Sheep and Goats

Category: Evil and Suffering

  • Top Norwegian Awesome Scholar Proves that CSA Hysteria Against Jehovah’s Witnesses Is Bogus”—Rolf Furuli—Part 3

    Q: What does Rolf have to say in his new book about the controversy of child sexual abuse and Jehovah’s Witnesses?

    A: Almost nothing. “Not even in a much too long dissertation on porneia and similar words,” I am told. However—in the footnotes, he writes:

    “I would like to add that several accusations against the GB on the Internet and other places are not true. For example, in connection with child molestation, the GB has been accused of having directed elders to hide such crimes from the authorities. The first time such crimes were known to elders in Norway was around 1990. Since then, elders have been advised to take particular measures to protect children, and always to cooperate with the police. So this accusation is wrong!”

    Ah. So the real headline to be taken from the Rolf book, obscured by 50,000 wet dream malcontent posts on the internet, is 

    “Top Norwegian Awesome Scholar Proves that CSA Hysteria Against Jehovah’s Witnesses Is Bogus”

    In writing this headline, I hesitated to use the word “proved.” Had he really done that? He just gave his testimony. But then I deferred to the words of a certain dodo on the internet who declared of Rolf’s book—without having reading it: “I think this gentleman and his book proves the point I’m making here.”

    In fact, it ‘proves’ just the opposite. (If he can do it, I can do it.)

    In a roundabout way, Rolf brings his gift to the altar. Are legal assaults against JW HQ In recent years due to how leadership evolved over time and how Rolf doesn’t care for the current take on Matthew 24:45-47?

    “Who really is the faithful and discreet slave whom his master appointed over his domestics, to give them their food at the proper time? Happy is that slave if his master on coming finds him doing so! Truly I say to you, he will appoint him over all his belongings.”

    Or—are they about sensationalized investigations of CSA that sometimes one could wish the JW organization would kick back a little more on? Put Rolf on the stand as star ‘expert’ witness for the defense—after lauding him as Moses descending with the tablets, opposers can hardly say that he has no sense whatsoever—and knock the legal ball out of the park. It can be a win-win. It is just a matter making lemonade out of lemons.

    “If he has said his piece, and remains as low-key as he should,” maybe it will all blow over. That’s what my unnamed source said—“unnamed” because I am trying to prove myself a modern journalist, and also because he may be bashful. Maybe it will be some esoteric matter for the airy halls of academia with little spillover into everyday life—after all, it is well-known that the ‘thinkers’ and the ‘doers’ often are from different sides of the tracks.

    Maybe. However, this kind of “wishful thinking” often fails because enemies will not let it remain low-key. It has made their day, if not year, and they will pump and pump until it becomes the only story that matters!!!

    The 2003 WT, 4/1 writes in the article ‘Mildness—An Essential Christian Quality’ of how a “young man reported to Moses that Eldad and Medad were acting as prophets in the camp—“My lord Moses, restrain them!”he cries. Moses mildly replied: “Are you feeling jealous for me? No, I wish that all of Jehovah’s people were prophets, because Jehovah would put his spirit upon them!” Maybe the HQ brothers will act the same, it was surmised. Maybe. But I added to the account:

    “But the young man again said, this time emphatically, “My Lord Moses, restrain them!’ Moses mildly replied: “Not a problem. Chill.”

    But the young man once again said: “My Lord Moses, restrain them!!!!!” Moses mildly replied: “Let’s stay low-key about this.”

    But the young man once again said: “MY LORD MOSES, RESTRAIN THEM!!!!”  (this is going to be good!!!!)”

    Time will tell.

    …..[Edit] I was called out on this one several days later:

    “So the real headline to be taken from the Rolf book, obscured by 50,000 wet dream malcontent posts on the internet” – this quotation from your blog exhibits a complete contempt for the experiences of others. Would love you to use this language on the doorstep!”

    Of course I will not use it there, for every saying must be put in its proper setting. “If it helps,” I replied, I will concede that the “50,000 wet dream posts” is not a phrase that would be heard in the Kingdom Hall, though it is exceedingly mild for the internet. Nor when I speak of them am I referring to anyone who genuinely was wronged. I am referring to a 2nd buttressing layer of supporters who have opposed the JW work and faith since long before CSA arose as a topic.

    Even so, maybe certain phrasing should be backed away from. No sooner do we imagine we have razor-sharp intellect than we use it to get others riled. It is the reason that I recently changed but a single letter to take a bite out of Vomidog.

    ******  The bookstore

  • I Almost Wish There Would Be More Public Response

    If there has been kickback on ‘manipulation’ and ‘control’ charges, and if there has been kickback on ‘flip-flopping’ charges, then I would like to see kickback on charges that Witnesses ‘cover up’ child sexual abuse. A good place to start is by pointing out that leaving reporting up to the involved parties is not the same as ‘covering up.’

    Instead, the Witness organization states that it “abhors child sexual abuse,” which, in combination with its reluctance to go there otherwise, is spun by determined enemies as though they love the stuff. Not all will do what reporter Elizabeth Chuck did and attribute it to a “penchant for privacy.”

    Why do they not respond in more detail? It may be on account of their own statement. It may be that the sheer wickedness of the charge takes their breath away and makes them look like deer caught in the headlights. Yes, they know well the verse, “every sort of wicked thing will be lyingly said about you” but this—this is the wickedest thing of all! And the proactive arrangement started with such good intentions. Not so many years ago the notion of a religion “policing its own” was lauded as the ultimate in practicing what one preached.

    It wouldn’t be hard to do—to provide a brief defense of criticisms leveled at them. It might start with points such as:

    1. “Covering up” is not the same as leaving it to the digression of ones affected to report.
    2. There wouldn’t be anything to be accused of covering up had not the Witness organization practiced what almost nobody else did—policing its own. Countless persons are arrested with regard to child sexual abuse. Unless they are clergy, their religious affiliation or lack of is never reported. The reason that it is so with rank and file Witnesses is that they tried to do something about with regard to their own.
    3. Unlike virtually anywhere else, where the leaders of an organization are themselves the abusers, the leaders of the Witness community are accused of botching the handling of instances—bad, perhaps—history will judge—but nowhere near as bad as being the ones who commit it.

    That’s a few for starters. More could be added, such as

    1. The current “gold standard” of child sexual abuse to “go beyond the law” will inevitably cause you problems with those who, not surprisingly, expect you to abide by law.
    2. Child sexual abuse would appear to be the primary gross planetary product—30 years into all-out war against CSA and barely a dent has been made. Therefore efforts to prevent it ought to be given at least as much creedence as efforts to secure the barn door after the cows have fled. Nobody, but nobody, has done what the Witness organization has done, gathering every member in the world to consider detailed scenarios in which child sexual abuse might occur so that parents, obviously the first line of defense, can be vigilant. This was done as part of the program of the 2017 Regional conventions.
    3. The reason that the greater world will never make inroads with regard to child sexual abuse it that it feeds with one hand what it is trying to punish with another. Many portion of social media are a pedophile’s dream come true. Though it is parallel and thus not exactly the same thing, the 2020 NFL halftime show demonstrates that objectifying woman is the force that makes the world go round—the MeToo movement is doomed from the start.

    The matter of CSA in the greater world does not go away. It is not being solved. Rather, each month brings some new revelation of how the very elements of this world keep it firmly entrenched as a societal ill. It’s intricate involvement with the Child Protective Service agencies recently was reviewed in a story I must have missed. “We have set up a system to sex traffic American children” said Newsweek in January 2018:

    And the latest scandal—pediatricians! “Sheds light on a problem that could rival priest scandals,” states an article extrapolating from a notorious case just how many there might be. And to think I got into a squabble once with someone determined to put down the Caleb and Sophia video “Protect Your Children,” while she heralded one that specifically said that it was okay for a doctor to touch you in private areas. “Ask the young women of the U.S. Gymnastics Olympic team which video they think would have offered them more protection,” I told her.

    Just a few basic tenets of defense for those who would like to have some response to when workmates, schoolmates, or neighbors hit them over the head with what they just saw on TV. It doesn’t cover every tiny thing—just the general outline. The nature of critics everywhere is that they would like their complaints on center stage, to the exclusion of whatever else used to be there. Maybe its not a good idea to indulge them so. Maybe it’s enough to correct matters that need it, such as making it crystal clear to members that there is no reproach in reporting child sexual abuse to police, since the abuser has already brought about the reproach. Maybe it is enough to focus on creating an atmosphere where CSA is less likely to happen.

    Maybe. But sometimes you do wish there was more (or any) of a public response.

    I did like the WT attorney’s words at the reversal of the Montana verdict. “There are no winners in a case involving child abuse. No child should ever be subjected to such a debased crime….Tragically, it happens, and when it does Jehovah's Witnesses follow the law. This is what the Montana Supreme Court has established.”

    …. There was, however, one of my own side who took issue with me:

    “What puzzles me, Tom, is you want people to show you their false representation of facts, yet even you have never submitted the following from the Watchtower:

    In rare instances, one Christian might commit a serious crime against another—such as rape, assault, murder, or major theft. In such cases, it would not be unchristian to report the matter to the authorities, even though doing so might result in a court case or a criminal trial.

    Why is that? Does this mean the phrase “child sexual abuse” needed to be included in order for this statement to be of value?”

    Tom: It’s a valid point. Thank you for making it. Certainly it is concise enough and to the point. In my ‘defense,’ if that statement is in the Shepherd the Flock book not meant for general distribution, then I would not quote from it even if I had read it. It is a little silly, I know, to avoid what others have already put out there, and I don’t criticize anyone doing it with good motive. But I am still old fashioned that way and inclined to respect ‘confidential talk.’ It is a educational guide put out for elders.

    I’m not a stickler in that regard. There is an example or two of the contrary in ‘Dear Mr. Putin’ But in general I stay away from what has not been made public. For all I carry on about wishing there was more access to what is critical, I am sparing in how much I go there myself. I don’t chow down on the stuff. For the most part, I agree with the expression, “You are what you eat.”

    I don’t have the book. I could easily obtain it, but I haven’t. I once served as an elder, but that was 20 years ago. I know precious few in Bethel and I keep up with nobody there.

    An advantage to all this is that I can come across as a regular person. Another reason that I have been slow to leave open forums is that I don’t like to be just singing to the choir. I like the challenge of discussing mature Witness topics, such as submission to authority, before people who find the notion very strange because it does not reflect the way the world is today.

    Many Witnesses are not much good at speaking with non-Witnesses without going into ‘preaching mode.’ I even had someone shush me upon spotting the RING internet doorbell. “What! Do you think I’m telling dirty jokes here?” I said. “I hope they do hear me talking about regular things because then they will know that I am a regular person.”

    See Part 2

  • At the Wilkes-Barre “Love Never Fails” Regional Convention

    We took supper at a Red Robin after the first day of the “Love Never Fails” Regional Convention in Wilkes-Barre. At the table just behind me, a child—about 5 years of age (and not one of ours)—began raising a horrible ruckus, screaming at the top of his lungs. His mother took him out, but when she returned he started up anew. I turned around and asked the parents if everything was okay.

    I admit that I was looking for signs of endangerment. Maybe one “parent” or the other would look shifty. Maybe the child would act as though they were not his parents. It is a sign of the times that I should do this, but I saw nothing alarming.

    There was a time not too long ago when most parents would respond in a certain way to such a tantrum, but that way is likely to land them in jail today. Jehovah’s Witnesses work with many refugee groups. Almost always, they encounter ones whose flight has turned their lives upside-down, and one of the most bewildering things they confront is that child-rearing customs that were absolutely routine and unremarkable back home are taboo in their new home. Do not misunderstand. I make no argument for its return. That said, it is by no means clear that today’s children are better adjusted for its disappearance.

