Malawi and MCP Cards?

[TrueTomHarley]

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

No. I will say it came from JWs. And guys like MM may say, ‘Oh, well, this book is an apologetic work. Why waste my time?’ But I cannot conscientiously do it any other way.

It gets worse. When I release any such book, not only with MM dismiss it because it is apologetical in nature, but my own people will say, ‘Hmm—are we supposed to be doing this? Isn’t it someone else’s job to write about God?’

It’s like when I fill out a skills list for use in building projects. I say I know how to clean. If I say I also know how to write, follow up remarks will reveal that my experience comes through blogging—a dirty word to most Witnesses. It is not as though anyone has said a person can’t do that. It is that no one has said that you can, (a dilemma known as Pudgy’s Razor) and so the thinking of most will be, ‘If it were worth doing, the org would be advancing and recommending it.’ Instead, they have cautioned of how ‘it is not necessary’ and ‘some indiscreet brothers’ have done it, leading others to conclude that ‘Thou Shalt Not Blog’ is the eleventh commandment. 

So, for me it is somewhat like @Juan Rivera, who has said he pays a social cost for being a Witness. Juan, too, could write some books, and may someday. But he will face the same dilemma, and already does in ways that are parallel. He would, if he were a Baptist, write a book about God. Baptist Press would promote it, and even say: ‘Look at this guy! A real thinker, he is, a theologian and one of ours!’ Whereas, when he writes as a Witness, he becomes that brother who is likable but a little odd and possibly one who should be given a wide berth. You can ‘beat the rap’ simply by being a good person in the congregation and out, but the notion that one should feel there is a rap to beat will unfailingly stick in the craw of those overly swayed by today’s age of independence.

For me, I will acquiesce and say, ‘That’s the way it is. Suck it up.’ If it is a downer, it is many-fold more times compensated for by other benefits that I perceive stem from being a Witness. When people unite, all must chip in a little. If they don’t, then the unity doesn’t happen. Is there a social cost to being a Witness and making oneself subject to the Witness’ organization? There is also a social cost to not doing it: 

Recently, we had people from Texas come into town to work on a Kingdom Hall remodel nearby and they needed a place to stay. Sight unseen, we handed them the keys to our house while we were heading away for a few days. Many people would kill for such a brotherhood where you can place such trust in total strangers. 

That happened. The following two paragraphs I made up:

At the Independence Day church, Mr. and Mrs. O’Reilly heard of our adventure and decided to do the same. The first guests who stayed at their house broke their TV. The second set of guests tracked mud throughout the house. The third set found the Go Packs and raided the funds set aside.  The fourth set emptied the house completely and the O’Reilly’s returned to four bare walls.

Steamed, they contacted Independence Day Church headquarters. “Oh, yeah, that happened to us, too. No, they’re not congregation members – they’re imposters. But we have such a half-assed organization that any scoundrel can pull the wool over our eyes in a twinkling of the eye.’

Notice how it is not a matter of rationality to prefer the Witness organization to the Independence Day church. It is more a matter of what one values more. ‘Taste and see that Jehovah is good,’ the verse says. I had previously witnessed to the O’Reillys extensively but upon hearing Jehovah has an earthly organization, they decided that tasted bad. They preferred the Independence Day Church, where no one will lean upon them in any way. If they have to buy a houseful of furniture once in a while, it is in their eyes a small price to pay. 

 

[Pudgy]

jealousy, Et tu Brute’?

(… and your first sentence “Some of us might just think that certain individuals undoubtedly have a place in the world of cinema.“ makes no sense at all.)

[Many Miles]

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

It gets worse.

When reading for pleasure my interests tend to be history and biographical. I like fiction on the big screen, especially science fiction. But fiction books were just never a thing for me.

If I'm not reading for pleasure the analytical part of me comes out. I work to keep it at bay. But sometimes I open my mouth, or keyboard the submit reply button without realizing I might be ruining someone's day for no reason.

I don't know much about your written works, but it sounds like you have fun with it. By itself that's reason enough to keep at it. Ignore people like me.

[Many Miles]

1 hour ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Juan, too, could write some books, and may someday. But he will face the same dilemma, and already does in ways that are parallel. He would, if he were a Baptist, write a book about God. Baptist Press would promote it, and even say: ‘Look at this guy! A real thinker, he is, a theologian and one of ours!’ Whereas, when he writes as a Witness, he becomes that brother who is likable but a little odd and possibly one who should be given a wide berth.

Lot of truth in that comment. A lot!

[TrueTomHarley]

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Why torture your soul as if everything after "sin" is irreparable and futile.

The only problem a sinner will have is a problem with people, not with God. Then tell me, whose, which relationship is more important to you?

Exactly. That is why you sit in the penalty box for a while till they let you back in the game.

