TrueTomHarley

I don’t think he knows anything.

Well, in the face of such a confident challenge (given that you always speak that way).....I’m not iron-clad sure, big boy. But I think so. I was an elder for 20 years until about 2000. I served as secretary for most of those years. Blue envelopes were well-known to me and to the elder body. Yet I never sat in on or forwarded any judicial case involving CSA. So I start to revert back to what I said in the first place—for me to recall them so well, even submitting them I think, they would have had to have been for any form of wrongdoing. 
Furthermore, had there been a specific request, in 1997 or any other time, to write detailed reports of anyone in the congregation who had.ever been accused of CSA, I certainly would have remembered it, because I would have been the one charged to do it. I would not have been like Pilosi ripping up the letter. I took letter-writing seriously, something that should hardly be a surprise to anyone.
So that’s my evidence. I could be wrong—20 years time is enough to forget details—but I don’t think so. What is your evidence? Do you have any? Or are you just repeating what you have read on the internet?

I don’t think he knows anything.

The speaker’s wife gave one of the first comments at the Watchtower Study—on the very first paragraph. It sort of fit, since the theme was on making wise decisions and following through. Still, she ‘shoehorned’ it in a bit—it wasn’t a perfect fit. She said how she had not been manipulated to become one of Jehovah’s Witnesses—it had been her own choice and one that she did not regret.
Well, who said that she had been manipulated?—that’s why the comment had an artificial flavor to it—the paragraph itself contained no hint of it. Furthermore, pushing the limits of the 30-second goal for comments, put in place so no one loquacious person steals the show, she found it the stupidest notion in the world for anyone to suggest that. Manipulation? How ridiculous.
Plainly, someone had thrust that idea at her recently, maybe some sorehead that she had run across at work or among the neighbors—that it is no more than manipulation with Jehovah’s Witnesses—that’s why they believe and act as they do. It is the classic technique of the mainstream bully—to assert that one couldn’t possibly depart from the ordinary unless they had been manipulated to do so, and “unfairly” manipulated at that—had the “manipulation” been in that bully’s direction, there would be no problem with it.
You can apply this to anything. The reason you bought a Chevy is that you were manipulated by their ads. The reason you cheered for the 49ers is that you were manipulated by San Francisco. The reason you went to college is that you were manipulated by the guidance counselor. The reason that you died for your country is that you were manipulated by that country to think the cause noble—nobody of any other country thought so. 
Really, Jehovah’s Witnesses least fit the accusation of manipulation, because they, unlike the above examples, represent persons who were actively searching—they were anything but moldable pieces of dough. They were dissatisfied with the status quo, dissatisfied with where life was heading, dissatisfied with the goals society set before them, and they took upwards of a year looking over a new model, weighing and trying it on for size, before committing to it. All this was done in familiar surroundings without leaving trusted routine—as opposed to the above examples of college and military, in which one is immersed 24/7 in unfamiliar settings, a classic tool of manipulators.
Well, if you are going to talk manipulation, talk it with something that counts. That’s why I liked Mark Sanderson kicking back at the petty application of manipulation with a major one. In his annual meeting talk about not being fearful, he quoted Hebrews 2:15, that “through [Jesus’] death [God] might bring to nothing the one having the means to cause death, that is, the Devil, and that he might set free all those who were held in slavery all their lives by their fear of death.”
Sanderson cited the Nuremberg trials, in which various Nazis who had committed unspeakable atrocities were asked the simple question, “How could you do those terrible things?” “What did they say?” he asked, and then related the answer they had given: “We had no choice. If we didn’t obey they would put us to death.” 
“Those people could be manipulated,” Sanderson said. “They could be controlled. They could be made to do the most wicked things because they were afraid.” Exactly! If you are going to bandy about words as “manipulate” and “control,” don’t trivialize the terms—do it with an example that matters! Don’t do it with an example of choosing this life course or that life course, neither of which will extend beyond 80 years. Do it with the example of control and manipulation that will gain you the reputation of a mass murderer to last throughout all time. Maybe that’s why the resurrection of the dead was one of the first Christian teachings to come under attack, even during the time of the apostles; the teaching thwarted the goal to keep people afraid so that you can make them do what you want.
Was it coincidence for Sanderson to speak as he did or did it represent kicking back at these petty people who put all their stock in the here and now, equating acting by faith as “control” and “manipulation?” I don’t know, but I wouldn’t mind seeing more of it.