    My turning around put the parents even more on notice that they were disrupting the entire restaurant. They could hardly have not known it before, but here was a fresh reminder. The father became heated, threatening no TV for a week and the like. Upon leaving, I said to him: “Don’t worry about it. Whatever you do, stay calm. I’ve been there. They’re kids. It happens.”

    Taking in the convention program over three days, I began to wish that silly reporter from the Phoenix New Times would have accepted the offer from the attendants (whom she seemed to regard as wardens) to be seated. With her anti-JW story already written, she could hardly run it during the day of their convention without at least having briefly been there, and it is plain she comes with that rationale.  She looks around hastily, notices that people are paying attention, and writes that “attendees listened rapturously.”

    Of course, she is not silly. What she latches onto for her story is certainly not nothing. She will forgive my grumbling on the basis that she is young enough to be my daughter. For all I know, she is the daughter of some friend of mine. Reporters are not silly, or if they are, they are no more so than anyone else. They are typically concerned with injustice. They sometimes put their safety on the line in confronting it. Nobody is silly who does this. They have faith that shining the bright light of journalism on something will cause the cockroaches to disappear. Usually, however, they just go somewhere else—and failure to recognize that circumstance is what triggers the charge of silliness.

    Though her focus is certainly not nothing, neither is it everything. She entirely misses the big picture. She would have benefitted from the program that she cited as “three days of music-video presentations, prayers, songs, addresses, symposiums, and dramatic readings from the Bible” on the theme of “Love Never Fails.” The public address of that convention (the program is identical at all locations—only the speaker differs, and not even that for every talk, since portions of that Phoenix “international” convention, so-named for the foreign delegates attending, were streamed into other locations, such as Wilkes-Barre) opened with a truth as self-evident as are the truths Thomas Jefferson addressed in the Declaration of Independence.

    In this case, it is that all instances of injustice occur and are cultivated due to a lack of love. That being so, and obvious, the question becomes: “Just who will teach love?” Will it be the university? That is not its job. It focuses on training the intellect, with the apparent assumption that the moral qualities such as love will take care of themselves. As even the sloppiest purview of world headlines reveals, they do not. So who will teach it? Will it be agencies that are guided in training from the university that does not teach it? Is the quality so innate that it not need be taught? Again, a review of news headlines reveals the fallacy of such a notion. So who?

    Training that takes its cue from humankind’s Creator has traditionally played that role. “God is love,” states 1 John 4:8. Such training appears under attack from the Phoenix reporter, though she has nothing to replace it with. In the case of Bible training, Witnesses will say that it is a “treasure,” but it is a “treasure” carried in “earthen vessels”—that is, us, as flawed humans—just as Paul states at 2 Corinthians 4:7. Humans are capable of error, poor judgment, and even villainy. But that doesn’t mean that the training from God is no good, and the reporter should have sat through it.

    When she cites the Pew report that reveals Jehovah’s Witnesses have the lowest rate of retention of all faiths, why does she not also cite what appears on the same page? “Jehovah’s Witnesses are among the most racially and ethnically diverse religious groups in America,” it says. Nobody is concerned about racial prejudice more than reporters, and here Pew makes a statement to indicate that the Witnesses have solved it to a remarkable degree. All she had to do was look around and see for herself the harmonious diversity that she will not soon see again. But she does not notice it. She is caught up in an agenda pushed by the faith’s opponents. She is interested in the child sexual abuse angle—an angle that is seemingly shared by every group of persons on the planet. Pedophiles are a pernicious lot that nobody has succeeded in vanquishing, and the Boy Scouts of America, who taught generations of boys responsibility, self included, are at risk of going under because of it.

    In New York State, where I have lived and still keep up, a new law eliminates the statute of limitations for child sexual abuse. Law firms have flooded the media in search of plaintiffs. Hundreds of new lawsuits are being filed, and the challenge may soon be to find somebody NOT being sued, as lawyers preside over a massive transfer of wealth that amounts to a tax on everyone else. Businesses raise prices. Governments raise taxes. Insurance rates of all sort skyrocket at a time when overall inflation is quite low.

    In fact, had I detected abuse at the Red Robin restaurant, and had I reported it, and had the police and child protective authorities arrived and confirmed that it was indeed abuse, and had they removed the child on that account, I still would not have been sure that I had done the right thing. Among those squarely in the crosshairs of child sexual abuse lawsuits are many agencies dedicated to placing them in “protected” settings, but who have put them into settings no better and sometimes worse than where they were before. The world is a shell game of persons wanting to “do something” who, though well-intentioned, are likely to simply shift the evil from one place to another.

    In contrast, Jehovah’s Witnesses, during their 2017 Regional Conventions, considered detailed scenarios in which child sexual abuse has been known to occur—if there are sleepovers, if there are unsupervised trips to the restroom, if there are tickling sessions, if someone is showing unusual interest in your child, for example—so that parents, who are obviously the first line of defense, can be vigilant. Nobody, but nobody, gathers their entire worldwide membership for such training with the aim of protecting children from harm.

    It is certainly not wrong for the reporter to report on the Witness connection with child sexual abuse. Much as they would love to say that they have vanquished the crime, such is plainly not the case. But neither has it been the case for anyone else. In some ways, Jehovah’s Witnesses have created a unique legal vulnerability for themselves, for unlike most faiths that were content to preach to the flock weekly and thereafter take no interest in whether religious training was actually applied or not, Witnesses attempt to “police their own,” and thus did become aware of sordid things.

    Yet she was right there at the three day convention focusing on all aspects and applications of love. (And an international convention of 40,000 must make a greater impression than a Wilkes-Barre convention of 3500) Had she paid attention, she would have heard from the Cherokee man who grew up embittered because the white man had stolen the lands of his people. He was embittered again when he was required to fight their war for them (Vietnam). When his wife began studying with two Witness women, he was sullen and unwelcoming—the last thing he wanted was the religion of the white man. When she reached the point of wanting to be baptized, he declared that he would not come. When asked who would watch his baby during the baptism, he declared that maybe he had better come on that account. There, he observed the atmosphere for four days (conventions used to be longer) and his already softened attitude toward the Witnesses softened further. The reporter could have taken in that atmosphere, too, had she not had a deadline to meet.

    (Jehovah’s Witnesses is not a “come down and be saved” faith. The process of learning and trying Bible teachings on for size seldom (in this area) lasts less than a year. Throughout that time, persons are grounded in their own familiar routine and environment. College is more “manipulative” than is anything having to do with the Witnesses, for there young people are typically cut off almost 24/7 from all that once stabilized them, be it family, friends, and general environment—a classic tool of those who brainwash)

    https://mybook.to/GoWhereTomGoes

  • Mark Sanderson in Russia, Joseph Rutherford in America

    Can you believe these blockheads, carrying on about Sanderson the way that they do?

    Here is Mark Sanderson, of the Governing Body, and a team of international Witness delegates, present at the appeal trial to lend support. He has been advised that, in the event of a negative verdict, he will be subject to arrest if he so much as stays overnight. Since he and his do not know on what day a verdict will be handed down, they travel each day to the trial with their bags packed. Sure enough, the appeal is denied. He and the entourage catch the last plane out of Russia that evening—and now malcontents, those who have no skin in the game, are not Witnesses, and don’t really care one way or the other, except that they search for a smooth stone to hurl at their former faith—charge that he is a chicken! Why didn’t he stay and face the music with the Russian Witnesses?!

    Well, obviously he is not going to stay there and make himself a target. No one is more recognizable than he. Even Trump would not hang out in North Korea but for the sure knowledge that 100 nukes are pointed that way. The point is that he didn’t have to go there at all, and the brothers were thrilled that he was there. They weren't complaining that he didn’t stay to play Russian Roulette. After the failed appeal, he and his party had to leave that night so as not to be subject to arrest themselves. Had anything gone wrong, they might have all found themselves under arrest—to no purpose, other than to make those who oppose them happy.

    Says Grace (without displaying it): “I would expect one of the Governing Body members to be in Russia for the court case. They believe themselves to be the holy spirit/ self? appointed leaders of God's modern day chosen people.I would expect them to be there to show their support. The fact that Mark Sanderson hot footed it out of Russia the day after the court case rather than standing side by side with his brother just appears very unChristian. As a leader of the JW movement I would expect him to use his position [which might have been behind bars] to support the Russian brothers. Fleeing straight away does not give a great impression of Christian solidarity. Forget writing millions of letters, he voted with his feet so to speak. In days gone by leaders of countries led their people to battle from the frontline. Sanderson's behaviour does not give much of an impression of loving/ selflessness. I'm not saying that I would not have acted in the same way, but I would expect a little more from someone who believed they were leading God's organisation. I would have thought ensuring he saved his own skin would have been less of a priority for him.” [Italics mine, also brackets]

    Does not the devil lie in what she expects? Do you see the taunts italicized? It’s particularly telling in view of the acknowledgement that his departure is exactly the common-sense thing to do, and she would have done it too. The taunts are what motivates the comment, an urge to undercut the human organization. One can almost picture this woman at the Temple Mount coaching the Lord: “Come on! Take that leap! Show a little faith in God! What’s the matter—chicken?” (Matthew 4:6) 

    I think she just wants to see him in the hoosegow, and then there are only seven remaining GB members to go after.

    Grace: “I'm not sure what a hoosegow is so I can't comment and no I have no ill feeling toward anyone. It just surprised me that you put a positive spin of mentioning how he was there etc and then stated he left as soon as a negative verdict was reached.”

    Hoosegow is American slang for jail. What I “put a positive spin” on is nothing more than common sense. A captain goes down with his ship. He does not scan the horizon so as to board other ships that he can go down with as well. Sanderson is “captain” of the entire world organization. Witnesses in Russia have “captains” that are specifically in Russia, and they are going down with the ship. However, perhaps it will prove to be a submarine. Maybe it will surface again, just like it did last time. True, it took 100 years. But maybe it will be quicker this time.

    ***~~~***

    However, if this bit of revisionist history takes the cake, it is nothing next to how J. F. Rutherford’s role as President of the Watchtower Society during World War II is being rewritten. As the most visible member of Jehovah’s Witnesses, he put the face on their maintaining strict neutrality amidst conflicts and wars. In Germany, this neutrality put the German Witnesses behind bars, as it has at various times in many parts of the earth. Thus, he “threw German Witnesses under the bus,” according to these idiots.

    It is also bogus. When “the bus” actually began moving in Nazi Germany, everyone BUT JWs were at the wheel. The vast majority of Germans then were of two major faiths. If even one of them had defied Hitler as Jehovah’s Witnesses did, the tyrant might have fallen. There are times one must take a stand.

    Here is one of these characters now. Let us call him Beebs, who says: “JWs were barely on the periphery of Hitler’s plans – Jewish people were central to his fascist, sadistic plans. To elevate JWs’ victimisation to that of the Jewish people, which is what the GB has been doing, is to minimise the horrors of what the Jewish people went through.”

    What is this idiocy? Of course, it can be “elevated.” Perhaps even more so, for JWs were unique in that they were the only persecuted group that could have written their ticket out, by renouncing their faith, and pledging support to HItler. Only a handful complied.

    Beebs: “Model JDub, nice. What you’re saying then is that the JWs are basically a death cult – refusing to renounce a belief system would mean certain death, and most reprehensible of all, refusing life-saving blood in surgery resulting in needless death, incl. that of innocent youth.”

    They are “basically a death cult” in the same sense that anyone who has ever given his life for his country, for science, for exploration, even in pursuit of extreme sports, belongs to “basically a death cult.”

