TrueTomHarley

I hope things work out for you both..and wherever you go I know Jehovah will be with you 

Oh dear, as someone here would say. I don’t know whether it is worth your time or not but I do know I will miss you if you leave.
As for me, I’ve tried to leave numerous times but the old hen always sings her siren song and lures me back:
”Oh mother, tell your children, not to throwww away their decorum,
Spend your life in sheer misery on the old hen’s world media news forum.“
 

Oh dear, as someone here would say. I don’t know whether it is worth your time or not but I do know I will miss you if you leave.
As for me, I’ve tried to leave numerous times but the old hen always sings her siren song and lures me back:
”Oh mother, tell your children, not to throwww away their decorum,
Spend your life in sheer misery on the old hen’s world media news forum.“
 

Actually it sounds like the WT was one of the few organization’s doing it right. Outfits accepted the food boxes but were unwilling to take on the costs of distribution. The only example (from thecounter.org article) of actually bringing the food to the recipients, rather than making them come to some parking lot to retrieve it, is the WT. 
And since (weren’t you ridiculing them over this?—if not, your allies were) JWs are the lowest income faith, almost by definition they will be among the intended beneficiaries. As Anna said, in her congregation, food boxes were delivered to the most needy. Same here. And then, if it turned out they felt others needed it more, they were encouraged to share with any of those they knew of.
If there were any foodstuffs left to rot or spoil, it had nothing to do with JWs.
From the article:
“The USDA paid generously, in part, because it wanted those companies to take on the job of distributing the boxes as well. The plan was called "truck-to-trunk." The companies were supposed to take their food boxes directly to local food bank distribution points and drop the boxes into the trunks of waiting cars.”
Witnesses did better than that. They delivered it directly to homes.
”During the pandemic, many food banks have been running short of volunteers to do this job.”
Didn’t happen here.
“But many food banks, including Cooper's, said that food box contractors refused to do it. Some of them didn't even have the refrigerated truck required to do the job.“
Again, not so here.
No one outfit can do everything, but JWs fully comply with the program, and waste nothing. There were apparently many that did not, and if the story is correct, some of them never intended to. Any faith-based organization guided by Bible principles is not going to forget Galatians 6:10: “let us work what is good toward all, but especially toward those related to us in the faith.” Since you claim to be a true anointed, surely you know this. 
You’re just a bitter old crow.
 
 

The problem is that I told the elders I wouldn’t do it. But because I believe the second part of your statement: 
I don’t beat myself up when I break my resolve. And I very much appreciate your kind words on the value of meeting specific accusations. From time to time I get emails stating the same.
When the elders met with me after the meeting, I had no thought at all of putting the experience online, as I have done above. That occurred to me later. 
I just came to think I’d let it stand as a real time example of responding to counsel even if I don’t agree with every aspect of it. The only examples of meeting with the elders that ever appear online are those written by unruly persons already on the edge, like Dathan and those guys, who rail at the attempt at “mind control” and cry ad nauseum over their right to free speech, missing every spiritual point in the process of making theIr dominant fleshy one: “No one’s telling me what to do!”
I don’t resent the counsel at all. I take it for just what it is—loving oversight.  I both accept and appreciate that Jehovah leads his people via a human agency, and I am grateful that there is something that corresponds to verses such as Hebrews 13:17, to “be obedient to those who are 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 this would be damaging to you.”
As such, I accept they have the responsibility to counsel in line with scripture, and I don’t carry on as though my toes are being stepped on or my rights infringed upon. They represent the human link in the divine/human interface, they do not demand lockstep even though they give pointed counsel. I don’t consider myself above them. They are above me as regards authority.
I appreciate their efforts to check me, and as stated, I would be far worse in the absence of godly counsel to not engage with those who show by word or deed that acquiescence to Jehovah’s standards and all that is entailed is repugnant to them. It does me good to be checked by them, for I do believe that we become who we hang out with. We may not become it instantly, but we do so eventually—if not in point of argument then in forfeiting the Christlike manner—and often even in point of argument, as they are all based on following the trends of the day.
I would like it if there was a little more organizational pushback on some of the charges leveled against us. I’ve said it many times before. But you can’t always get what you want. You can’t always get what you want. You can’t always get what you want. But if you try sometime, you just might find, you get what you need. 
And I have. I can’t go charging like an enraged bull. But that kind of conduct can get a guy skewered anyway. It does me well to do what I do under the discipline of conforming to theocratic counsel, even if in a few aspects I am not a stellar example of it. I am in other aspects.

