' that JTR worships yields to this influence all the time. That is why countless innocent persons are now being released from prison now through DNA evidence, a circumstance that he had no answer to, so he declared it spectacularly irrelevant. I am pleased, as are you and Anna, that our organization has revised some procedings to greater approach absolute justice, elusive though that quality is in any dealings human. And yes, it is accomplished, it appears, though prodding of the greater world. And no, it does not satisfy them, because in the case of those who despise Jehovah's Witnesses, it does not remove the real source of the problem: Jehovah's Witnesses.

"In 1987, Cleveland social workers and pediatricians removed over 100 children from their families suspected of sexual abuse. Public outcry was such, fueled by media cries alleging ‘overzealous’ and ‘intrusive’ agency overreach, that most were promptly returned, despite credible evidence of abuse. Lucy Delap, writing for History and Policy, credits ‘feminist campaigners’ with making the protection of children a priority, and states that “clear guidelines for best practice were not established until the 1990s.” (from Dear Mr. Putin...) It is the height of dishonesty to measure yesterday's sins by today's standards, yet this is usually the rule when zealots get into the act. Frankly, child abuse that fell short of rape was once one of those things that children were thought to bounce back from rather easily. Even Richard Dawkins, in his book 'The God Delusion" maintains this view,. He has learned to keep his mouth shut about it so as not to infuriatie those who are, in many respects, his allies.

There is not a New Testament writer who does not deal, sometimes at length, with apostasy. Is that because the first century governing arrangement screwed it up, too?

In that Watchtower Study about encouragement, it turns out that everyone can use it and everyone can give it. When it came to the paragraph on elders as recipients, the congregation we visited showered them with quite a few nice remarks. ‘I think we’re going to stay on this paragraph for the rest of the meeting,’ the conductor quipped. Yeah. If they are shelter from the wind, the rainstorm, or the roasting sun, then they need a coat of varnish now and then - maintenance, the same as you would maintain any barrier. It turns out that they don’t need much; they are mostly self-maintaining. A little bit of encouragement will do, especially coupled with cooperation and acquiescing to the lead they take, not unlike how Hebrews 13:17 puts it: “Be obedient to those taking the lead among you and be submissive, for they are keeping watch over you as those who will render an account, so that they may do this with joy and not with sighing, for that would be damaging to you.” When it came to encouragement that anyone might give anyone, a verse cited was Philippians 2:3; do it “with humility, consider the other superior to you.” This led someone to observe ‘How can that be? How can two persons each regard the other as superior?’ The trick is to look for the one or more things in the other person at which they are better than you …there will always be something…and then hone in on that quality. Failing that, the trap will be that someone gives encouragement in a looking-down way, or a patronizing way, undermining its intended effect. How many people really give encouragement, anyway? It certainly is not the pattern outside of the congregation. Look at social media and it would appear to be a scarce commodity indeed. It is good to surround oneself with people with whom encouragement replaces ‘cutting’ as a M.O. Then there was that part about Paul needing encouragement, and even rescue “from the unbelievers in Judea,” as though they actually came after him, and were not just the apathetic persons Christians typically encounter. One begins to wonder if he is not speaking of unbelievers in the congregation making trouble, for battling apostasy is a steady theme in the Greek Scriptures; there is not an NT writer who does not deal with it.

i admit it, I am not really happy unless I am hitting a certain blockhead over the head with a verbal baseball bat. This is the problem, in my estimation. He was not calling the bare facts of any case 'apostate lies.' He was calling the spin opposers put on them 'apostate lies.' Oh, give the flag a rest for just a moment, would you? What about the droves of people now being released from false convictions with the advent of DNA evidence, some having served decades? Go tell them about the brilliance of your brand of INVESTIGATION. AMEN!!! And for some of them it took nearly their entire lives while they were awaiting in prison their justice.

And just what would they investigate? They DID investigate sexual abuse of its members as cases came to their attention, and this is the source of their "problem" in the first place. They would have been far better off, practically speaking, to have hidden their heads in the sand and cried, Sergeant Shultz-like, "I know nothinnnggggg." They would have been far better off, practically speaking, to make no attempt to monitor the conduct of their members. That way, some instances of abuse would eventually come to light through other means, as they do with members of other faiths, where they would not typically be linked with religious denomination.

Of course! Just like in a secular court of law today where any Tom Dick or Harry in the spectator section can rise to his feet and holler "I object!"

For once, I think that JTR is right. However, I also think that it does not happen. I think the findings of secular and relgious systems operate enitrely independent of one another. It is part of the GB's "problem." Come hell or high water, they put their understanding of the scriptures first, showing little deviation due to "the opinions of men."