The speaker’s wife gave one of the first comments at the Watchtower Study—on the very first paragraph. It sort of fit, since the theme was on making wise decisions and following through. Still, she ‘shoehorned’ it in a bit—it wasn’t a perfect fit. She said how she had not been manipulated to become one of Jehovah’s Witnesses—it had been her own choice and one that she did not regret.
Well, who said that she had been manipulated?—that’s why the comment had an artificial flavor to it—the paragraph itself contained no hint of it. Furthermore, pushing the limits of the 30-second goal for comments, put in place so no one loquacious person steals the show, she found it the stupidest notion in the world for anyone to suggest that. Manipulation? How ridiculous.
Plainly, someone had thrust that idea at her recently, maybe some sorehead that she had run across at work or among the neighbors—that it is no more than manipulation with Jehovah’s Witnesses—that’s why they believe and act as they do. It is the classic technique of the mainstream bully—to assert that one couldn’t possibly depart from the ordinary unless they had been manipulated to do so, and “unfairly” manipulated at that—had the “manipulation” been in that bully’s direction, there would be no problem with it.
You can apply this to anything. The reason you bought a Chevy is that you were manipulated by their ads. The reason you cheered for the 49ers is that you were manipulated by San Francisco. The reason you went to college is that you were manipulated by the guidance counselor. The reason that you died for your country is that you were manipulated by that country to think the cause noble—nobody of any other country thought so. 
Really, Jehovah’s Witnesses least fit the accusation of manipulation, because they, unlike the above examples, represent persons who were actively searching—they were anything but moldable pieces of dough. They were dissatisfied with the status quo, dissatisfied with where life was heading, dissatisfied with the goals society set before them, and they took upwards of a year looking over a new model, weighing and trying it on for size, before committing to it. All this was done in familiar surroundings without leaving trusted routine—as opposed to the above examples of college and military, in which one is immersed 24/7 in unfamiliar settings, a classic tool of manipulators.
Well, if you are going to talk manipulation, talk it with something that counts. That’s why I liked Mark Sanderson kicking back at the petty application of manipulation with a major one. In his annual meeting talk about not being fearful, he quoted Hebrews 2:15, that “through [Jesus’] death [God] might bring to nothing the one having the means to cause death, that is, the Devil, and that he might set free all those who were held in slavery all their lives by their fear of death.”
Sanderson cited the Nuremberg trials, in which various Nazis who had committed unspeakable atrocities were asked the simple question, “How could you do those terrible things?” “What did they say?” he asked, and then related the answer they had given: “We had no choice. If we didn’t obey they would put us to death.” 
“Those people could be manipulated,” Sanderson said. “They could be controlled. They could be made to do the most wicked things because they were afraid.” Exactly! If you are going to bandy about words as “manipulate” and “control,” don’t trivialize the terms—do it with an example that matters! Don’t do it with an example of choosing this life course or that life course, neither of which will extend beyond 80 years. Do it with the example of control and manipulation that will gain you the reputation of a mass murderer to last throughout all time. Maybe that’s why the resurrection of the dead was one of the first Christian teachings to come under attack, even during the time of the apostles; the teaching thwarted the goal to keep people afraid so that you can make them do what you want.
Was it coincidence for Sanderson to speak as he did or did it represent kicking back at these petty people who put all their stock in the here and now, equating acting by faith as “control” and “manipulation?” I don’t know, but I wouldn’t mind seeing more of it.

If it wasn’t so much work you’d be hearing from Mr RealFineAuthenticJWInsider about now

If it wasn’t so much work you’d be hearing from Mr RealFineAuthenticJWInsider about now

A Russian court has convicted three followers of the Jehovah’s Witnesses of participating in a religion banned for extremism. They were given suspended sentences of up to 2 1/2 years.
“Russian authorities today are following in the footsteps of their Soviet predecessors”, said a spokesman for the Jehovah’s Witnesses world headquarters in Warwick, New York.
The country has convicted 24 members since 2017, when it banned the denomination. Russia is known for its laws intended to crack down on opposition activists and religious minorities.
In November, Russia angered the West with by announcing a law that allows the Kremlin to label journalists and ordinary people as foreign agents if they collaborate with foreign media organisations and receive financial or other material support from them.
Last week, one of Russia’s elite universities, announced it is considering banning its students and staff from performing political speech.
https://www.neweurope.eu/article/three-jehovahs-witnesses-convicted-in-russia-amid-crackdown/