    It is as Paul writes to the Thessalonians, when he expresses the hope “that we may be rescued from harmful and wicked men, for faith is not a possession of all people.” (1 Thessalonians 3:2) With the elimination of faith comes the elevation of the present life to the ultimate status. Jehovah’s Witnesses certainly don’t think of the present life as nothing—you should see them when they get going on workplace safety—but they realize that this present life is not all there is. For those without faith, however, this life is all there is.

    And yet even that position is not consistent. If the cause is “wrong” in their eyes, one death is far too many. But if the cause is “right,” as in the above examples of country, science, exploration, even sports, they are willing to see them mowed down by the hundreds—sometimes thousands.

    And I never did get back to this fellow about his “life-saving” blood transfusions (the noun must always be preceded by that adjective, in their eyes). In fact, as employed, they are often “life-threatening.” Moreover, as a result of a relatively tiny religion sticking to its principles amidst much opposition, courageous doctors have developed and put into practice various forms of “bloodless medicine,” which, in combination with safer techniques concurrently developed, have likely saved far more lives than members of the small faith have lost.

     

  • Stephen Fry Runs Afoul of the Blasphemy Law

    In 2015, the Irish comedian Stephen Fry abruptly became quite serious on TV. He charged: “Why should I respect a mean-spirited, capricious, stupid God who creates a world that is so full of injustice and pain?” His words did not sit well with a certain person who reported him to the police. Fry discovered that he had run afoul of a blasphemy law that he had not even known existed. It was as though he was an extremist himself, nabbed for embarrassing the church people. The Irish Defamation Act would penalize any person who publishes or utters blasphemous material, and Fry was therefore investigated.12

    What would Fry say to God face-to-face if he had the chance? a show host asked him on television. He answered: “I’d say ‘Bone cancer in children, what’s that about?’ How dare you create a world in which there is such misery that is not our fault. It’s not right. It’s utterly, utterly evil … Because the god who created this universe, if it was created by God, is quite clearly a maniac, an utter maniac, totally selfish.”

    Perhaps the Russian Orthodox Church can answer his complaint. Jehovah’s Witnesses can in a heartbeat. It is even a chapter of their basic study book, What Can the Bible Teach Us, entitled Why So Much Suffering? an exploration of verses that effectively reason upon and answer the question. Through their unparalleled public ministry, Jehovah’s Witnesses make every effort to answer Fry’s grievance using the Bible, for surely it has that answer. Dominant churches jealous of their own turf try to run the Witnesses off the road so that they can answer it their way: with defamation laws when ‘God works in mysterious ways’ fails to satisfy. It is well that Russian tort lawyers, if they exist, do not understand scripture, for surely it is religious malpractice to interfere with the quest for the answers as to why there is suffering.

    Nonetheless, the learned men have not figured it out, is the gist of ‘Octavius’, so what chance is there that an idiot will? ‘You see,’ Caecilius explains from the 2nd century, but he might just as well be speaking today, “all things in human affairs are doubtful, uncertain, and unsettled.” So it is to be understood that if “some, from the weariness of thoroughly investigating truth, should rashly succumb to any sort of opinion rather than persevere in exploring it with persistent diligence.” He represents those who have done “persistent diligence.” His uneducated Christian opponents do not.13 He later speaks with admiration of a certain philosopher who, “the longer his research continued, the obscurer the truth became to him.” That being so, “in my opinion also, things which are uncertain ought to be left as they are. Nor, while so many and so great men are deliberating, should we rashly and boldly give an opinion in another direction, lest either a childish superstition should be introduced.”14

    The reason the great men cannot figure it out is that their wisdom has led them to make a priori assumptions that serve to screen out the true answer when it is presented to them. The ones unindoctrinated need not grapple with these red herrings—frequently they are unaware of them. It really is true that the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s eyes and that he therefore simply ignores it, giving very clear answers only to whomever is willing to extricate themselves from that quagmire.15

    This explains why Witnesses of Jehovah can barely contain themselves. Fry cries out the question of the ages. There is scarcely a question more important. The great men have either argued in circles or given up. Yet his question should be answered. Jehovah’s Witnesses have really put themselves out—they have fairly turned their lives upside down—to bring that answer to him, only to be blocked by ‘respectable’ religion. It is not a matter of snatching away church members; let them claim him if they can answer his question. Unfortunately, they cannot, and they will not. They have boxed themselves in with pre-existing notions and unreasonable doctrines. So they don’t try. They take cover instead behind defamation laws. Indeed, several of their doctrines would negate the answer to Fry’s question, though biblically the answer be plain as day.

    For example, it is common, upon the death of a young child, for a member of the clergy to explain it with the analogy of how God is picking flowers. It goes something like this: God has a garden; he grows pretty flowers, absolutely the best. But he needs one more. There’s one spot that’s just not right. Ah! The missing ingredient is your sole flower. He’ll pick it. Surely, you’ll be happy. What’s that? You’re not? Who would ever think such an analogy as ‘picking flowers’ would be comforting? It is monstrous. No wonder people go atheist. Take away the most precious thing a person has simply because you have an opening and expect him to be comforted over that?

    The ‘picking flowers’ illustration is nowhere found in the Bible. But, just once, the Bible uses an illustration parallel in all respects except the moral, which isexactly opposite from the flower illustration! It takes place after King David, captivated over Uriah’s wife, takes her as his own, impregnates her, and silences her husband by having him killed. The passage reads:

    “The LORD sent Nathan to David, and when he came to him, he said: “Tell me how you judge this case: In a certain town there were two men, one rich, the other poor. The rich man had flocks and herds in great numbers. But the poor man had nothing at all except one little ewe lamb that he had bought. He nourished her, and she grew up with him and his children. Of what little he had she ate; from his own cup she drank; in his bosom she slept; she was like a daughter to him. Now, a visitor came to the rich man, but he spared his own flocks and herds to prepare a meal for the traveler who had come to him: he took the poor man’s ewe lamb and prepared it for the one who had come to him.” David grew very angry with that man and said to Nathan: “As the LORD lives, the man who has done this deserves death! He shall make fourfold restitution for the lamb because he has done this and was unsparing. Then Nathan said to David: ‘You are the man!’”16

    Now, this analogy is just! The man is not expected to be comforted that the king stole his lamb to impress his visitor. Anyone who’s ever recoiled in disgust at the ‘picking flowers’ analogy is reacting exactly as the Bible says he should! It is the clergyman who is advocating the obscene. The flower picker is not to be praised. He deserves death! Having followed the prophet Nathan’s logic, the atheists take the moral high road in this instance and kill God! The condemnation of religion at Revelation 18:24: “In her was found the blood of…all the ones who have been slaughtered on the earth,” is not due to her war-stoking record alone. It is not just due to her acts of commission; it is also due to her acts of omission. Such teachers swap Bible truth for junk food, and spiritually starved people forage on evolution and atheism for nourishment.

    Since the illustration is slanderous toward God and not found in the Bible, why do so many clergy members use it? The answer is that they have bought into unscriptural and unreasonable doctrines that unfailingly paint them into moral corners. You make a god-awful mess trying to escape from these corners. The unscriptural doctrine here is: ‘When we die we don’t really die.’ That is, there is some component of us, usually called the soul, that lives on. It is immortal. Have you been good? Then death is your friend. You get promoted to heaven, and how can anyone not be happy to see good people promoted? It’s a win-win! The trouble is, people don’t behave as though it’s a win-win. People mourn at funerals, they don’t rejoice. They take a long time to readjust. Some never readjust to the death of their child; children are not supposed to die before the parent. Death is not natural. It is not a friend, as most religions would have us believe. It is an enemy.17

    Returning to Fry’s complaint, note who takes the hit for religious negligence. It is God! Fry rails against God, not clergy persons and not religion! He should rail against the latter, for it is they that fail in their job to explain God. It should not be God who takes the hit. Fry simply assumes—what reasonable person would not?—that if there is an answer to a spiritual question, the self-proclaimed experts will have it. That they do not must mean that an answer does not exist. It does not occur to him that the experts are themselves misled, or in some cases even frauds. God’s reputation suffers. Even beyond addressing Fry’s righteous gripe, Jehovah’s Witnesses ardently want to defend God; after all, that is the function of a witness: to defend one who is accused.

    It is a stretch, but perhaps Fry will one day come across Jehovah’s Witnesses and be puzzled at finding that they are in Russia a ‘totalitarian sect.’ It is too bad for him that they are so maligned. So fundamental are his questions of God and suffering that even if the repugnant word ‘totalitarian’ was true, he might decide to rethink his objection to it, for it is not as though anyone else in the field of religion has offered anything to satisfy his spiritual thirst. Slandering good people with charges of totalitarianism does not always work. Sometimes the contrast between the accusations and what people can see right before their eyes is too great, and people are drawn to what they might not otherwise have noticed. For some the best motivation to do something is to be told that they cannot. Might Fry be one of those people?

    His words were reported to the police by “a member of the public, who asked not to be identified,” and who later explained that he (this is too much—it really is) “had not personally been offended by Fry’s comments—I added that I simply believed that the comments made by Fry were criminal blasphemy and that I was doing my civic duty by reporting a crime.” If the incident mirrors the incidents of many countries, the “member of the public” was an infuriated clergyman, maybe even Dvorkin himself, who was personally offended and therefore tried to arrest the one who had insulted him and his profession. In the end, whoever it was did not succeed. Fry was not charged. It was decided to let the law slide because “no one was hurt.”

    Sure, go ahead and slap down Fry, if you must. But also address his complaint. Had his complaint even once been addressed, he might not have launched his TV salvo to begin with. Few pay any attention to the Bible’s explanation of suffering because it is Jehovah’s Witnesses that offer it. As with most things, it is not what is said that is important. It is who says it. People look to a respectable source to answer such questions, for surely answers should come from someone trained in academia, they assume. “Wisdom cries aloud in the street, in the open squares she raises her voice,” says the proverb. ‘Nonsense!’ the world’s movers and shakers respond. ‘It cries aloud in the university campuses and quadrangles. Only ignoramuses are found on the street.’18

    How a religion can be considered a respectable source while coming up empty-handed on the fundamental questions of life is a question for others to ponder. But popular religion will ever be a reflection of what people honor most, and such fundamental questions, while they may appear on the list of concerns, do not rank as highly as does fitting in with the world’s overall aims and thereby enjoying respectability.

    Jehovah’s Witnesses, who, at significant expense and inconvenience, have put themselves out to answer questions like Fry’s, should not be impeded. Let’s face it—one builds up some ‘street cred’ through such an unpaid public ministry. There is nothing in it for them. Sure, it can be spun in a derisive manner by persons intent on that aim: that they have a ‘need’ to validate themselves or a ‘need’ to be right. But it is better to take it at face value: as doing a good deed. Witnesses understand kingdom preaching as a Christian duty dictated by love of God, for he is the one who gets slammed—and for neighbor, for they are the ones who suffer for it. If you have knowledge, you don’t just sit on it. How loving would that be? You light the lamp and put it on a lampstand.

    From the ebook Dear Mr. Putin – Jehovah’s Witnesses Write Russia

  • Lessons to be Learned re Child Sexual Abuse

    The Old Testament tells some very strange tales and one of them is told at 2 Samuel. David, the Israelite king, pressured facing an armed insurrection led by his own son, enters a town where loyalty is not assured. As it turns out, he and his men are received hospitably, but there is one man decidedly not hospitable.