Many Miles all but blew a gasket when I pulled this illustration on him, but it is exactly what I would do if I had caved on this issue, either out of conviction or out of cowardice.

Of course, if it were out of conviction I caved, so that it was not really caving but standing on principle, and my conviction was such that since headship is misguided on this position, it is misguided in everything else as well, then I would not head for the penalty box. I would head directly to the showers. But most people are not such black-and-white thinkers. Even the Great Courses philosophy professor cited some research somewhere—I will look it up in time—to the effect that most persons are content with what is mostly true, a finding that seems to distress him because he thinks through philosophy he can discover what is absolutely true. Good luck on that project. 

His course of 36 lectures (let us estimate 5 per lecture, deducting the introductory and concluding lecture, to arrive at our count) considers 170 philosophies, some in detail, some in passing, and for each one he cites logical inconsistencies. Even as I write this, I know it cannot be as high as 170, but it is a lot.

He says: “Philosophy can be frustrating because it's so difficult to find concrete answers. For example, we just studied a number of ethical theories but each one failed in one way or the other. We didn't definitively define what's morally right and wrong and we certainly didn't find the truth makers for moral statements we were looking for.

Now this might tempt us to draw the conclusion that, just like with free will and persons and the mind, that morality is just an illusion. The reason that we can't find the ground for moral facts is because there are none, and that might be true however.”

Or . . .it just may be that he is looking in the wrong place for everything. It just may be that Zilch is the price he pays for confining his search to that of the ‘physical man.’ If he was to expand to the ‘spiritual man,’ it might be different, but he has consistently made a great show that everything must conform to ‘reason.’ He is not put off by his entire lecture, which sums up the entire body of philosophy, not finding any ‘reason’ that is consistent. 

19 hours ago, George88 said:

Once again, the power of intellect shines through.

Believe me, if this guy has a problem, it is not that his intellect fails to shine through. It’s that he should put a basket over it. He has confined his search to what is rational, to what is intellectually satisfying, and he will not go beyond it. It is a great shame, because the body of knowledge Witnesses adhere to is not afraid to go beyond it. It has to conform to reason, and it does, but it doesn’t have to bow to it as Master, the way this professor representing philosophy does.

It is like my comment on the educated world’s division of Job into two parts: “Is the appeal here that by doing so you are in position to understand neither while in both cases flattering the intellect?” By separating chapters 1 and 2, you get to shine before your educated peers, reassuring them that you, too, are not so stupid as to believe in a literal devil. At the same time, you get to spin treatises on the windy speeches, unconcerned that they may be a test at the end. Whatever theories you propose will be no better or worse than the next guy’s.

It is not intellect that matters to God. It is heart. If you have intellect, by all means, bring your gift to the altar, but don’t expect anyone to bow and scrape to you on that account, much less to hand you the reins.

But coming back to Srecko, I would say that if I caved, whether it be out of cowardice or conviction, I would sit in the penalty box for a while. If it were conviction, I would bitch a little bit inwardly, to be sure, but I wouldn’t flame anyone. They’ll eventually let me back in, and in the meantime, I can read Pudgy’s cartoons. 

Not to make light of MM’s trials. Had I experienced the things he had experienced, I might feel differently. I too, might thereafter present myself as an investigator of faiths (through rationality, no less) rather than as an adherent of one. I, too, might seek to undermine whoever I thought was advancing the ideas I came into such jarring conflict with. 

It is the human experience. John Butler experiences child sexual abuse long before he becomes a Witness. Thereafter, he cannot participate in a discussion of it without lapsing into near hysteria. The Sandy Hook parent loses his child and crusades for gun violence. A mother’s son is run over and Mothers Against Drunk Driving is born. None of these things would have happened without a horrific experience to precede it.

I am sympathetic. Maybe I would go there, too, in similar circumstances. My only experience with childhood sexual abuse came when some pervert happened along as my 15-year-old self was walking before dealer row considering the car I might buy when of driving age. No one was around, and the creep, leaning into me a little bit more than one would think proper, urged me to go with him behind the dealership because that’s where they keep the really good cars.

I wasn’t stupid. I got away from him in no time flat. I saw right through him—though, not for the right reason. They’re not going to keep the really good cars in the back. They’re going to put them up front where people can see them!

But if some horrific thing had happened, maybe I, upon recovery, would be like Butler. Or with different tragedies, like the other three. Or like Many Miles. Maybe I would come here as Many Many Miles and say to him, ‘What’s wrong? Cat got your tongue?’

If I so far have not, it is out of recognition that, whereas humans excel in demolition, they are far less skilled in construction.

 

 

[Pudgy]

I seriously doubt that with those vague, general, non-specific, word salads anyone cares except you, Georgie.

[Srecko Sostar]

8 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Exactly. That is why you sit in the penalty box for a while till they let you back in the game.