You probably are reading it and 4Jah is writing it. Off course they’re not paid.

Well, they did build good roads, those Romans did, and that is said to have aided the spread of Christianity. 
Recently archeologists have unearthed inscriptions of the songs they sang while laying roads down over that untamed earth:
Well, I'm a steamroller, baby
I'm bound to roll all over you
Yes, I'm a steamroller, baby
I'm bound to roll all over you I'm gonna inject your soul with some sweet rock 'n roll
And shoot you full of rhythm and blues
Well, I'm a cement mixer
A churning urn of burning funk
Yes, I'm a cement mixer for you, baby
A churning urn of burning funk Well, I'm a demolition derby
A hefty hunk of steaming junk
Now, I'm a Napalm bomb, baby
Just guaranteed to blow your mind

Oh dear, as someone here would say. I don’t know whether it is worth your time or not but I do know I will miss you if you leave.
As for me, I’ve tried to leave numerous times but the old hen always sings her siren song and lures me back:
”Oh mother, tell your children, not to throwww away their decorum,
Spend your life in sheer misery on the old hen’s world media news forum.“
 

I hate when people do this.
Ford had just assumed the presidency and pardoned Nixon. At a NYC District Convention the next day, the speaker held aloft the NYDaily headlines - "Peace and Security!" and said: "Have you seen this headline??!!!"
It was irresistable. I would have done it, too.

Oh dear, as someone here would say. I don’t know whether it is worth your time or not but I do know I will miss you if you leave.
As for me, I’ve tried to leave numerous times but the old hen always sings her siren song and lures me back:
”Oh mother, tell your children, not to throwww away their decorum,
Spend your life in sheer misery on the old hen’s world media news forum.“
 

The problem is that I told the elders I wouldn’t do it. But because I believe the second part of your statement: 
I don’t beat myself up when I break my resolve. And I very much appreciate your kind words on the value of meeting specific accusations. From time to time I get emails stating the same.
When the elders met with me after the meeting, I had no thought at all of putting the experience online, as I have done above. That occurred to me later. 
I just came to think I’d let it stand as a real time example of responding to counsel even if I don’t agree with every aspect of it. The only examples of meeting with the elders that ever appear online are those written by unruly persons already on the edge, like Dathan and those guys, who rail at the attempt at “mind control” and cry ad nauseum over their right to free speech, missing every spiritual point in the process of making theIr dominant fleshy one: “No one’s telling me what to do!”
I don’t resent the counsel at all. I take it for just what it is—loving oversight.  I both accept and appreciate that Jehovah leads his people via a human agency, and I am grateful that there is something that corresponds to verses such as Hebrews 13:17, to “be obedient to those who are 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 this would be damaging to you.”
As such, I accept they have the responsibility to counsel in line with scripture, and I don’t carry on as though my toes are being stepped on or my rights infringed upon. They represent the human link in the divine/human interface, they do not demand lockstep even though they give pointed counsel. I don’t consider myself above them. They are above me as regards authority.
I appreciate their efforts to check me, and as stated, I would be far worse in the absence of godly counsel to not engage with those who show by word or deed that acquiescence to Jehovah’s standards and all that is entailed is repugnant to them. It does me good to be checked by them, for I do believe that we become who we hang out with. We may not become it instantly, but we do so eventually—if not in point of argument then in forfeiting the Christlike manner—and often even in point of argument, as they are all based on following the trends of the day.
I would like it if there was a little more organizational pushback on some of the charges leveled against us. I’ve said it many times before. But you can’t always get what you want. You can’t always get what you want. You can’t always get what you want. But if you try sometime, you just might find, you get what you need. 
And I have. I can’t go charging like an enraged bull. But that kind of conduct can get a guy skewered anyway. It does me well to do what I do under the discipline of conforming to theocratic counsel, even if in a few aspects I am not a stellar example of it. I am in other aspects.