In theory, I llke these remarks. In practice, I’m not sure that I do as much.
Didn’t you say that you did not go to meetings but that you thought it was a good thing that your wife and children did? This doesn’t quite make sense to me. If your wife and children are going to meetings then they will be dubious of your efforts to make disciples of Jesus out of them. They will say that Jesus leads his earthly organization that you have separated yourself from—exactly the terms of which either you have never said or I missed it. For now, I will assume that you have simply gone inactive with regard to the congregation that your wife and kids think Jesus directs. 
Will that really help them become disciples of Christ? Or are they not praying that they may somehow be able to help you to become more fully a disciple of Christ?
I’m going to make a few assumptions. They’re probably wrong, but they make a good composite picture. Bear with me. You certainly do not hesitate to speak with authority so bear with me if I do as well.
You downgrade the importance of preaching and you upgrade the importance of fine works in other ways. You upgrade the importance of raising children apart from public preaching. You upgrade the importance of interpretation and have spun a theory about how the matters of Revelation will turn out. I think it is far-fetched for reasons already given—primarily by JWI—not me. But it certainly reflects contemplation on the scriptures. Indeed, all I did was ridicule it and I count it very much to your credit that you did not get indignant with me on that account. 
I think you’re a little embarrassed about the earthly organization and maybe about the brothers in any given Kingdom Hall. I think you are disappointed that so many of them are not more students of God’s Word than you think they ought be. You are turning verses over in your head, but many of them are not. “What has the organization said?” suffices for many of them.
Plainly you are tired of the preaching work and tired that for so many it is rather ineffective. ‘It may be cumulative but, for any given individual, can’t they find more effective ways to serve?‘ seems be your attitude. If you have five children, then you are surely frustrated that so much teaching is geared for those who don’t have any children at all—at most one or two. “Yeah—give each of these guys (GB members) one or two teenagers and then see how that would affect how they carry themselves!” a friend of mine who raised three teens (two took to the truth, one did not) muttered. 
I will speculate that you were an elder but as certain things did not go your way, you no longer are. Go back to the congregation. Regain the confidence for acting a spiritual head ought, per the definition of your wife and kids. Bring your gift to the altar. It is other than that which is stressed today, but that does not mean that it is not a gift. Don’t worry about being an elder again. Focus on the basics and the freedom that you have to unbuild. There are so many things that, as appointed men, they have to do, but you do not. Support them, but you can look around and visit, unbuild in a way that they can’t always get to as quickly and sometimes not at all.
Just between me and you, when I first saw the online study course, I said: “Good! Now we can hold off on spoon-feeding people the basics and engage with them at a higher level.” I even wrote that I looked forward to the time when I would say—it would have to be just the right circumstances—“I don’t want to study the Bible with you—do it yourself!” When we keep ourselves immersed in the milk because that is as far as we get in teaching most people, it makes us babes ourself—and you are anything but a ‘babe.’
I don’t think the ministry is as pointless as you say. Yes, much territory is well-worked and yes, people know who we are, but I don’t think they know it very well. At least two reasons you did not mention argue strongly for keeping the present course—new adults are formed daily, and new circumstances prompt people to reappraise. I think we are not particularly effective in how we present the good news. As I grow older, with bills paid, kids gone, more freedom to both copy and innovate, I come up with new methods of door to door that almost instantly break down barriers. Such as telling people how it works with Jehovah’s Witnesses—on the 100th call, I will ask them to join our religion, and what are the chances it will go so long? In the meantime, it is just conversation. I’ve seen people visibly relax at that—now that they know the score, they need not fear that every word they say somehow digs them deeper into a pit of expectation that they will not be able to extract themselves from without unpleasantness. (unfortunately, some of our people give exactly that impression) The point is I think we can be much more effective than we are. This one here about speaking to the evangelical works, too:
https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/forums/topic/86486-speaking-with-the-evangelical/
No, the preaching work is going to define the organization and I think you must get your head around that. “This good news of the kingdom will be preached.....and then the end will come” will always be the theme. ‘Anyone hearing the voice of the Lord, let them also say ‘come’ It’s the way it is. You are not going to get away from it. You give your wife and kids the appearance that you are trying to, however. Better if you don’t do it, I think. Accept that the guys who get the “honor” will be the guys who push the preaching work, which you, by the simple reason of having five kids, will not be able to be in the forefront of. Accept that the guys running the show are “unlearned and ordinary.” They always have been. They always will be. Christianity is a working class religion. Use your considerable talents—evident by the way you conduct yourself—to build up the body of the Christ. If you are outside the congregation arrangement, then in the eyes of your wife and kids, the body doesn’t know where you are. You are like a severed member.

