TrueTomHarley

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."

The greater world places huge emphasis on punishing child sexual abuse, but relatively little on preventing it, unless it is figured that the example of punishment IS preventing it, but that idea hasn't exactly worked out, has it? It may be that the Dutch authorities will uncover information as did the Australian Royal Commission, that while there are instances of abuse not coming to the attention of the authorities, there is much less of it to begin with in the JW community. The reason abuse is linked with Jehovah's Witnesses is that they have a policy of investigating it, along with all other types of wrongdoing. Had they not done so, instances of abuse would still have happened, but they would usually not be associated with religious affiation, as is the case elsewhere. Any group maintaining that its influence leads to greater morality ought to take steps to see that this is, in fact, the case. Romans says "You, the one saying 'do not steal,' do you steal? You, the one saying, 'do not commit adultery,' do you commit adultery?' It will not do with God to bury your head in the sand. You must be proactive to search out and investigate reports as they occur. Who else did this other than Jehovah's Witnesses? When I wrote 'Dear Mr. Putin - Jehovah's Witnesses Write Russia,' almost as an afterthought I included a Part II, outlining what about Witnesses Russian authorities found so objectionable, along with defenses for those accusations. Almost as an afterthought again, I included a 9000+ word chapter 12, 'Pedophiles.' It is an accusation that has never arisen in Russia, but it has proven hot elsewhere. That chapter becomes one of the most relevent chapters of the book as time moves on. It is free, and I link to it here: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/815620

It is Jael. Don't no opposers say nothin bad about it. #RememberSisera #IfIHadaHammer

My greatest creation, @JW Insider, has kept them all fooled for the longest time.

Why do I want to create a phony profile (another one!) ... that of a GB member who admits that, deep down in his heart, he knows that Witness is right, that he is utterly ashamed of himself, and that he is astounded by her phenomenal grasp of the scriptures and reasoning ability?

It all depends upon the cat’s legal representative Â

I never figured out all that new note-taking apparatus, didn’t try (though they make it easy enough) because I was already used to the Notes app on iPad. I can’t look up the scriptures that way, but I can take notes on them. As with any old-timer, I know my way around the Book pretty well by now. If I was starting from scratch, I would devour all those new study features.

I was somewhat of a holdout in adapting to the digital formats. But once I did, I passed by almost everyone. Except for the contact cards, specific calls, and invitations, I haven't carried a piece of paper with me in ages.

Sometimes the chest expanding indicates that the body is breathing. Other times it is the chest contracting that conveys the same idea.

The brown sign seems to indicate that he came up suddenly upon a dinosaur crossing

Early tweets I saw were unusually vicious, as in "Welcome to hell, Joe" SOB though he was said to be, though, nobody would have heard of Michael Jackson without him. Raising eight kids in gritty Gary Indiana, where many men walk away; it is not nothing. One wonders whether his son would have been happier had Joe followed another course. It is one of those "which is better off, a live dog or a dead lion?" deals of Bible verse. I wrote something of this long ago: http://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2009/07/the-pundits-michael-jackson-and-joe.html