Your heart and mind made the wrong assessment and conclusion. I'm sending a smiley.  

[TrueTomHarley]

18 hours ago, Many Miles said:

I don't know much about your written works, but it sounds like you have fun with it. By itself that's reason enough to keep at it. 

I do have a lot of fun with it. I compare myself to a painter, a favorite safe hobby for a Witness. (painting, not writing, and the object painted is likely to be a boat) He or she paints for enjoyment. Thereafter, he doesn’t tuck paintings in the closet but puts them in some gallery. If he finds that some like them, so much the better. If they buy them, even more so much the better. But he would paint regardless of reception. He benefits from naysayers too, and may or may not incorporate their input into subsequent works.

I write to be creative, to research, to tell stories, to do memoirs. Steve Jobs confided to his biographer he wanted his story told so his kids would understand him better. I don’t primarily consider myself an apologist, though I can see why other people might. It is just that I am a Witness and everyone writes about what they know. Mostly, I am just a communicator who gots to communicate.

That said, to the extent I am an apologist, I go places I have never seen any Witness go. The Witness works that I have seen mostly confine themselves to ‘safe’ Witness topics like bashing holidays or blood transfusions. If they do go into matters of controversy, they mostly repackage what they’ve read in the Watchtower. For me, Chrysiddes remarks (under his pen name Ivor E. Tower) about ‘Tom Irregardless and Me’ is satisfying:  “Tom shows a remarkable breadth of knowledge and reading too – he has by no means exclusively studied Watch Tower publications.”

To the extent I have a goal, it is to show how a modern Witness copes with the times. Another goal is not to be dull. As an example of going somewhere I’ve never seen a Witness go, ‘In the Last of the Last Days: Faith in the Age of Dysfunction,’ includes a detailed description of my meeting with the elders, following up on prior counsel not to engage with ‘apostates’ and unsure as to whether I do or not, but if so, to readjust. I mean, I had a book (which I later removed) on my blog page entitled TrueTom vs the Apostates!’ A little difficult for me to say, ‘Don’t know nothin bout no apostates here.’ I don’t advertise, but word gets around.

Probably, every ‘apostate’ book contains a meeting with the elders, many of them framed as ‘shootout at the OK Corral.’ I don’t know for sure, having never read one. Everyone’s got a story to tell, and mine is as good as theirs. But I’ve never seen an account of a meeting with elders from a loyal congregation member. If Witnesses are known as ‘insular,’ I strive to be open. I frame this meeting in the good light I think it should be framed in, as an example of shepherding, even when a given ‘sheep’ might find it overbearing. Rather than take any shots at anyone, I present the elders much as Pudgy has, as honorable men doing their best to do the right thing. I’m on good terms with every one of them, as well as the congregation at large. 

I even deal with charges opponents make against them: 

“Are the brothers “brainwashed”—the ones who counseled me about a matter that they do not understand themselves from a fleshly point of view, which is the only point of view of concern to the greater world? It’s such a loaded word. Who isn’t brainwashed today in some respect?

“Follow the flag and get your head blown off in consequence; only some of your countrymen will think your death noble—everyone else in the world will consider your death in vain. It doesn’t take some brainwashing to buy into that? Follow unquestioningly the overall goals of this system to get a good education so that you may get a good job—not a tad of brainwashing there that such is the path to happiness? When my wife worked as a nurse with the geriatric community, she said a quite common thing was for bewildered elderly persons to look around them in their waning years, as though to say, “Is this all there is?” These were not “losers” in life, for the most part. These were people who had enjoyed careers and loving families. But there was an aching emptiness at the end for many of them, a certain vague but overpowering sense of betrayal by life. Is it not the result of being brainwashed by mainstream thinking?”

So, yes, I write for enjoyment. Yes, I am pleased that my works trickle off the shelf. But they should be New York Times bestsellers.

18 hours ago, Many Miles said:

Ignore people like me.

Unnecessary advice. You are one of the viewers, even as you do paintings yourself. I’m content if you don’t throw that many tomatoes.

[TrueTomHarley]

23 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Your heart and mind made the wrong assessment and conclusion. I'm sending a smiley.  

It is like when a man just returned from his day's work invited me into his home, in which he had several Bibles. I had stopped by previously; his wife said to return when he got home, for he loved to discuss God's Word.

He was a humble man, hospitable, instantly likeable, of just what church I forget. I made some points. He made some points. He invited me to a certain passage of scripture. He meant to read it aloud but I got there first and made to read it myself. 

"No, not you, don't you read it," he said, chuckling in good-natured faux panic. "You'll mess it all up!"

[Pudgy]

What makes that funny is that it is a “revealed truth” that we all know is true, but never verbalized.

 

[Thinking]

On 12/8/2023 at 2:38 AM, TrueTomHarley said:

Was it? 