A Dashoguz Region court jailed Jehovah's Witness conscientious objector Kamiljan Ergashov for two years on 13 January, the first such jailing of 2020. He had offered to do an alternative civilian service but Turkmenistan does not offer this. He is likely to join the eight other jailed conscientious objectors in Seydi labour camp, known for harsh conditions and torture.
On 13 January, a court in Dashoguz Region of northern Turkmenistan jailed 18-year-old Jehovah's Witness conscientious objector Kamiljan Ergashov for two years for refusing compulsory military service on grounds of conscience. This is the first known conviction and jailing of a conscientious objector so far in 2020. It is the 20th known such conviction since January 2018.
 
Conscripts at Ashgabat Military Conscription Office
Turkmen.news
Ergashov is the only bread winner in his family (see below).

Ergashov is appealing against his conviction to Dashoguz Regional Court, though courts and prisons often obstruct such appeals (see below).

Jehovah's Witnesses are conscientious objectors to military service and their beliefs do not allow them to undertake any kind of activity supporting any country's military. But they willing undertake an alternative, totally civilian form of service, as is the right of all conscientious objectors to military service under international human rights law.

The sentence handed down to Ergashov brings to nine the number of conscientious objectors to compulsory military service known to be serving sentences. All of them are Jehovah's Witnesses (see full list below).

Including two who have been serving jail terms since 2018, nine Jehovah's Witness conscientious objectors are known - as of 27 January 2020 - to be serving jail terms of between one and four years. Eight of them are imprisoned at the Labour Camp at Seydi in the eastern Lebap Region (see full list below).

Ergashov is still being held at the pre-trial detention prison in the city of Dashoguz, 450 kms (280 miles) north of the capital Ashgabat. He is expected to be transferred to the labour camp at Seydi, where the other eight jailed conscientious objectors are all being held (see below).

Turkmenistan has ignored repeated international calls, for example by the United Nations Human Rights Committee, to introduce a genuine civilian alternative to compulsory military service, to stop prosecuting and punishing conscientious objectors, and to compensate those it has punished.

The man who answered the phone of the deputy head of Dashoguz Region's Military Prosecutor's Office denied that it had any involvement in the prosecution. "We don't know anything" (see below).

Forum 18 could not immediately reach any other officials to find out why Ergashov was jailed and the regime is not willing to introduce a civilian alternative service. In particular, the specialist at the government's Commission for Work with Religious Organisations and Expert Analysis of Resources Containing Religious Information, Published and Printed Production, Nasrullah ibn Ibadullah, did not answer his phone (see below).

the United Nations Human Rights Committee has published 13 Decisions in favour of 15 conscientious objectors from Turkmenistan, all of them Jehovah's Witnesses (see below).

Another Jehovah's Witness conscientious objector former prisoner, Arslan Begenchov, lodged a case to the UN Human Rights Committee in 2018 and is awaiting a decision (see below).

Other prisoners of conscience jailed for exercising the right to freedom of religion or belief – all of them Muslims – are serving far longer jail terms (see below).
 
No alternative to compulsory military service
 
Military Conscription Office, Ashgabat
Azathabar.com (RFE/RL)
Turkmenistan offers no alternative to its compulsory military service. Military service for men between the ages of 18 and 27 is generally two years. Article 58 of the 2016 Constitution describes defence as a "sacred duty" of everyone and states that military service is compulsory for men.

Young men who refuse military service on grounds of conscience generally face prosecution under Criminal Code Article 219, Part 1. This punishes refusal to serve in the armed forces in peacetime with a maximum penalty of two years' imprisonment or two years' corrective labour.