    The account reads: “…a man…came out shouting curses as he approached. He was throwing stones at David and at all the servants of King David, as well as at all the people and the mighty men on his right and on his left. Shimei said as he cursed: “Get out, get out, you bloodguilty man! You worthless man!”“…Then Abishai the son of Zeruiahm said to the king: “Why should this dead dog curse my lord the king? Let me go over, please, and take off his head.” But the king said: “…Let him curse me, for Jehovah has said to him, ‘Curse David!’ …Here my own son, who came from my own body, is seeking my life… Leave him alone so that he may curse me, for Jehovah told him to! …With that David and his men kept going down the road while Shimei was walking alongside the mountain abreast of him, shouting curses and throwing stones and a lot of dust.” (16:5-19)

    The fellow curses him, throws stones at him, shouting he is bloodguilty and worthless. And David as much as says: “Well, maybe he has a point. I mean, if God is letting it happen, who am I to kick in his head?”

    This obscure passage was included twice in recent meeting programming, though it was the focus of neither. I think that the Governing Body inserts it and applies it to itself. Do not think that they throw Bible verses at everyone else while they crest above it all themselves. No. They themselves are chastened by it. Even as the Witness who first dreamed up keeping track of pedophiles, whoever he may be, is probably on potato-peeling duty in the Bethel kitchen and will be till the day he dies—do not think that they are not reflecting upon how they got into this situation so easily spun negatively, even as David must have reflected upon how he got into the mess he was into, with stones bouncing off his helmet.

    There is a verse in Ecclesiastes about being “righteous overmuch:” “Do not become righteous overmuch, nor show yourself excessively wise. Why should you cause desolation to yourself?” How might either course cause “desolation to yourself?” Might it not be that both courses are guaranteed to trigger backlash? “Wise” is okay, even good, for who wants to suffer stupid people? But if one shows oneself “excessively wise,” it too readily slides into becoming “full of oneself.” “Righteous is okay, even good, for who wants to associate with lowlifes?  But “righteous overmuch” also too readily slides into becoming “full of oneself.”

    Jehovah’s Witnesses did not consciously cover up child sexual abuse. They handle it internally with punishments as severe as excommunication—you can’t execute them, after all—and it has always been written policy—from the moment it occurred to anyone to write about it—that any member is free to report to outside authorities any abuse of which he or she becomes aware. But could it be argued that they inadvertently covered up child sexual abuse? Here one must pause and consider.

    Almost any setting in which human beings interact is being revealed these days as steeped in child sexual abuse. It is endemic to human society. If Jehovah’s Witnesses had said: “Oh, man, we’re having a struggle with this bunch, too!” all would have been well. Not with their most virulent detractors, of course, who principally zero in child sexual abuse within the ranks of their former faith. But everyone else would have understood. Most would even have given Witnesses high marks for attempting to do something about the problem, creating an internal sex offender registry long before anyone else thought to do it. They would have understood that the program is not to protect child molesters but to mete out strong discipline and protect congregation members from them.

    Unfortunately, those of the “righteous overmuch” mindset were loath to communicate the notion that child sexual abuse could ever occur among those guided by Bible standards. To that end, a culture emerged in which ones suffering it were loath to communicate it outside so as not to “sully God’s name.” It is hardly just Jehovah’s Witnesses. The very reason that there is an expression “skeletons in the closet” is that people once succeeded in keeping them there. No organization has proved eager to reveal whatever child sexual abuse has been found in its midst. That is usually because whatever organization it is believes that overall it is doing much good and does not want to tarnish its image and thereby cripple itself. Yes, “they are commendably proactive over there,” they know will be the reaction of some, but they fear “they are all a bunch of perverts over there!” will be the reaction of most.

    This understandable, if not laudable, misgiving is common to all. With Jehovah’s Witnesses there is an added factor. They have attempted to do something about child sexual abuse within their midst, and thereby they become linked with it in the popular mind. Others have circled the wagons when it comes to child sexual abuse among their leaders, but the prospect of being shamed by having it uncovered among their membership does not worry them—there is no mechanism to uncover it; when a pedophile abuser is nabbed by the police, the church minister is as surprised as anyone.

    Jehovah’s Witnesses thereby have greater ‘exposurability’ than most; hence the temptation not to advertise it will also be greater than most. The ones “righteous overmuch” have caused tremendous trouble in this regard, it seems to this writer, in creating a culture in which persons will be reluctant to go to outside authorities even though they know they have every right to do it. Reputation of their faith becomes the overriding concern for them. It does not affect all Witnesses, of course, but it does affect a high proportion.

    The underlying attitude is not easy to root out, for several reasons. First, it is a common circumstance with anyone having a goal to “do what is right,” and certainly the doing of what is right is not to be discouraged. Secondly, it is not as though there are two factions among Jehovah’s Witnesses, as though rivaling street gangs. Rather, as with people anywhere, there is a spectrum. Separating the wheat from the chaff is not so easy, for there is a mixture of both in everyone—which leads to the third consideration: an actual application of scripture by a group of persons will almost inevitably lead to the present situation, because Christians who are Bible-based are by definition “no part of the world” (John 17:14, for example: “I [Jesus in prayer to his Father] have given your word to them, but the world has hated them, because they are no part of the world.”) The “insularity” that critics of Jehovah’s Witnesses complain of is virtually mandated by the Bible they try to follow. That’s what insulation is—a device to keep something away from what is harmful. The house insulation keeps the harmful cold out. The wire insulation keeps the harmful electricity in. In many cases, good things will not work if they cannot be insulated, and it is the same with Christianity true to the Book.

    That said, looking at the overall situation of child sexual abuse, one would easily surmise that something must have gone wrong. Jesus’ words to his followers may be true that they will “lyingly say every sort of wicked thing against you,” (Mathew 5:11) but in this case some will not be so sure about the “lyingly.” Even if it is misrepresented, there must be something to it at root—and in this case it involves hurt children.

    Legal accountability is argued over in court each day, and this writer does not comment on individual court cases. He did not comment on OJ or Michael Jackson or Paul Manifort or any of them. They involve persons that one doesn’t know and 99% percent testimony that one doesn’t hear. Cancel trials altogether and determine outcomes based upon Facebook likes if we are expected to all weigh in on with such minimal input.

    Everyone sues everybody these days over everything. Lawyers have assumed the place as premiere sponsors of television news. Only vaccine makers operate liability free. Legal chips will fall where they will—everyone understands that. But it is the “righteous overmuch” ones who somehow missed the fact that those outside of the congregation also cared about children. They were so insulated that they barely knew another world existed, and that is what most rankles. That is the soul-searching that must remain as a lesson. That is what David will most likely take away from the stones pounding his helmet. They look like deer caught in the headlights sometimes—aghast and dumbfounded at how what started with such good intentions some now portray as so deliberately evil.

    The Witness website contains not a mention of the child sexual abuse court litigation, though there is abundant material on Russian persecution. Perhaps it is simply due to the same reason that one does not expect to find a citation from the Building Department on the restaurant menu. At any rate, it certainly is the case that once one starts addressing the critics one never stops, so the Witness Governing Body overall heeds the recommendation of Jesus expressed at Mathew 11 to not go there—they criticize you no matter what you do, so it is best to ignore it all, press on ahead, and maybe someone else will come to your defense as you trust that “wisdom [will be] proved righteous by its works.”

    In the final analysis, anyone visiting jw.org and perusing the abundant material geared to help children, teens, and family must work very hard to leave with the impression that here is an organization that abuses children. It is not that it cannot be done, but only if one has that notion locked-in previously, as (an old friend used to say, about Witness beliefs in general, and not this specifically) one who has a mind of concrete: “all mixed up and firmly set.” The experience is not all that different from Russia declaring Jehovah’s Witnesses extremists. Curiosity piqued, some visit the website to investigate, where they very quickly discover that they are not.

    As the divide between what is Bible-based living widens from that of general society, the temptation to allow harmful aftereffects from “insulation” must be resisted, even as the insulation itself must continue. The inevitable divide of lifestyle itself is easily seen in scripture. “In my letter I wrote you to keep mixing in company with fornicators,” the apostle writes at 1 Corinthians 5:9, “not meaning entirely with the fornicators of this world or the greedy persons and extortioners and idolaters. Otherwise, you would actually have to get out of the world. But now I am writing you to quit mixing in company with anyone called a brother that is a fornicator that is a fornicator or a greedy person or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man.”

    Okay? The direction to separate and stay separate is very strong. It also flies in the face of current philosophy that we are to “come together” and overlook such differences. Differences that are not ones of conduct Jehovah’s Witnesses from their beginning came together on—those of race and nationality and social class—but differences in conduct the Word says is to be put into another category.

    1 Peter 4:3 tells of the rising tensions that are inevitable with regard to two different ways of life: “For the time that has passed by is sufficient for you to have worked out the will of the nations when you proceeded in deeds of loose conduct, lusts, excesses with wine, revelries, drinking matches, and illegal idolatries,” says the writer, but not all will agree. Not everyone would consider what he has listed as so terrible, and many would think a little of all of them is a good thing that adds spice to life. Peter goes on to say: “Because you do not continue running with them in this course to the same low sink of debauchery, they are puzzled and go on speaking abusively of you.” Okay? They are puzzled about it at first but soon enough figure out what to do about it. “Water’s fine in the low sink!” they cry. “Who are you to judge?”

    Separation of Christians from the overall world is scripturally mandated. Any attempt to chastise the Witness organization for being that way is actually an attempt to chastise Christianity itself and the Book that it stems from. Still, one must take care not to inadvertently aggravate this situation by being “righteous overmuch.”

    Hopefully, somewhere along the line it will be seen that failure to report child sexual abuse is not to be equated to committing it. Court matters will resolve as they will and matters will settle. The most virulent of ex-Witness opposers were barely placated at all by the recent May 2019 study edition Watchtower that essentially solved the problem, by removing all doubt that reporting child sexual abuse to outside authorities DOES NOT bring reproach upon the congregation. They will continue to rail about the “two-witness” rule, which now becomes irrelevant. Report the slimeball to the cops and, if guilty, off to the hoosegow he goes. The “two-witness rule” is for internal procedures only. The reason they are not too quick in the Witness world to throw it out the window emerges every time a person falsely imprisoned is exonerated and released from prison over new DNA evidence, after having served years convicted over less strenuous proof.

     

    ***~~~***

    Meanwhile in Russia, where any connection of Jehovah’s Witnesses to child sexual abuse is completely unheard of and the charge has never been made:

    On March 26, 2019, in the town of Yemanzhelinsk (Chelyabinsk Region) at about 7 a.m., there was a soft knock at the door of the apartment where the couple Pavel and Elena Popov live. When they opened the door, they saw about 10 people in masks with assault weapons and a sledge hammer for breaking the door out.

    The Popovs were informed that a search would be conducted in their home due to the fact that they profess the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Their computer, phones, tablets, family photos, books and international passports were confiscated. After the search, the pair was taken away for questioning in another city. According to law enforcement officers, whether they will be detained, “depends on how they will cooperate.” (Law enforcers across the country threaten believers to intimidate them into incriminating themselves or others by “confessing” that they are carrying out extremist activities.)

    This sort of story from Russia is becoming quite common. The game of good cop/ bad cop continues. Both cops want for the activity of Jehovah’s Witnesses to stop. Both cops cloak their attacks in misrepresented threats posed by this decidedly peaceful group—among the very few peoples who swear off violence on all accounts.

    Recent meeting congregation material considered Hebrews 12:3: “Indeed, consider closely the one who has endured such hostile speech from sinners against their own interests, so that you may not get tired and give up.”

    Why ought one “consider closely” the fact that Jesus “endured such hostile speech” from those who opposed him? “So that one may not get tired and give up.”