They all close after two weeks. Partly it’s a concession to the old hen, who was concerned about my “spamming“ and so I assured her I would take hardly any comments and only for a short time—I’m not trying to lure from her site, which is a valid concern of every webmaster.
And then, too, I just don’t have the time to respond to everything. And while I don’t ban malcontents entirely, I keep a pretty tight rein on them—and that too takes time I don’t have.

You probably are reading it and 4Jah is writing it. Off course they’re not paid.

Alas, Cesar, sometimes I feel that I am becoming one of them.
I told the elders that I would not get into squabbles with these characters, and I said that so as not to be oblivious to theocratic counsel. Yet here I find myself making sporadic ad hominem attacks. Of course, I don’t beat myself up too much over it—If these characters worked on their ad hominems a bit more, it wouldn’t happen. And it is also true that in the absence of theocratic counsel, I would be much worse. But even so, I am allowing personal exasperation to throw barbs here and there after I said I would not do it.
The long response was okay to this thread, of course, because that constitutes as though a letter to the editor. Maybe even the first retort to you-know-who can be overlooked since she is so much the way she is. But the third one was unnecessary and just reflects personal lack of self-control.
“I find, then, this law in my case: When I wish to do what is right, what is bad is present with me....I see in my body another law warring against the law of my mind and leading me captive to sin’s law that is in my body.  Miserable man that I am!” (Romans 7)
I have to behave better. I said that I would:
https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2020/01/a-bad-boy-turns-over-a-new-leaf.html

(Sigh...there goes my fine resolve.)
It has not been, you idiot. Examples of that are scarcer then hen’s teeth.
In plenty of other outfits, it is the rule. In fact, there is no mechanism in those outfits to even to detect abuse within the rank and file.
Please NOTE. Stay on topic, and do not pounce breathlessly on an example illustrating something else to bludgeon everyone once again with what you’ve said countless times already.

Seriously, would that not constitute a violation of neutrality, to be praying for the success of human schemes? It is enough not to be praying against them.
The little quip with the rabbi I threw in as a joke, but it is more than a joke. That’s how 1 Tim 2:1,2 should be understood, I think, that the governments come to understand our apolitical nature and thus leave us be to do our Bible education work.
As much as I am willing to acknowledge the nobility of many human intentions, it is the implementation that is always the problem, not the lofty goals in themselves, which may indeed be lofty. But the implementation falls short, due to Jer 10:23 about man being incapable of directing his own step.
What sticks in my craw about all these human goals is theIr assumption that it is head education (without mention moral sense) that is most needed.  I think back to that brouhaha with Annie O over her preferred CSA video—the one that drew circles around areas of a child that no one ought touch. It’s as though if a child is touched anywhere, he/she ought to consult the chart in his mind’s eye to decide if he should feel bad over it. Better the WT video that speak of a conscience—a conscience that will develop when ones are immersed and take to heart a godly atmosphere.
It was only icing on the cake when her pedantic video brimming with the wisdom of trusting education declared that it was okay if a doctor touched you in one of those hotspots. (whereas the Caleb and Sophia video said ‘let no one touch you inappropriately) “Ask the young women of the US Gymnastics team which video they think would have protected them more,” I said.

Well, I am not sure that I would go that far:
”Rabbi, is there a prayer for the czar?”
”A prayer for the czar? Of course: May.........God.......bless.......the.........czar—and keep him far away from us!”
Just trying to scratch out a little tune, here, without breaking my back.

(Sigh...there goes my fine resolve.)
It has not been, you idiot. Examples of that are scarcer then hen’s teeth.
In plenty of other outfits, it is the rule. In fact, there is no mechanism in those outfits to even to detect abuse within the rank and file.
Please NOTE. Stay on topic, and do not pounce breathlessly on an example illustrating something else to bludgeon everyone once again with what you’ve said countless times already.