Criminal Code Article 219, Part 2 punishes refusal to serve in the armed forces in peacetime "by means of inflicting injury to oneself, or by simulation of illness, by means of forgery of documents, or other fraudulent ways". Punishment is a jail term of one to four years. The first known use of Article 219, Part 2 to punish a conscientious objector was the case of Azat Ashirov, while Serdar Dovletov's case was the second (see below).

From 2014, courts punished conscientious objectors with corrective labour or suspended prison terms, rather than imprisonment. However, jailings resumed in January 2018. Courts jailed 12 conscientious objectors in 2018, two of them for two years and 10 for one year.
Read more: http://www.forum18.org/archive.php?article_id=2537

I got sick and tired of hearing the hysterical cry that Assad had “gassed his own people”—mostly because it seemed to imply that gassing anyone else would be okay.

I did read the book ‘The Creature of Jekyll Island,’ and yes, it was one of the most intriguing books that I have ever read.
I also read a book ‘The Rockefellers’ covering 4 generations. No going into conspiracies here, but if focused on how the first generation made the money, the second softened the image of the first and founded the charity, the third expanded the power base (David of Chase, Nelson of NY, 3 others i think) and the fourth went to psychiatrists and laid very low, even renouncing the name in a case or two.
Anti-pharma people loathe one of them—I think it is David—for essentially buying out the medical profession and converting it to drug salesmen.

I did read the book ‘The Creature of Jekyll Island,’ and yes, it was one of the most intriguing books that I have ever read.
I also read a book ‘The Rockefellers’ covering 4 generations. No going into conspiracies here, but if focused on how the first generation made the money, the second softened the image of the first and founded the charity, the third expanded the power base (David of Chase, Nelson of NY, 3 others i think) and the fourth went to psychiatrists and laid very low, even renouncing the name in a case or two.
Anti-pharma people loathe one of them—I think it is David—for essentially buying out the medical profession and converting it to drug salesmen.

When I, a New Yorker, visited Florida and heard someone say that, I was furious! I called them out! “Call yourself thorough? You forgot, ‘inhospitable and rude!’”

When I, a New Yorker, visited Florida and heard someone say that, I was furious! I called them out! “Call yourself thorough? You forgot, ‘inhospitable and rude!’”

I did read the book ‘The Creature of Jekyll Island,’ and yes, it was one of the most intriguing books that I have ever read.
I also read a book ‘The Rockefellers’ covering 4 generations. No going into conspiracies here, but if focused on how the first generation made the money, the second softened the image of the first and founded the charity, the third expanded the power base (David of Chase, Nelson of NY, 3 others i think) and the fourth went to psychiatrists and laid very low, even renouncing the name in a case or two.
Anti-pharma people loathe one of them—I think it is David—for essentially buying out the medical profession and converting it to drug salesmen.

“For their own good” the true believers among them would have said.

“For their own good” the true believers among them would have said.

“For their own good” the true believers among them would have said.

Nice to hear from you.  You could probably start by explaining what is politics and what is partisan politics. But I still expect you to be neutral.
 