How is the following any more than a reasonable conclusion upon reflection of the article itself?

“The problem is that transfused blood needs nitric oxide to keep the blood vessels open, otherwise, the carried oxygen never reaches the tissues. But nitric oxide begins to break down within three hours of storage, and donated blood is presently stored up to 42 days. To be sure, researchers think they can remedy the problem. But that does nothing to improve the effectiveness of blood transfusions already given, each one of which was hailed as "life-saving," yet few of them actually qualifying as such, at least not any more so than saline solution, which offers no danger of rejection. We all know that the body spots foreign tissue in an instant, and tries hard to get rid of it.”

I mean, I get where you’re coming from. I make clear in the article that I am a Witness. That negates the commentary itself, which even acknowledges researchers aim to rectify the problem and perhaps partially have by now? This is the mindset with which, for example one reads something about an uncontrolled southern border and says, ‘Well—what do you expect? He’s a Republican who wrote it.’ Or one reads something about the abuses of big business and says, ‘He’s a Democrat. Of course he’s going to say that.’ 

This is example of the inane prejudging of information the greater world typifies today. The Great Courses philosophy professor does this in spades. Discussing climate change, he touches on the fact that many weatherman don’t believe it. ‘A meteorologist is not a climatogist,’ he tells us, thus equating anything the former might write to so much toilet paper. How did it get to be a world where people are brilliant in their chosen field, but if you nudge them just a tiny bit out of it, they are clueless? What Great Educator fallen from the heavens packages information this way? And why—unless he is also the Great College Administrator. Hehehe )))). 

If I refer frequently to this philosophy professor, it is because I can see he and his featuring prominently in any future book about Job and other theodicies that I may write, and I am getting a few licks in early. How should I present such a future book? If I include reference to Jehovah’s Witnesses in it, people will say, ‘Oh, that’s an apologetic work.’ But if I don’t, it will leave a gaping hole because the theodicy most coherent is that of Jehovah’s Witnesses. (with a possible nod to the Seventh Day Adventist writer) If I cover all the Witness theology, but don’t say where it came from, it’s as though to say it can be found anywhere—even though it can’t. It becomes like pointing the person seeking water in any random direction, unconcerned with whether I am pointing to the Sahara Desert. Moreover, if I cover the ‘theodicy’ without saying where it came from, I give the impression it came from myself! 

No. I will say it came from JWs. And guys like MM may say, ‘Oh, well, this book is an apologetic work. Why waste my time?’ But I cannot conscientiously do it any other way.

I have not read your book but the parts I have read are pretty good….helpful I think for one’s who have been hurt in the past.

[Thinking]

On 12/5/2023 at 1:25 AM, Many Miles said:

Dying is still the leading cause of death. From the day a person's born, the most any medical doctor can do is help prolong the individual's life and quality of life.

When life is lost over something concocted, called "a religious position," maintained despite solid refutation, and then it's double-downed on by threat of being cut off from family and life-long friends should you honestly opt to do the right thing, then morphs through multiple iterations, then conceals critical options (e.g., cryosupernatant plasma for plasma exchange therapy!), it goes through underpinnings like changing socks, then something's wrong.

Yes, I'm completely aware probably the majority of HLC members (if not every single one of them!) are relieved when treatment of young children is left for competent doctors to decide the best treatment options without interference by family during emergencies.

In the post Bethany Hughes medical system we find institutions like SickKids In Toronto, Canada who, with full support of the society, have developed a special letter of understanding available to parents with minor children in the medical system.

This is a document that is signed by treating doctors and the child's parents and is "TO BE PLACED IN THE FRONT OF THE CHART". (Upper case in original document) The primary language reads:

"In an emergency, where your child is apparently experiencing severe suffering or is at risk, if the treatment is not administered promptly, of sustaining serious bodily harm, medical staff will provide treatment that is allowed by the law, which may include blood transfusion."

This document was put together just for JWs, and it was drafted with full support from the society's hospital information services department. When JW parents have minor children in other hospitals HLC members have initiated inquiries as to whether the institution has such a letter of understanding, and if they do not would they consider using one.

Now why would such an initiative be made if not for 1) wanting the child to live and 2) keeping the matter out of the courts and hence under the radar of publicity? What does the initiative to create and then execute such a document say about how devoted the society is to its religious position?

This is a good and just point…I do remember big question marks on this document and nobody really talked about it. I also remember asking the brother as to how I could have a study with someone and teach what I didn’t believe or was not sure of. He explained you could make the statement …this is what the society believes …which I did and obviously some would inquire as to what I believed ….then we hear instructions from the GB we are not allowed to say that or make that statement…

I can remember thinking…..yeah that’s just because they don’t want to be caught out if it was proved wrong….I still say it today…..

Unfortunately legalities often come into play.