Alas, Cesar, sometimes I feel that I am becoming one of them.
I told the elders that I would not get into squabbles with these characters, and I said that so as not to be oblivious to theocratic counsel. Yet here I find myself making sporadic ad hominem attacks. Of course, I don’t beat myself up too much over it—If these characters worked on their ad hominems a bit more, it wouldn’t happen. And it is also true that in the absence of theocratic counsel, I would be much worse. But even so, I am allowing personal exasperation to throw barbs here and there after I said I would not do it.
The long response was okay to this thread, of course, because that constitutes as though a letter to the editor. Maybe even the first retort to you-know-who can be overlooked since she is so much the way she is. But the third one was unnecessary and just reflects personal lack of self-control.
“I find, then, this law in my case: When I wish to do what is right, what is bad is present with me....I see in my body another law warring against the law of my mind and leading me captive to sin’s law that is in my body.  Miserable man that I am!” (Romans 7)
I have to behave better. I said that I would:
https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2020/01/a-bad-boy-turns-over-a-new-leaf.html

Seriously, would that not constitute a violation of neutrality, to be praying for the success of human schemes? It is enough not to be praying against them.
The little quip with the rabbi I threw in as a joke, but it is more than a joke. That’s how 1 Tim 2:1,2 should be understood, I think, that the governments come to understand our apolitical nature and thus leave us be to do our Bible education work.
As much as I am willing to acknowledge the nobility of many human intentions, it is the implementation that is always the problem, not the lofty goals in themselves, which may indeed be lofty. But the implementation falls short, due to Jer 10:23 about man being incapable of directing his own step.
What sticks in my craw about all these human goals is theIr assumption that it is head education (without mention moral sense) that is most needed.  I think back to that brouhaha with Annie O over her preferred CSA video—the one that drew circles around areas of a child that no one ought touch. It’s as though if a child is touched anywhere, he/she ought to consult the chart in his mind’s eye to decide if he should feel bad over it. Better the WT video that speak of a conscience—a conscience that will develop when ones are immersed and take to heart a godly atmosphere.
It was only icing on the cake when her pedantic video brimming with the wisdom of trusting education declared that it was okay if a doctor touched you in one of those hotspots. (whereas the Caleb and Sophia video said ‘let no one touch you inappropriately) “Ask the young women of the US Gymnastics team which video they think would have protected them more,” I said.

Oh, for crying out loud!
Never have I seen such endless passages of scripture poured down the drain to no use.
I might believe your stated motive if you did not tirelessly present yourself as one of the true anointed (or perhaps the true anointed) and pounce upon the slightest reference to the priesthood to showcase yourself. Sheesh. Outside of Jehovah’s Witnesses, few even know what anointed is.

You ridiculous woman!
Did he said he was going to do it himself, or is it not rather his expression of faith that God is going to replace human rule of the earth with his kingdom?