If I was to describe myself, it would be in words very similar.
A story, with opening background:
I have always been ‘out there’ in appearance (for a brother), at times downright shaggy, with hair falling over my ears, and I don’t fuss much with combing it, usually not at all. I don’t fully trust anyone who has not a hair out of place. I don’t like cuff-links either, though I will concede that some will wear them and figure that they are like the fine seamless garment Jesus wore. Nobody would rebuke the Lord with: “Why don’t you wear a regular garment from the Goodwill so no one thinks you are putting on airs.” They would not say that, so cuff links get a free pass, too, but I would never wear the stupid things.
Amazingly, I have never been counseled on general shagginess, despite all the carrying on about ‘dress that befits a minister of GodI’—which rubs me the wrong way when it is overdone. I’ve had speaking assignments at the District Convention, now called Regionals. I can only surmise that my personality otherwise offsets a moderately (at times) unorthodox appearance. 
In my 50’s, after my eldering days, I got into the habit of moussing my hair when it got long, running my fingers through it once so it stayed off my forehead, and I would go about my day with it spiked up, flopping over any way it liked as gravity took over. If I see a young woman with green hair, I won’t harrumph as many of our people would—I’ll say, “Huh! You know, I kind of like that.” These days I am less that way and I now say to the barber: “Look, so long as you are not thinking “US Marine,” cut it as short as you like—even if you get it too short, I will not complain—it grows back.* That way I don’t have to horse with it for a while. 
Brother Lloyd of the US Branch gave the talk at our Assembly Hall. He is an old-timer who has been around forever. The place was packed out. For reasons I don’t remember, my wife and I arrived late and we were shoehorned into the only two seats available—directly in front of him.
His talk was hard-hitting, the type you used to hear from old-timers and the type that you will not hear today—‘if you do not make time for Jehovah, maybe he will not make time for you’ was the tone some of it took.
Now, I am not one of those brothers who has to track down the speaker so as to shake his hand. If I don’t speak with him at all, that is perfectly fine by me. I have stated here that I would love to have a Governing Body member stay at my house so I could ignore him (which would probably make me popular in his eyes). “There’s your room. Come down and hang out if you like, but don’t feel you have to—I know that you have things to do, if only unwinding free of persons who you have to talk to,” is what I would say to him.
So after the closing prayer I turn around with my spiked hair and find myself face to face with him—the crowds have not closed in yet. I exchange a few pleasantries—nice of him to make the sacrifice to travel, and so forth, and he says, almost with a twinkle, “I wasn’t too hard on you brothers, was I?” 
“Well,” I said, “we’ll adjust.”
......*With regard to not complaining about a bad haircut, I remember reading a book by Peter Lynch, the Fidelity fund manager known for investing in what he liked. He bought a ton on Dunkin Donut stock and it went to the moon—his interest first piqued because he loved their coffee. He also bought Supercuts. True to method, he went there first to get a haircut. He thought he looked a little funny as he left, but he allowed that it might simply be due to some new style that he was unaware of. The horrified look on the faces of his wife and daughters convinced him that it was not. The CEO, when he related the experience to him, observed cheerfully that hair grows back at 6 inches per....some quantity of time that I forget.
Lynch is the same fund manager who once observed of General Motors: “The nicest thing I can say about it is that it is a terrible company.” I never forgot that line.
PS: the good guys have all migrated for now to Anna’s new thread on the closed site. You’re welcome to join them. Leave 4Jah, Srecko, and Witness here to talk among themselves. They’ll soon discover that they can’t stand one another.
 
 
 

If I was to describe myself, it would be in words very similar.
A story, with opening background:
I have always been ‘out there’ in appearance (for a brother), at times downright shaggy, with hair falling over my ears, and I don’t fuss much with combing it, usually not at all. I don’t fully trust anyone who has not a hair out of place. I don’t like cuff-links either, though I will concede that some will wear them and figure that they are like the fine seamless garment Jesus wore. Nobody would rebuke the Lord with: “Why don’t you wear a regular garment from the Goodwill so no one thinks you are putting on airs.” They would not say that, so cuff links get a free pass, too, but I would never wear the stupid things.
Amazingly, I have never been counseled on general shagginess, despite all the carrying on about ‘dress that befits a minister of GodI’—which rubs me the wrong way when it is overdone. I’ve had speaking assignments at the District Convention, now called Regionals. I can only surmise that my personality otherwise offsets a moderately (at times) unorthodox appearance. 
In my 50’s, after my eldering days, I got into the habit of moussing my hair when it got long, running my fingers through it once so it stayed off my forehead, and I would go about my day with it spiked up, flopping over any way it liked as gravity took over. If I see a young woman with green hair, I won’t harrumph as many of our people would—I’ll say, “Huh! You know, I kind of like that.” These days I am less that way and I now say to the barber: “Look, so long as you are not thinking “US Marine,” cut it as short as you like—even if you get it too short, I will not complain—it grows back.* That way I don’t have to horse with it for a while. 
Brother Lloyd of the US Branch gave the talk at our Assembly Hall. He is an old-timer who has been around forever. The place was packed out. For reasons I don’t remember, my wife and I arrived late and we were shoehorned into the only two seats available—directly in front of him.
His talk was hard-hitting, the type you used to hear from old-timers and the type that you will not hear today—‘if you do not make time for Jehovah, maybe he will not make time for you’ was the tone some of it took.
Now, I am not one of those brothers who has to track down the speaker so as to shake his hand. If I don’t speak with him at all, that is perfectly fine by me. I have stated here that I would love to have a Governing Body member stay at my house so I could ignore him (which would probably make me popular in his eyes). “There’s your room. Come down and hang out if you like, but don’t feel you have to—I know that you have things to do, if only unwinding free of persons who you have to talk to,” is what I would say to him.
So after the closing prayer I turn around with my spiked hair and find myself face to face with him—the crowds have not closed in yet. I exchange a few pleasantries—nice of him to make the sacrifice to travel, and so forth, and he says, almost with a twinkle, “I wasn’t too hard on you brothers, was I?” 
“Well,” I said, “we’ll adjust.”
......*With regard to not complaining about a bad haircut, I remember reading a book by Peter Lynch, the Fidelity fund manager known for investing in what he liked. He bought a ton on Dunkin Donut stock and it went to the moon—his interest first piqued because he loved their coffee. He also bought Supercuts. True to method, he went there first to get a haircut. He thought he looked a little funny as he left, but he allowed that it might simply be due to some new style that he was unaware of. The horrified look on the faces of his wife and daughters convinced him that it was not. The CEO, when he related the experience to him, observed cheerfully that hair grows back at 6 inches per....some quantity of time that I forget.
Lynch is the same fund manager who once observed of General Motors: “The nicest thing I can say about it is that it is a terrible company.” I never forgot that line.
PS: the good guys have all migrated for now to Anna’s new thread on the closed site. You’re welcome to join them. Leave 4Jah, Srecko, and Witness here to talk among themselves. They’ll soon discover that they can’t stand one another.
 