    Hostile speech always pastes one’s ears back, unless persons are completely insensitive. Few today ever really hear that about Jesus: that he endured “hostile speech” as a matter of course. The reason is plain. If Jesus was the subject of hostile speech—and we all know that Jesus was good—then it follows that anyone venting on him is not-so-good. Since the bulk of people today are pretty much where they were then, to highlight the hostile talk he endured amounts to little more than self-condemnation. The world has rejected Christianity. Mark Twain was not so far off when he wrote that there has only been one Christian and “they caught and crucified him—early.” It is easy to see why he puts it in such short supply. Try sincerely to follow the Christ and they come after you as well.

    “Nevertheless, I have told you these things [again, these things about the hostile talk and opposition Christians would face] so that when the hour for them to happen arrives, you will remember that I told them to you,” Jesus counsels disciples at John 16:4. The hour pretty much has arrived for Jehovah’s Witnesses. They are enduring just that hostile talk, not only in Russia, but in the West. Ostensibly it is for different reasons. The most virulent hostile talk in the West has never been heard in Russia. The meeting material is increasingly geared to reinforcing ones’ faithfulness in the face of hostile talk and even action, and that is obviously the enemies’ motivation to deprive them of it.

    When Jehovah’s Witnesses are declared extremists in Russia and then, being “extremists,” cannot be detained as one might arrest a speeder, but must be violently arrested with SWAT teams, then you know that the “bad cop” is alive and well. But the overall scenario—Russian and Western—is that of good cop/bad cop, for the goals of the good cop are the same as the bad cop: that Jehovah’s Witnesses cease being Jehovah’s Witnesses and that the kingdom message that they alone preach should cease. To that end differently tactics are used—in the West it is something so scurrilous as child sexual abuse—but the overall goal is the same.

    A brief moment of levity was provided by Sergey Skrynnikov, who told the Russian court as part of his closing statement before sentencing: “Let us take a look into the future. If for another ten years or so the government keeps putting Jehovah’s Witnesses in prisons and correctional colonies, there will be about 200 of them in each penal facility. Imagine four congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses in one prison! The prison administrators will be begging the Ministry of Justice to set Jehovah’s Witnesses free. What do you imagine the majority of Witnesses would pray for? “Lord, don’t soften the heart of the administrator; don’t let him set me free. I have so many Bible students and sincere people to talk to in here.”

    He sort of has a way with words, doesn’t he? And math.

     

    Included in the eBook; TrueTom vs the Apostates!

    00

  • Child Sexual Abuse Storm on the ‘Atlantic’

    “Tom, you’re on here quite often justifying or defending some pretty horrible doctrine. I get it, it’s your faith and you’re probably a decent guy IRL so I hope one day you’ll find a religion that won’t require you to perform logical contortions to rationalize your adherence to it.”

    Actually, you don’t get it. Of course I see the point your community makes. But you make it so persistently and to the exclusion of all else that I say “Okay, those bases are covered” and I focus on the all else. You are a community that plays and perseverates over the movie bloopers and in time imagines that the bloopers were the movie itself. I am struck by the exuberance your pals display in re-embracing the life they once left. Most long-standing residents of that life will not share that exuberance, I think. It is as though they sing the Vioxx ‘It’s a Beautiful Morning!’ song, forgetting that the FDA ultimately pulled that product because it kills people.

    I have no problem with saying the Jehovah’s Witnesses governing arrangement makes mistakes. But (we have many trees on our property) it’s like when we contracted the tree trimmer and my wife kept pointing out more and more flaws. “Don’t look so hard,” the fellow told her. “You’ll cut them all down.” It is like that with people anywhere. Taken to extremes, one will dismantle any organization of any sort.

    Look, everyone today describes the other side as delusional and even hate-filled. It’s just the way people are. I don’t take it personally. We are spiritual enemies not because of CSA. You have probably done us a favor in that by triggering such 5/19 Watchtower statements as “the reproach falls upon the abuser,” which effectively solves the problem. We are spiritual enemies because you have reversed course on the ‘everything else,’ trading in the diamonds for the turds. The CSA stuff was turds all along, but every group is pulling out its hair trying to cope with it, many less effectively than us, and at any rate, it is not the big picture. It is but a component of the big picture, overall a very small one. If you focus on any tree of the forest long enough, it becomes the forest. Your points I see all the time. Many of my points I have never seen anyone make but me. Even the Watchtower organization itself, which has a “penchant for privacy” as one reporter put it, does not make them. I take for granted going into your community that I will lose. I just want to get another view on the table. Any group with a narrow focus becomes myopic over time. I just seek to counter that.

     

    ***~~~***

    It is a solid base hit—even a double or a triple—with the publication of the Atlantic article and opposers are crowing as they seldom crow. Other sources have picked up on it, such as the New York Daily News. As for me, I would just as soon not see such articles. Given that they exist, however, this one I liked. It helped me with the listings. I have many times interacted with some of these characters, mostly through Twitter, without knowing exactly who they were, where they came from, and what were the relationships between them. Now I know.

    I find myself, much to my surprise and even shock, trading tweets with some of the most celebrated ex-Witness opponents on the planet (and seriously getting under their skin, in some cases). I don’t hang out there. I don’t engage overmuch—though I guess I can hardly say that I don’t engage at all. After I learned that one reporter used an anti-Witness forum as his practically sole source, I went there to see if I could leave material that contrasts with what he otherwise finds monolithically. I post long articles there. Each one produces a flurry of protests and I briefly answer a few of them before disappearing. It is the same way on Twitter. Once in a while there is a mighty storm, but most of the time there is nothing at all and I am chatting about the local weather and relaying cat and dog gifs like everyone else.

    Crossing swords with these folk is not exactly what a Witness is expected to do. I approach it, like Paul approached the Corinthians, with fear and trembling. One misstep and your head is handed to you on a platter. I wouldn’t dare do it if I didn’t have 15 years of communicating in writing under my belt, not specializing in, but also not avoiding controversial topics. Some of these characters goad and taunt, I think in hopes of provoking an intemperate response. You’d better not give them one or you and what you represent are toast. To be sure, I have blundered a few times, but not beyond recovery. You must not respond in anger even if your blood boils. Neither be too sympathetic, because that is inevitably thrown back in your face as hypocritical. It is the mark of zealotry that you cannot agree with part of a position. You must endorse all of it, otherwise you are said to hate that position and even whoever makes it. The trick is for your blood not to boil—to regard these ones as opponents, but not enemies—even as some of them express the most virulent hostility to you. You answer them evenly and dispassionately.

    “Yeah, well if you could see things though their eyes, you would be hostile, too, you delusional fool!” someone will retort. Who can say? Never expound on what you do not know. Refrain from assigning motives even if they seem to you crystal clear. You may be wrong. Indeed, some of them describe themselves as whistleblowers. Why deny them the status? Having blown the whistle and effecting some change with it, they could return to the fold if they wanted to, even if disfellowshipped. What! Even some of pedophiles disfellowshipped have been allowed to return and the elders forever more have to watch them, for one cannot read hearts, so these “whistleblowers” could not? All one must to is “repent” and “turn around” and “produce fruits that befit repentance”—manifested by doing and saying the right thing, giving no further evidence of causing trouble, and enduring months or even years of sitting through meetings and afterwards in silence. The “whistleblowers” are not going to “make trouble,” because they already made it and it turned out to be just the ticket for solving a vexing problem. It could happen.

    Of course, why it may not happen is that they might insist upon a heroes’ welcome. They might insist upon thereafter being a “power broker” in the congregation. What they also would “repent” over would be “pushing ahead,” and speaking injuriously of congregation governance. But they could say that there were driven to distraction by what they had heard or experienced and will from this point on “behave” and it would all be smoothed over in time. Time heals most everything that wants to be healed.

    The reasons they become “enemies” is not simply due to any whistleblowing, but because they quickly progress to the following, as illustrated by a remark of Lloyd’s:

    “And there’s Tom’s approach in a nutshell: join a religion, even if it doesn’t make sense, and just hope eventually your questions will be answered & everything will fall neatly into place. Never mind that people of other religions do the same, wasting their lives on nonsense.”

    There it is. He threw out the baby with the bathwater. In fact, it does make sense and is not nonsense. He once thought so, too. It is one of the few things in the world today that does make sense—that is the reason that Witnesses were attracted to Bible teachings in the first place. It is the reason that they stick to it despite trials and even blunders. Current blunders, if they be that, and some courts have said they are, present the framework that Jehovah’s Witnesses often call ‘the Truth’ through its least flattering light. But it is still the same framework. Lloyd illustrates what

    Professor David Bromley, author of The Politics of Religious Apostasy, wrote—that “individuals who elect to leave a chosen faith must then become critical of their religion in order to justify their departure…Others may ask, if the group is as transparently evil as he now contends, why did he espouse its cause in the first place? In the process of trying to explain his own seduction and to confirm the worst fears about the group, the apostate is likely to paint a caricature of the group that is shaped more by his current role as apostate than by his actual experience in the group.”

    If a court case goes against you, you are duly chastened. But that does not mean that the entire picture has been seen, nor that another court might see things another way. It frequently happens—so many times that one could even stretch matters a little and say that it tacks in the light of ever-brightening approximations of truth, using verbiage that the Watchtower itself is fond of. What about the classic Supreme Court case that went against us in the 1940s, after which Jehovah’s Witnesses were accosted and beaten up so that even Eleanor Roosevelt had to speak up in their behalf, and then three years later, that same Court, with a few new members and a few others chastened at the brutality they had unleashed, reversed itself in the Gobitis decision regarding flag salute? Courts are the best humans can do, but they are not impartial. Everyone knows it. If they were impartial, confirming a new Supreme Court Justice could be done in an afternoon. Justices are swayed by interpretation of the law which is, in turn, swayed by pre-existing ideology. And no ideology is so white-hot as that which accompanies the subject of child sexual abuse, the plague of the planet.

    The civil court is not so much a forum to establish truth but one to assign blame. The two goals overlap, but they are not the same. A conciliatory tone, for example, would seem to be a prerequisite in a forum seeking truth, but in an adversarial court forum, one must eschew it, for it will only result in getting beaten over the head with it by the other party. It is the nature of an adversarial legal system.

    Yes, one is chastened upon losing a court case. On the other hand, Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia did not need the Supreme Court declaring it extremist and the equivalent of ISIS (the only other officially designated extremist group) to know whether they were extremist or not. They did not need the Russian cops being told: ‘There are bad people inside. Do with them what you like,’ to determine whether they were bad people or not. It is the same when a Western civil court rules against them in a child abuse matter. They know the original intent of whatever record-keeping exists—to monitor some abhorrent conduct, in accord with Romans 2:21: “You, the one saying ‘do not steal,’ do you steal? You, the one saying ‘do not commit adultery,’ do you commit adultery?” They know, too, the intention was to protect their general community, so that molesters could not slip quietly out of one congregation and into another (as they could anywhere else). They know these things—even if they are misrepresented, sometimes deliberately, as attempts to protect pedophiles.

     

    As Jehovah’s Witnesses experienced Bible teachings come together to convincingly answer deep questions of life—questions answered nowhere else—to them it was like a jigsaw puzzle assembled. They thereafter look at the mountain vista from the box cover replicated before them and are not quickly swayed by opponents saying they put it together wrong—even if there are some frayed pieces. This is especially true if that opponent’s own puzzle lies unassembled in the box on the upper shelf of his closet.

    That consideration will be the predominant factor for most Jehovah’s Witnesses as they respond to what is here undeniably sordid. Child sexual abuse is the growth industry of the planet. Nearly all groups of size have suffered ship damage attempting to navigate those shoals. The common view now for any organization in which it has not been revealed is that it is only a matter of time. See how the United Nations, for example, is a pedophile haven—wear a blue helmet and nobody questions your authority or intention.