I beat CBS to the punch by two years in what they said about the Oxycotin pharma fraud. It is in the Prince chapter of Tom Irregardless and Me, there because Prince died a victim of that fraud. Since the Prince chapter is Chapter 1, it is even in the free preview section. I didn’t mention the company or the drug by name. I followed the lead of Watchtower publications, which I have come to understand their reasons mostly through imitating them. You do not name a villain, for as soon as you name one, you create the impression that removing that villain will fix things. Instead, if you should succeed in taking him out, another villain immediately steps into his shoes and the play continues with barely a hiccup. It is the play we are watching, not the heroes and villains in it. You do not have to know the names of the actors to follow the play – it can even be a distraction if you do. The names don’t matter. If one actor doesn’t show up for curtain call, they simply plug in a substitute, and the play continues. 'Tom Irregardless and Me', in the Prince chapter, quotes a Dr. Johnson, who wrote to say he was “forced to paint an unflattering picture of the industry that I have been a part of for the last 15 years. I wish I could tell you that this epidemic was due to an honest mistake. That the science was unclear or had mixed results that only later became evident. But I can’t. I also wish I could tell you that the only reason the problem persists is a ‘lack of physician awareness.’ But I won’t. The reason this opioid problem started and the reason it continues is sadly for the most American reason there is - business.” At one time, Dr. Johnson points out, American doctors prescribed opioids as did doctors everywhere: for pain relief from cancer or acute injury. He then tells of a drug company, introducing a new opioid product in 1996, that swung for the fences. It didn’t want to target just cancer patients. It wanted to target everyone experiencing everyday pain: joint pain and back pain, for example: “To do this, they recruited and paid experts in the field of pain medicine to spread the message that these medicines were not as addictive as previously thought...As a physician in training, I remember being told that the risk of addiction for patients taking opioids for pain was ‘less than one percent.’ What I was not told was that there was no good science to suggest rates of addiction were really that low. That ‘less than one percent’ statistic came from a five-sentence paragraph in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1980. It has come to be known as the Porter and Jick study. However, it was not really a study. It was a letter to the editor; more like a tweet. You can read the whole thing in 90 seconds.” The CBS story of 5 days ago reveals a former drug rep of the company who spills for them.. I had it all two years ago, and it is even more damning. I didn’t put it in the book because illuminating Prince’s JW life was the object of the chapter, not crusading against pharma. In fact, not only was the drug far more addictive than doctors and reps were led to believe, but the pain relief it delivered only lasted a few hours, not the 12 that was advertised. Yet, when complaints of such were received, the company would not permit reps to advise patients take it more often, since that exposed the fact that the much more expensive drug was no better than what was already being used for pain. Instead, the advice was to increase the dosage, and that obviously served to intensify the addictive quality. Prince and millions like him got hooked on a drug that the doctor prescribed, and when doctors started to get squirrelly, withholding supply for fear of what they were unleashing, these ones were driven to the black market to find substitutes. Trying to trash anything organizationally related, @James Thomas Rook Jr.threw in my face that Prince died an addicted druggie. I never truly forgave him for that, but I am ready to now, as I assume he did not know the whole story, just as ones do not know the whole story about abuse allegations. It is here in the first chapter, Prince, which, to my knowledge, is the most complete, and perhaps only, published collection of the artist's JW experiences and interactions. And it is in the free section. https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/686882

Oh, yeah! It's him all right. There he is in a meeting with the rest of the Governing Body, and he keeps them all waiting so as to answer tweets. Or he slaps his laptop right down there at the Bethel dinner table to peck away on Facebook. After all, he knows he must answer 'instantly.' That @Witness is on to something. As she says: 'How do you know until you ask him? What'sa matter? Chicken?' More likely, the lowlife interrupts his tea party with Witness to anwer an incoming missive. Let us not be (overly) unkind here, but imo it is a good thing she got outmaneuvered from her true status as annointed. If she ever assumed powerful heavenly position, I would fear for the earth to spin the wrong way.

No, he doesn't. How can anyone be so naive (or deceitful)? Anybody can pretend to be anyone on the internet. I, for example, have about ten personas on this forum and @James Thomas Rook Jr. falls for every one of them. If a Governing Body member were to be on social media, it would be a huge change in method of communication. He would not do so without abundant notice given beforehand on trusted channels.

It is rather a sloppy article but the subject is so visceral that such things are overlooked. All is told from the point of view of the wronged girl. I don't claim she speaks untruthfully. It is simply that, humans being what they are, we are inclined to remember things the way we remember them...embellish certain points and downplay or forget others. For example, when the judge recalled certain things in a matter-of-fact way, the victim says that's not how she recalled it, and the reporter at that point forgets all about the judge and runs with the victim. I suspect that the judge recollects it more accurately, because he has not carried the emotional baggage for two decades. When Lett, many years later, speaks of 'apostate lies,' the reporter presents it as though he is calling his old friend a liar. Of course, he is not. No one says that what happened is a lie; it is the spin that enemies (which now seem to include the Inquirer) put on it that is the lie. I answered at some length the Inquirer's first story and emailed it two two editors and the reporter. It was never acknowledged in any way. Instead, the reporter followed through on remarks he had made on the Reddit forum, that he had more material in the hopper that he considered damning to the Witnesses. Of course, this story that Witness is so thrilled about is what he had in mind. I take it as evidence that the Philadelphia Inqurer wants this story told one and only one way. If there is anything to mitigate a damning verdict, they do not want to hear it. Of course, they have a story. No one would say that they do not. It is a variation of the "If it bleeds it leads" theme - familiar and not so terrible in itself, but the refusal to consider or even acknowledge a different lens through which the topic might be viewed, is to paint it, imo, as a not very good newspaper. Adding to this perception is that the paper does not seem to have a comment section for its online articles. Comment sections are not necessarily great, as they attract many a moron, especially on 'hot' topics. But they have become ubiquitous and the fact that the Inquirer does not have one seems but another indicator that they will breach no dissent on what stories they report. It is the religious version of the shabby journalism that has become the norm today. Reporters of the right or left hype up their view to the point of hysteria, and refuse to look at things that in any way confound their conclusions.

More puddled reasoning from the Puddler-in-Chief. But IÂ’ll cut through it. Â Â