Trump himself passed them out in our congregation.
[No, I’m kidding—there will always be someone to take it seriously] 
And if there was anything hush-hush about the program, that never reached my ears. I posted both here and on my own blog of it.
https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2020/05/produce-from-the-usdaisnt-that-nice.html
In our service group, when an elderly sister remarked on how the brothers had bought this food, the one with oversight told her it was not they—they were just distributing—it was a government program that they had signed on to.
I do get the concern, (not of Witness, for she just wants to deride her rivals) but of the ones who originated her source material, that maybe there is someone who needs the food more. And that certainly could be. The part where Bro Hendricks says ‘we advised those who received packages not to turn them down’ and later presents the rationale that they will be inclined to underestimate their own burden—“downplaying any private struggles with food insecurity”—I can see that, too. (My wife and I are not destitute, but we are retired and we do live off social security—living modestly as Witnesses do, so that the stipend is far from huge) I responded the same way that Hendricks suggested some might respond: there will be others who need it more—and we were told that if that is the case, we could share with neighbors and others. I know of ones who have done this. How many? No idea. People of faith tend to take to heart Jesus’ counsel to not let the right hand know what the left is doing and not to blow a trumpet in front of them whenever they give. At some point you have to put faith in the “little people” to do what is right.
Since JWs are the lowest income group of all faiths (and Witness sneers over that too, no doubt), even if aid went no further than they and their immediate associates, it would hardly be a travesty. But, as indicated, they were encouraged to share if they felt there were others who could benefit more.
The trick is finding these ones. The solution of leaving it up to the individual to share with cases that he/she personally knows of is probably as efficient as any, and It may be the most efficient. If you are poor, you will likely live in a poor neighborhood, and will know of serious cases of need. If you are a Witness not poor, you will know of some who are, because Witnesses are a tightly knit community, and can find out about such hard cases through them in the event that none are in your immediate area.
Witness’s concern is only to slam JWs, but the tone of the article is irreligious in general, and whatever potential abuses of USDA rules it describes are not those of Jehovah’s Witnesses, even of such lesser charges as swapping the government logo for a religious one. The box we received plainly said ‘Farmers to Families—USDA.’ (and I am glad I took a picture of it for my prior post, because you know that Witness would not mention it)
Those church outfits will have to speak for themselves, and I noticed that some had no comment, in contrast to Hendricks, who did. Still, doesn’t jealousy account for much of the article’s tone, that communities of faith are motivated to have effective distribution channels that far outstrip those of non-faith, those purely secular? Says the article: “Many food banks and other nonprofits have complained that they’re incurring significant, unexpected expenses related to storage and last-mile delivery.” Not to be unfeeling, but whose fault is that? 
Faith, love of brother, and love of neighbor has moved ones of the JW organization to overcome these “unexpected expenses related to storage and last-mile delivery.” The packages I’ve received have been delivered directly to my door, and I have indeed shared some with others who were not recipients. JWs thus set an example showing secular outfits how it can be done. All those outfits need to do is find similar selfless people.
Of course, they do have some. I’ve nothing but praise for secular food relief organizations. But they don’t have such selfless ones in anywhere near the abundance as does the Witness faith-based community, and that is why massive lines have accompanied some distributions—one wonders if in some cases the aid received is not offset by the cost of gasoline in retrieving it. 
In the early days of the pandemic, before monitory relief came from the government that temporarily took the pressure off many, I wrote a check to one of these food banks. I don’t like the idea of people going hungry. I wanted to give, and I did so. Yet, as I did so, I had to come to grips with the certain knowledge that inefficiencies built into such programs would dilute my contribution. It pains me that this is the case. I wish it were not. I wish they could draw upon enough people in the overall community to solve distribution issues—it’s produce, after all—it can’t sit around forever. At heart, the issue is that non-faith does not move people to be selfless to the same extent as does faith, and the article seems to me an expression of jealousy that such is the case. Is it so shocking that that when people of faith give they want to call attention to what implanted that generous spirit within them? The article appears even to have even political overtones, complaining at the perceived shortfalls of a Trump administration program.
Of course, if there are abuses of the system, then someone ought lower the boom on whoever is committing them. “Saving” people in the parking lot, soliciting donations for the program, offering prayer sessions as a condition, things that Witnesses do not do, does sound as though it might violate the spirit or even letter of the program. And are parishioners poor to start with, as JWs in the aggregate are, or are some well-off? All proper matters to look at, it seems. But at present, this looks to me like another article—I have seen many—that highlights the abuses of some churches and by headline suggests that Jehovah’s Witnesses are the worst of them, even though Witnesses steer clear of such shenanigans.
I wouldn’t know just what is the case with “Heather,” whose complaint triggered this article. But I reflect back upon when I was working in a group home that hired a new assistant manager. In short order, I began to feel some heat, and in time I went to the house manager about it. “For some reason, I think she is trying to get me fired,” I told her. The manager thought that unlikely. She asked me why that would be, and I truthfully told her I didn’t know. But I then mentioned that it turns out she and I know hundreds of people in common, for she was once a member of my faith. “Oh,” the manager said, and instantly her tone changed. She said no more, I said no more, and I heard no more, until a week or two later that that asst manager had been discharged. The hostility of some ex-JWs is hard to fathom.
 

Happened in our service group too. Some older ones thought the same, but it was explained to them. Our congregation received a total of 50 boxes and all were distributed promptly by assigned brothers and volunteers.
Happened here too. No one wants to waste food. If the box contained half a dozen ears of corn on the cob and you had just bought an armful, the logical thing is to give them away to others who might not have any.
I wouldn't know either, but it does sound like she has a chip on her shoulder, as you insinuate.

He didn't make it up. It's all in the Bible as you very well know.
2 Thessalonians 1:7-9
7  But you who suffer tribulation will be given relief along with us at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with his powerful angels  8  in a flaming fire, as he brings vengeance on those who do not know God and those who do not obey the good news about our Lord Jesus. 9  These very ones will undergo the judicial punishment of everlasting destruction from before the Lord and from the glory of his strength.