     

    Lloyd will not return, not because he has spotlighted something unsavory, but because he has responded to the JW ship running into the shoals by burning every part of it. Is it really so that the Witness world is the one that “makes no sense?” One glance at the news will reveal that it is his world that makes no sense. Is it really so that religion is a crutch of which we have no need? The premise of the question is wrong. It is indeed a crutch. The flawed premise is that we have no need of one. In his day, Ronald Reagan was arguably the most influential person on earth. Ten years later, in the throes of Alzheimer’s, he didn’t know who he was. Will anyone maintain that they need no crutch in the face of a pathetic reality as that?

    I approach online “in fear and trembling,” not just because these characters will rip you to shreds if you say something dumb, or because you are invariably battling a dozen of them at once, or because everything you say they think is dumb, but also because I do not know the reaction of my own people. Many of them, if not most, will think a Witness should not be doing what I am doing, and they will give me the fisheye.

    Will I one day hear from the Witness organization: “What are you doing, TrueTom?! You’re messing everything up!?” If so, I will recalibrate, for I do not think that I am above them. It is no more than acceding to the authority of the coach, the teacher, the boss, the mentor, the union steward—something that used to be the most unremarkable thing in the world and is now portrayed as domination by those who would abuse. You can over-play the victimization card.

    I am very glad—and did not plan it this way at all—that I wrote two timely books (four altogether) and put portions online so that, should I choose to respond to a tweet, I can also link to something relevant, effectively answering someone’s 50 words with my 1000. Let me tell you that gets rid of trolls in a hurry.

    It started out as such a small project. As our people experienced problems in Russia, I wrote a few posts about it in my blog. In time, it occurred to me to assemble them for the record. Emily Baran, a non-Witness, wrote the history of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia from their beginning up till 2007. Nobody has written an account of the present happenings, so I figured that I would do it.

    All I had in minds was something on the order of a brochure. However, as opposition in Russia intensified, the precise reasons for opposition were never stated, leaving reporters to venture educated guesses as to just what Russia has against them. Putin himself doesn’t seem to understand it, stating that he doesn’t know why Jehovah’s Witnesses are persecuted since “they are Christians, too.” So I decided to state them myself, along with how each might be defended in Parts 2 and 3 of what became a book—with references endnoted because that is what one does with history.

    Thus the book is not only a chronicle of history (Part 1). It is also a witness to persons who might not know much about us. It is what I would say were I on a return visit there. It is literally what I would say, in many cases. One personal friend said about my first ebook, Tom Irregardless and Me that he was having a hard time following along until a light went off in his head: “Oh. Tom writes like he speaks,” after which he had no trouble.

    The defense portion of Dear Mr. Putin – Jehovah’s Witnesses Write Russia grew and grew and is as large as the history portion. Moreover, everything is interwoven. When I put it out there, I thought my book-writing days were done. However, opposition that had taken a pause in the West kicked up again—I found myself responding to that in other posts—and presently I thought to package them into another book: TrueTom vs the Apostates!

    The two were always meant to stand separately. I didn’t think of Dear Mr. Putin while I was writing TrueTom. However, they will end up sharing a few common chapters, even though both have already been released—you can do that with ebooks—they will share common material because, in a spiritual sense, the situation in Russia and the situation in the West are the same. It is a good cop/ bad cop situation. The good cop may really not want you to fall into the hands of the bad cop, because he knows how bad that bad cop can be. But both cops have the same goal—that Jehovah’s Witnesses cease being Jehovah’s Witnesses and that kingdom message that they alone preach should stop.

    Will my own people upbraid me? Their preference, sometimes stated strongly, is for Witnesses to not go cavorting about online, even if as self-proclaimed sheriffs determined to drain the internet swamp—perhaps especially so, because they always look foolish in so doing. The internet is not the congregation and cannot be made to behave like one. But for me, it will be sort of like what Brother Sivulsky in Russia, from a far more secure perch organizationally, but from a far more dangerous one physically, said. Just after the Russian ban went into effect, he was interviewed from afar by American media: “Are you putting yourself in danger just by speaking with me?” the reporter asked. His answer:

    “I don’t know—to be frank, I have no fear. if something will happen—okay it will happen—what I can do? What I am telling only the truth—then why I should fear? If something happens, okay, we will face this problem. For me it is easier because my family was exiled to Siberia. My father spent seven years in prison. My mother spent four years in prison. And I also myself spent one and a half years in prison for military service objection. That’s why I know what does it mean to be persecuted and I have no fear.”

    I should be at least as courageous (even though my father did not spend seven years in prison), because my brothers in Russia are showing that quality in spades, and everyone else wonders if, when it comes to them, they will handle it as well. “You can’t do it on your own strength,” comes the scriptural answer. “Nor could they. They lean upon God for strength.”

    Upbraiding from my own folks may not happen. When a widow asked me to give the funeral talk of a close friend at the Kingdom Hall, I said that I would if it were allowed—there would be no problem at a funeral home but, neither being a current elder or servant, it might not be allowed at the Kingdom Hall. It was. I’ve been around for a while and people like me. The day I arrived to give it, however, one elder known for crossing ‘t’s and dotting ‘i’s asked me if I was speaking from the supplied funeral talk outline that most speak from. I said I was not. He was not real pleased about that, but after the talk he reversed his position. Another elder present, a former Bethel member, told me afterwards that Bethel has no problem departing from customary practice whenever it can be improved upon. An older man can chance it more readily than a young man, for whom it would likely come off as immodest. You don’t have to speak the healthful words verbatim. You have to speak the pattern of the healthful words, as Paul told Timothy.

    See: Tweetstorm Over the Atlantic    and/or

    Lessons to be Learned

    Included in the eBook; TrueTom vs the Apostates!

    00

  • A Class Action Suit in Quebec

    “Citing a hierarchy that ‘encourages a culture of silence,’ a Quebec Superior Court judge has authorized a class-action lawsuit for current or former Jehovah’s Witnesses in Quebec who were sexually abused by other members as minors….[The plaintiff] alleges she was repeatedly sexually abused and assaulted by her brother, 13 years older, beginning when she was only 10 months old.”

    Do I understand this correctly? One child abuses another within a family, and it is the fault of the congregation elders?

    The Canadian judge stated that: “The organization of Jehovah's Witnesses is very hierarchical, led by men, and encourages a culture of silence.”

    Take the organization out of the picture for a moment. Are we to imagine that the mom and dad of this family would have otherwise marched their kids straight down to the police station to make sure that proper punishment was meted out?

    There is a part of me that thinks what really gets in sticks in the craw of this judge is that Jehovah’s Witnesses are “hierarchical,” as though any other organization is not, and that they are “led by men,” as though anything less than a free-for-all ought to be taboo. Perhaps she even implies that men are inherently evil, so that the greatest travesty of all is to be led by them.

    However, says my nemesis: “My guess is that it's not what happened within the family. It was the coverup within the Congregation.”

    Well—it is not possible to mishandle what you never attempted to handle in the first place.

    The clear implication of rulings such as this is that religious organizations ought not to look into the conduct of its members, for it is only by doing so that they can find themselves in such a spot as this. “Be like the mainline churches,” the ruling says in effect. “Preach to them on Sunday and be done with it. It’s none of your business whether they apply it or not.”

    However, the verse Christians feel obligated to follow says that it is their business. “You, the one preaching, “Do not steal,” do you steal?  You, the one saying, “Do not commit adultery,” do you commit adultery?” (Romans 2:21) If you claim that your teachings improve the overall moral fiber, you must have mechanisms in place to ensure that that is in fact the case, especially if your view of God is that he insists on a “clean” people, as free of misconduct as possible.

    Framed in this way, the ruling is a state attempt to regulate religion, and could be argued on that basis.

    Plus, such thinking completely ignores the far superior role of prevention of child sexual abuse, in order to zero in exclusively on meting out punishment when it occurs, as though that is the means by which the problem will be solved. How’s that project going, anyhow? Thirty years into the all-out war against child sexual abuse, is it just about snuffed out? Or is it only the tip of the iceberg that has been revealed?

    I’ll take the kids, Caleb and Sophia, video any day, for teaching parents how to protect their children. I’ll take the 2017 Regional Conventions any day, in which every Witness in the world was assembled to hear detailed scenarios in which child sexual abuse might take place, so that parents, the obvious first line of defense, can be vigilant. Who else assembles all its members and then trains them so?

    ***~~~***

     

    “Jehovah’s Witnesses have a serious problem of child sexual abuse in their midst?”

     There are two ways of looking at this.

    1.) They do not.

    2.) They do, but the situation is far worse everywhere else.

    One must look no farther than who is being outed as perpetrators. If you want to find deviants in most places, you look no further than the leaders. If you want the same ‘catch’ among Jehovah’s Witnesses, you must broaden your search to include, not just leaders, but everyone. A Jehovah’s Witness leader committing child sexual abuse is rare. Not unheard of, but rare. Elsewhere, it is the pattern.

    Okay, if the leaders are not committing the child sexual abuse, are they nonetheless "hiding it?" How do they compare with other groups? It is a little hard to say. Nobody else has ever found any. They looked the other way, taking no interest in looking at wrongdoing within their midst. Thus, when child sexual abuse was found, it was a.) found entirely independent of religious affiliation, and b.) it was found that the leaders themselves were the abusers. How would members fare in comparison? There is no data. Nobody ever bothered to look.

    Courts will go where courts will go. Will they take the above into account? Time will tell. There are few organizations with pockets–it doesn’t matter if they are religious or not–that are not being flooded with lawsuits today. In New York State, my own state, the governor has just signed into law a bill greatly lengthening the statute of limitations for child sexual abuse. Out of nowhere has appeared a major sponsor of programming I watch–a legal firm seeking to sign up clients. The ads briefly eclipsed other legal firms of accident litigation running non-stop ads of how “[So and So law firm] got me $3 million dollars, 15 times what the insurance company offered!” Put together, lawyers have become by far the premier sponsors of television. Can a society really endure that way?

    Make no mistake. No one is saying that it is wrong to sue for grievances. But one must sometimes ask whether there will be any organized group on earth left standing when the suing is done. Of course, there will be some. Governments can just raise taxes to recoup legal payouts. Businesses can raise prices. But groups like the Boy Scouts, investigating bankruptcy at last report, are out of luck. One wonders how other voluntary organizations will fare.

    The typical person congratulates the client who has come into an extraordinary bonanza via lawsuit. Then he opens his insurance premium bill. It calls to mind, as a rough parallel, the statement of Alexander Fraser that democracy can only endure until “the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury.” The world has become a lawyers’ playground, with massive transfers of money flowing in all directions–the barristers netting a third, they being the only consistent beneficiaries.

    When the rules of the game change, you can hardly blame the small players for adjusting to accommodate them. There was a time, those my age will remember, when nothing was so crass as for lawyers to advertise. It was against their universal code of conduct, possibly even against the law. It explains the phrase “ambulance chaser”—you actually had to chase an ambulance to sign up a client before another lawyer could. You couldn’t just broadcast to the whole wide world that you were scouring the earth for clients.

    Someone dear to me was sued several times with regard to property, in another matter that had a very long statute of limitations. When what proved to be the final lawsuit came in, the person sought to make defense through his insurance lawyer, but that one attempted contact several times and could not get a response from the firm bringing suit. Finally, that firm admitted that they were having a hard time locating their client. Seemingly, they had left no stone unturned in seeking business and had finally found “aggrieved” ones whose cases were so tenuous that they couldn’t even be bothered to show up and make them.