 
 

If I was to describe myself, it would be in words very similar.
A story, with opening background:
I have always been ‘out there’ in appearance (for a brother), at times downright shaggy, with hair falling over my ears, and I don’t fuss much with combing it, usually not at all. I don’t fully trust anyone who has not a hair out of place. I don’t like cuff-links either, though I will concede that some will wear them and figure that they are like the fine seamless garment Jesus wore. Nobody would rebuke the Lord with: “Why don’t you wear a regular garment from the Goodwill so no one thinks you are putting on airs.” They would not say that, so cuff links get a free pass, too, but I would never wear the stupid things.
Amazingly, I have never been counseled on general shagginess, despite all the carrying on about ‘dress that befits a minister of GodI’—which rubs me the wrong way when it is overdone. I’ve had speaking assignments at the District Convention, now called Regionals. I can only surmise that my personality otherwise offsets a moderately (at times) unorthodox appearance. 
In my 50’s, after my eldering days, I got into the habit of moussing my hair when it got long, running my fingers through it once so it stayed off my forehead, and I would go about my day with it spiked up, flopping over any way it liked as gravity took over. If I see a young woman with green hair, I won’t harrumph as many of our people would—I’ll say, “Huh! You know, I kind of like that.” These days I am less that way and I now say to the barber: “Look, so long as you are not thinking “US Marine,” cut it as short as you like—even if you get it too short, I will not complain—it grows back.* That way I don’t have to horse with it for a while. 
Brother Lloyd of the US Branch gave the talk at our Assembly Hall. He is an old-timer who has been around forever. The place was packed out. For reasons I don’t remember, my wife and I arrived late and we were shoehorned into the only two seats available—directly in front of him.
His talk was hard-hitting, the type you used to hear from old-timers and the type that you will not hear today—‘if you do not make time for Jehovah, maybe he will not make time for you’ was the tone some of it took.
Now, I am not one of those brothers who has to track down the speaker so as to shake his hand. If I don’t speak with him at all, that is perfectly fine by me. I have stated here that I would love to have a Governing Body member stay at my house so I could ignore him (which would probably make me popular in his eyes). “There’s your room. Come down and hang out if you like, but don’t feel you have to—I know that you have things to do, if only unwinding free of persons who you have to talk to,” is what I would say to him.
So after the closing prayer I turn around with my spiked hair and find myself face to face with him—the crowds have not closed in yet. I exchange a few pleasantries—nice of him to make the sacrifice to travel, and so forth, and he says, almost with a twinkle, “I wasn’t too hard on you brothers, was I?” 
“Well,” I said, “we’ll adjust.”
......*With regard to not complaining about a bad haircut, I remember reading a book by Peter Lynch, the Fidelity fund manager known for investing in what he liked. He bought a ton on Dunkin Donut stock and it went to the moon—his interest first piqued because he loved their coffee. He also bought Supercuts. True to method, he went there first to get a haircut. He thought he looked a little funny as he left, but he allowed that it might simply be due to some new style that he was unaware of. The horrified look on the faces of his wife and daughters convinced him that it was not. The CEO, when he related the experience to him, observed cheerfully that hair grows back at 6 inches per....some quantity of time that I forget.
Lynch is the same fund manager who once observed of General Motors: “The nicest thing I can say about it is that it is a terrible company.” I never forgot that line.
PS: the good guys have all migrated for now to Anna’s new thread on the closed site. You’re welcome to join them. Leave 4Jah, Srecko, and Witness here to talk among themselves. They’ll soon discover that they can’t stand one another.
 