    I wonder, too, whether the popular demand for public apologies isn’t largely just a PR event, or even worse, an encouraged legal strategy to secure a clear admission of guilt, thereafter better enabling future lawsuits. Few things are done for the noble ‘window-dressing’ reasons that are given. At any rate, it is worth noting that when the government of Australia apologized for decades of child sexual abuse, and opposers praised that apology to the heavens because they thought they could thereby embarrass Jehovah’s Witnesses, the victims nonetheless rejected it as ‘too little, too late.’ Better than any apology is prevention. Of course, it is good to call in the grief counselors in the aftermath of a school shooting. But it is far better not to need them in the first place.

    The situation is a far cry from the Quebec of 70 years ago, during which 400 Jehovah's Witnesses generated 1600 arrests, on charges as minor as peddling without a license but as major as sedition. A key case involving sedition was lost before the Supreme Court of Canada, but was overturned on a rarely-used provision of "rehearing," at which the Court acknowledged that Witness literature and ministry included nothing that incited to violence–a necessary ingredient of sedition–but only contained that which made a powerful faction squirm. The situation is much different today, with altogether different charges, and the game is barely recognizable. But deep within, is the underlying intent not nonetheless the same, cloaked behind a veneer of righteous indignation?

    00

    To be added to TrueTom vs the Apostates!

     

  • The 1933 Letter to the Fuhrer

    See how Rabbi Tovia Singer, fierce in his defense of Judaism, says: “Remarkably, denominations that evangelical Christians regard as heretical, such as Mormonism or the Jehovah’s Witnesses, DO NOT have a strong history of anti-semitism. (Caps mine)

    So what does that say about exJWs who would try to frame it that their former associates are the worst of the lot? It agrees with scholars at the Holocaust Museum that the “mountain” they try to make of a 1933 Judge Rutherford letter is actually a “molehill.”

    From an Independent Lens forum, dealing with criticism of the film Knocking, we read:

    Q:  Are there historical documents that prove Jehovah’s Witness leadership wrote anti-Semitic letters to Hitler trying to gain favor during the Nazi regime?

    A:  A letter and legal petition written by the Jehovah’s Witness leadership to Hitler in 1933, just as Hitler first came to power, do exist. These were an attempt by Witnesses to inform the German government that they were apolitical and not a threat to the Nazi regime, which in its infancy in 1933 was not the killing machine it would soon become. The action of the Witnesses from 1934 onward was a complete reversal of the language in their 1933 appeal to Hitler. Rabbi Michael Berenbaum (former director of the Research Institute at the U.S. Holocaust Museum) speaks at length on the KNOCKING DVD about this issue. The conclusion by Berenbaum and other notable Holocaust scholars that the 1933 letters are inconsequential when compared to what the Witnesses did from 1934 onward, gave the producers of KNOCKING the confidence that the letters need not be mentioned in the film. But because they are an historical footnote, they are mentioned and discussed at length in the DVD extras. [italics mine]

    The early language is not nothing, but the scholars deem it “inconsequential” in the overall scheme of things. What is that “early language”—essentially that of Joseph Rutherford, Watchtower director from 1919 – 1942, who wrote many books and penned all major communication? It is fair to say that there are some phrases anti-Semitic—certainly so by today’s standards. Don’t go back trying to pretty them up. They are what they are.

    That said, they come not remotely close to the charge of “Christ killers” that the major churches have hurled at Jews throughout history, triggering many a pogrom. Doubtless that consideration contributes towards Rabbi Singer’s assessment of Jehovah’s Witnesses; it’s not NO history of anti-Semitism. It is not STRONG history of anti-Semitism—that is, it is comparatively little. As late as 2004, those fearing that Mel Gibson’s ‘The Passion’ would trigger a backlash against Jews, asked him whether he maintained that the Jews had killed Christ. “Well, it wasn’t the Scandinavians,” he replied. Plainly, the New Testament is ‘anti-Semitic’ by this standard. Every single gospel makes clear that the leaders of the Jews (not the common Jews themselves) delivered Christ up for execution. Every single gospel reveals that Pilate worked rather hard to free him, knowing full well that he was being set up by his religious enemies, before finally caving in the face of their determination. Don’t go carrying on about Rutherford’s ‘anti-Semitism’—the entire New Testament is ‘anti-Semitic!’ Anyone not glossing over this bit of history as though it never happened has, a least, a mild “history of anti-Semitism.”

    Rutherford’s statements are mild by the standards of the day, but he does accede to the common diatribe that ‘Jews and their money are taking over the world,’ posing a ‘Jewish problem,’ putting an unflattering spin on the astounding commercial success that some had and have attained. He doesn’t chide Hitler for not being nicer to them, or praise their undeniable contributions in scholarship. He even states in an early communique that the aims of the Bible Students and the aims of the new Nazi government were one and the same! What aims, one might reasonably ask? To benefit the citizens of the land—the professed aim of any government. Duh. There is hardly a smoking gun here. As soon as the Nazi regime tipped its hand to reveal the evil it would become, the tone completely changed, as the Holocaust Museum scholars recognize. That’s how you get to be a scholar in the first place: for the ability to sort, evaluate, and prioritize facts that do not seamlessly dovetail. It is the moron (usually for the sake of pursuing an agenda) who allows a human failing to undermine an entire library of laurels.

    On a post several years ago, I wrote:

    “There are any number of serial gripers on the Internet who are alarmed at any favorable mention of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and who immediately attempt to negate such praise. Some of these characters strive with all their might to denigrate Jehovah’s Witnesses’ stand during the Holocaust. Of course, this is not easy to do, because the stand is among the most courageous actions of the past century. But they try. Generally, they feign applause for the astounding courage and faith of individual Witnesses, but then take shots at their organization, as though it were entirely separate. Yes, those Witnesses were amazing, they say. Too bad they were sold out by an oppressive, self-serving, uncaring Watchtower central machine.”

    They were out in full force recently, when I dared to put another Twitter spin on their cherished narrative. Whoa! did I have a hard time swatting them off! What is wrong with these people, so blinded by hate? Did anyone say that the guy could do no wrong? No. If you only focus on personalities, there is nothing that cannot be trashed. Everyone today knows the “journalism of the hit piece,” and there is no one without some vulnerabilities who cannot be made a target. Still, the people at the Museum without an ax to grind declare it inconsequential to the overall picture. Got that, you scoundrels? The Jews themselves say your characterization is nonsense, and they are people who know hate when they see it. I’d be surprised if they didn’t see it here.

    Thwarted in this attempt to malign the one taking the lead back then, or perhaps emboldened by it, they then attack Rutherford’s “needless” provocation of Hitler, his “ordering” Witnesses in Axis lands into harm’s way by continued, even intensified, preaching in the face of Nazi atrocities. What Shangri-La are these people living in? It’s as though they imagine that one could just change the channel back then and watch something else! All you had to do was refuse military service to be sent to the camps. Just refusing a ‘Heil Hitler!’ was enough. The vast majority back then said to Hitler: “Well, if you say so. I mean, you’re the boss.” Jehovah’s Witnesses said “No!” And now these liars, blinded by their hatred of ‘authoritarian’ religion, furious that cannot instill in it an ‘Anything Goes’ spirit, would try to change history! It’s enough to make your blood boil!

    I can see how Jews go livid when, the moment their backs are turned, slimy revisionists try to assert that the Holocaust never happened—taking advantage of fading collective memory. Or maybe the small-minded haters come along and frame it that the most important lesson to be taken away from the Holocaust is that some Jews sold out others to save their own skin! People know hate when they see it. They see it there, in desperate efforts to denigrate what is noble. They see it also in desperate efforts to denigrate the Witness’s record.

    Refusing to give up the scent, one such revisionist lectures me: “To describe Rutherford’s message as a “molehill” [second paragraph] is just the kind of indifference that opens the doors for the kinds of atrocities that followed.” He’s joking! The man who led those who fell on the right side of history—90% were on the wrong side, and they were but individuals, as virtually NO complete groups were on the right side—is the head villain of the time?

    “Rutherford’s words are there for posterity,” he cants. Let them stay there for posterity, you sanctimonious fool! Go back with your moralizing crew to collect all the bloopers of history and cluck at them all until your tongues fall out! Jehovah’s Witnesses are fully people, absolutely capable of picking up on the biases of the time. The fact remains that, under the leadership of this imperfect man—seeing that the choice was thrust upon all—they went through history on the only side of that electrified fence that would avail them of good conscience, with no blood on their hands afterwards, whether by acts of commission or omission. No, it will not be negated because Joe said some things insensitive about the ones that his people would presently stand up with. He also said this: “In Germany the common people are peace-loving, … The Devil has put his representative Hitler in control, a man who is of unsound mind, cruel, malicious and ruthless . . . He cruelly persecutes the Jews because they were once Jehovah’s covenant people and bore the name of Jehovah, and because Christ Jesus was a Jew.” How anti-Semitic does that sound?

    Witnesses were virtually the only collective group that DID NOT sell out the Jews. I have no doubt that the Jews would wish that Hitler and the mainline religious groups back then would have made a Jewish joke or two and left it at that. I assure you that they would not be rounding such ones up as war criminals, as they still are with the real criminals, 70 years later. It’s unbelievable the hatred that the present day opposers display!

    PLUS, Jehovah’s Witnesses were the only group interred in the camps who were given opportunity to write their ticket out. All that was necessary was to renounce their faith and pledge cooperation with Hitler. Only a handful complied, a fact that almost a century later, I still find staggering. And to bring things full around to where this post began—with an appeal to Engardio’s film Knocking for the context of the day—let us note that the film features one Brother Kempler, a circuit overseer once an interned Jew. He entered the concentration camps as a Jew. He was liberated as a Jew. Afterwards, having observed Jehovah’s Witnesses in the camps, he became one. He testifies powerfully to Jewish sensibilities in the face of what is likely the greatest evil of all time.

    From the book TrueTom vs the Apostates!

    [edit: January 2020…

    As to Hitler positioning himself in his pre-1933 days, the GreatCourses professor on American history refers to a “low-level anti-semitism” that was almost universal prior to WWII—and in many parts of the world, not so low-level—so that picking up on it would be no more controversial than breathing air. After the Holocaust, that low-level anti-semitism vanished overnight. so that it is easy to forget that it ever existed and read more into expressions of the day than is merited.

    Did Rutherford suffer in his overall outlook of the world by reading mostly WT pubs? That is possible, in my view. He would be more widely read than most Witnesses, of course, but that’s not saying much. Even then, Witnesses were “insular”—a label most of them would reject but only because they are unsure of the implication of a word they don’t use themselves. Modify if to ‘no part of the world’ and they will embrace it happily. Isn’t that was insulation is—a means to separate something good from that which is damaging or corrosive?

    One must understand the period to understand why people accepted certain things. They never are, however, by a generation that considers itself the wisest of all time. I have said before that when time travel is invented, historical revisionists will give a friendly wave to founding father American slave holders as they race back in time to haul the real villians—the Ancient Greek pedophlles that form the underpinning of Western civilization—back in leg-irons. 

     

     ******  The bookstore

  • Four Incendiary Articles

    The Philadelphia Inquirer wrote four incendiary articles about Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Wow! did they ever make them look bad! Probably that was the intent, though it is hard to say for sure because nobody would ever say that the subject is nothing. It is the topic of child sexual abuse, the most white-hot topic of all.