 
 

If I was to describe myself, it would be in words very similar.
A story, with opening background:
I have always been ‘out there’ in appearance (for a brother), at times downright shaggy, with hair falling over my ears, and I don’t fuss much with combing it, usually not at all. I don’t fully trust anyone who has not a hair out of place. I don’t like cuff-links either, though I will concede that some will wear them and figure that they are like the fine seamless garment Jesus wore. Nobody would rebuke the Lord with: “Why don’t you wear a regular garment from the Goodwill so no one thinks you are putting on airs.” They would not say that, so cuff links get a free pass, too, but I would never wear the stupid things.
Amazingly, I have never been counseled on general shagginess, despite all the carrying on about ‘dress that befits a minister of GodI’—which rubs me the wrong way when it is overdone. I’ve had speaking assignments at the District Convention, now called Regionals. I can only surmise that my personality otherwise offsets a moderately (at times) unorthodox appearance. 
In my 50’s, after my eldering days, I got into the habit of moussing my hair when it got long, running my fingers through it once so it stayed off my forehead, and I would go about my day with it spiked up, flopping over any way it liked as gravity took over. If I see a young woman with green hair, I won’t harrumph as many of our people would—I’ll say, “Huh! You know, I kind of like that.” These days I am less that way and I now say to the barber: “Look, so long as you are not thinking “US Marine,” cut it as short as you like—even if you get it too short, I will not complain—it grows back.* That way I don’t have to horse with it for a while. 
Brother Lloyd of the US Branch gave the talk at our Assembly Hall. He is an old-timer who has been around forever. The place was packed out. For reasons I don’t remember, my wife and I arrived late and we were shoehorned into the only two seats available—directly in front of him.
His talk was hard-hitting, the type you used to hear from old-timers and the type that you will not hear today—‘if you do not make time for Jehovah, maybe he will not make time for you’ was the tone some of it took.
Now, I am not one of those brothers who has to track down the speaker so as to shake his hand. If I don’t speak with him at all, that is perfectly fine by me. I have stated here that I would love to have a Governing Body member stay at my house so I could ignore him (which would probably make me popular in his eyes). “There’s your room. Come down and hang out if you like, but don’t feel you have to—I know that you have things to do, if only unwinding free of persons who you have to talk to,” is what I would say to him.
So after the closing prayer I turn around with my spiked hair and find myself face to face with him—the crowds have not closed in yet. I exchange a few pleasantries—nice of him to make the sacrifice to travel, and so forth, and he says, almost with a twinkle, “I wasn’t too hard on you brothers, was I?” 
“Well,” I said, “we’ll adjust.”
......*With regard to not complaining about a bad haircut, I remember reading a book by Peter Lynch, the Fidelity fund manager known for investing in what he liked. He bought a ton on Dunkin Donut stock and it went to the moon—his interest first piqued because he loved their coffee. He also bought Supercuts. True to method, he went there first to get a haircut. He thought he looked a little funny as he left, but he allowed that it might simply be due to some new style that he was unaware of. The horrified look on the faces of his wife and daughters convinced him that it was not. The CEO, when he related the experience to him, observed cheerfully that hair grows back at 6 inches per....some quantity of time that I forget.
Lynch is the same fund manager who once observed of General Motors: “The nicest thing I can say about it is that it is a terrible company.” I never forgot that line.
PS: the good guys have all migrated for now to Anna’s new thread on the closed site. You’re welcome to join them. Leave 4Jah, Srecko, and Witness here to talk among themselves. They’ll soon discover that they can’t stand one another.
 
 
 

I would say most of the JWs who comment on here are unconventional! 😀
Lol!