    Some significant facts are omitted in the articles. Some background facts that are included are misrepresented, leading to condemnation of a religion that otherwise has a reputation for fine works and conduct. “Overall, they’re nice, sincere people” says vehement critic Barbara Anderson in the first article, referring to the “rank and file.” Her statement accompanies the video of Jared Kushner, from before campaign days, speaking about the Witnesses from whom he would buy their Brooklyn buildings. It is almost unheard of in its praise—Witnesses are persons of “high integrity” with whom “a handshake deal means something,” he says. How can this be if the leadership is as vile as the reporter represents them? Plainly, something is missing.

    No topic is more incendiary than child sexual abuse. In no other area is a person’s viewpoint so determined by experience. It is exacerbated by the Witnesses being said to be an ‘insular’ organization, and this ‘crime’ of being insular is pushed pedal-to-the-medal by the Philly reporter, who returns to an anti-Witness website in between articles, where he is lauded as a hero. Perhaps he has 20 more of such articles up his sleeve. But it is little wonder that he is lauded: some of these gathered at the site are ones who have been victims.

    The overall stats for child sexual abuse do not speak well for humanity. Few evils appear to be more widespread. One in four girls and one in six boys will be sexually abused before they are 18 (in the U. S, according to InvisibleChildren.org)—this, despite decades of battling the evil. Comedian Sacha Baron Cohen, who stops at nothing in his impersonations, appeared to be stopped dead in his tracks when one of those impersonations apparently uncovered an elite pedophile ring, reported Newsweek on December 20, 2018. He and his production team were so disturbed at what they thought they had found—“a pedophile ring in Las Vegas that’s operating for these very wealthy men. And this [interviewed] concierge had said that he’d worked for politicians and various billionaires”—that they turned over all footage to the FBI, who declined to pursue the tip.

    There is some reason to think that child sexual abuse is relatively uncommon within the ranks of Jehovah’s Witnesses,* but just try telling that to one who has suffered from it. Jehovah’s Witnesses in 2017, at their summer conventions, which all attend, considered detailed scenarios in which child sexual abuse might occur, so that parents, the first line of defense, could be vigilant. If anyone displays unusual interest in your child, if there are sleepovers, if there are unsupervised trips to the rest room, if—there were several others, all potential hot spots, not necessarily bad, but reason to be attentive. Nobody, but nobody, gathers their entire membership for such education other than Jehovah’s Witnesses.

    There is also Caleb and Sophia, cartoon characters whose family doings are utilized as a teaching tool for Witness parents. They teach short lessons on subjects often mundane, yet crucial to smooth functioning of society, such as the desirability of honesty. The tykes delight the hearts of JW children everywhere (except in Russia, where they are behind bars as extremists). ‘Protect Your Children’ is an especially vital lesson that addresses pedophilia, in which Mommy and Daddy coax their children on how to respond if threatened. If someone “touches you where they should not” or “asks you to do something that makes you feel uncomfortable.” “Even if it is someone you know and trust,” Mommy commends a correct answer, and her husband adds, “and then tell Mommy and Daddy right away,” who, in the video, take the news most seriously.

    In four articles, the Philadelphia Inquirer makes no mention of these clearly relevant factors, though the balance between malice and incompetence is difficult to ascertain. Nor does it cite the Witness organization’s easily available printed and digital child abuse policy, which gives the obvious lie to most of the insinuations made. Included only is a Watchtower Society quote that the latter “abhor child sexual abuse,” which the Inquirer presents in a context as though evidence that they do not.

    No, Philly Inquirer, the religion you slimed is not the scourge of humanity. It comprises a group of decent, caring human beings who encountered problems in the 80s and 90s doing what others did not attempt. The Watchtower organization was investigating reports of this and other forms of wrongdoing within its ranks, and it is through this policy of vigilance that they come to be identified with this moral crime. In fact, any group professing that their beliefs contribute to better conduct should take measures to see that that is in fact the case. The Book of Romans says “You, the one preaching, ‘Do not steal,’ do you steal? You, the one saying, ‘Do not commit adultery,’ do you commit adultery?” If they “mishandled” anything, it must be observed that you cannot mishandle what you never attempted to handle in the first place.

    The Philadelphia Inquirer appears to be fully siding with enemies of the religion whose stated goal is to litigate it out of existence. Were they to succeed, they would be showing themselves friends of child sexual abuse, for few others have the proactive education and prevention record of Jehovah’s Witnesses, despite some missteps with regard to general society now determined to leave no stone unturned in squashing the evil. Data that can be gleaned from various sources,** coupled with the Witnesses’ relentless campaign to avoid pornography in any form, plus the educational factors already cited, make this conclusion nearly inescapable, though positive proof will ever be lacking because others of the time failed to address the problem and thereby produce records. In many venues, such ‘negligence’ is a punishable offense; here it is effectively rewarded. It is Sergeant Shultz crying, “I know nothiinnnggg,” a policy that ultimately got him out of many a jam on the old TV show.

    It is fine to handle a case of child sexual abuse properly. But it is far finer if the abuse does not happen in the first place. It is similar to calling in the grief counselors in the wake of a school shooting. Of course, it is a good thing to call them in, but how much better to not need them in the first place. A case of child sexual abuse “properly handled” does not mean that it did not occur, and the child is only somewhat less damaged than if the case was properly handled. Thus, a story on this topic should never omit the overall relative success of the Witness organization in prevention of this evil.

    Lucy Delap, writing for History and Policy, states that “clear guidelines for best [child protective] practice were not established until the 1990s,” during or even after most of the JW abuse cases under review. Thus, the Witness organization walked in largely uncharted territory, for the purpose of identifying this most pernicious group so as to apply discipline, often expulsion, to safeguard other congregation members, and to ensure that pedophiles could not slip unnoticed from one congregation into another (as they could anywhere else). Seen in this light, condemnation of the Watchtower for this proactive policy is a prime example of the cynicism: “No good deed goes unpunished.”

    The misstep that the Inquirer exclusively zeroes in on, and it is not nothing, is the inclination of many Witnesses, upon submitting a matter to congregation elders, to not also go to outside authorities, and elders to not go over their heads and do so themselves. Ones were never prevented from doing so, but the prevailing atmosphere in the 80s and 90s was such that they were less likely to do it, and stories abound of persons being pressured in that direction. An ill-conceived desire to protect reputation is hardly unique to Witnesses of that day; the very reason there is an expression “skeletons in the closet” is the universal human instinct to keep them there. This writer would not argue that Jehovah’s Witnesses were slower than many to give up that mindset. These days elders positively plead with families of victims to report to outside authorities, only to find that some are still reluctant to go that route.

    In this context, some victims of child sexual abuse come to feel that they went unheard. Some of these later become bitter towards religion in general and Jehovah’s Witnesses in particular. Today, in an era of litigation, many of these ones seek their due. The fourteen persons that the Philly reporter interviewed appear to be from a Reddit forum “devoted exclusively to ex-Witnesses,” who “discuss the absurdity of their experiences.” This writer has no reason to challenge the experiences the fourteen relate, and whether their perspective on what they report is the final word, he is in no position to say. However, it is inexcusable for the Inquirer article to link to an ex-Witness forum of 20,000 members, and not also to a Watchtower downloadable child-protection policy packet plainly showing that most its insinuations are untrue.

    The second of the series tells it from the point of view of a wronged girl. The details of any child molestation case are stomach turning. It is not claimed that she speaks untruthfully. It is simply that, humans being what they are, we are inclined to remember things the way we remember them—embellish certain points and downplay or forget others. When the judge involved recalls certain things in a matter-of-fact way, the victim says that’s not how she recalled it, and the reporter at that point forgets all about the judge and runs with the victim. It is at least as likely that the judge recollects it more accurately, because he has not carried the emotional baggage for two decades. When Witness Governing Body member Stephen Lett, speaking many years later, tells of “apostate lies,” the reporter presents it as though he is calling his old friend—he once knew the victim’s parents—a liar. Of course, he is not. No one says that the bare facts of the abuse case is a lie; it is the spin that enemies (which now seem to include the Inquirer) put on it that is the lie.

    The notion that persons should be monetarily compensated for real or perceived wrongs has long been accepted by society. Lawsuits for all manner of offenses are unremarkable routine, with enormous monetary awards increasingly common. It amounts to a massive societal transfer of wealth, with lawyers netting a third. It is the reason insurance skyrockets at a time that inflation is quite low. It is a reason that prices of goods escalate, as ‘punished’ corporations pass along their costs to the consumer. Few would assert that compensation is wrong, but few would deny its overall effects, either.

    Witness policy has likely evolved to the extent they feel possible, given their Bible outlook, and they plead for a circumstance in law that is unlikely ever to be realized. Here law mandates that allegations be reported to police, there it does not mandate it, and the default law kicks into place that it is likely forbidden, as it can constitute a violation of ‘clergy-penitent confidentiality,’ an idea as much enshrined into law as doctor-patient confidentiality and attorney-client confidentiality. The Witness attorney pleaded for understanding before an investigating Australian Royal Commission (and got none) that Witnesses were having a hard time navigating this patchwork of laws, as they sought to fulfill a biblically-mandated duty that others do not take seriously. Three times before the ARC, a member of the Witnesses’ Governing Body pleaded for universal mandatory reporting laws, across all territories, with no exceptions. Then it wouldn’t matter if a given congregation member, for whatever reason, declined to go to the police. Elders would be enabled do it regardless. Most of the cases reported today are from 20 or more years previous, and the “crime” alleged is failing “to go beyond the law” with regard to reporting. Nothing is more telling of society’s overall desperation at losing the war against child sexual abuse than the moral imperative to “go beyond the law.” If it is so imperative to go beyond the law, then surely that should become the law. Otherwise, that lapse becomes simply a means of Monday-morning quarterbacking to target unpopular groups.

    Such universal change in law would make possible both the aims of the congregation and those of outside authorities. Roundly condemned is Jehovah’s Witnesses insistence on a “two-witness rule” in connection with their religious investigations. The Philadelphia Inquirer misrepresents this rule as though Jehovah’s Witnesses, intent on nurturing molesters, demand two spectators for every abuse incident, and let perpetrators off with a wink and a nod in their absence. Various accommodations Witnesses have made to work around this obvious difficulty are ignored by the Philly reporter.

    The reason one ought not be too quick to give up a “two-witness rule” emerges every time someone is exonerated by DNA evidence, the latest advance of criminal science, after serving decades in prison, having been convicted over less strenuous proof. Outside authorities have their own standards for proof, and with universal mandatory reporting laws, both agencies can fulfill their duties simultaneously. Why was this not done long ago—passing universal mandatory reporting laws? Given the crusade to punish child sexual abuse, one would think that no task would have been easier.

    Since the present legal climate makes the Witnesses’ duty in policing its own, according to biblical standards, almost impossible, the situation could be framed as an encroachment of state upon church. “Preach to them on Sunday, and be done with it,” is the only liability-free policy. “It’s none of your business whether they apply it or not.’’ And yet, to those determined to live by Bible principles as best they can, it clearly is their business. Is it possible that the Witnesses’ underlying “crime” is the resolve to stay separate from the overall world, today portrayed as being “insular?” The Jews’ historical determination to stay separate, which has moderated only in recent times, contributed towards many a pogrom over the centuries.

    Jehovah’s Witnesses are overall pretty good at allowing the repercussions of life to serve as discipline, even if they are not intended that way. “It is for discipline that you are enduring,” says Paul, adding, “no discipline seems for the present to be joyous, but it is painful; yet afterwards it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.” Witness leaders are without doubt humbled and chastened by events. They may not state it to those they perceive as their enemies—because the goals of the latter go well beyond humbling—but it is undoubtedly so.

    Meanwhile, when sued, they must defend themselves in court where determining what is right is complex and impartiality cannot be assumed. The reason there is an uproar with every new Supreme Court justice nominee is the universal understanding that even judges are not impartial; they interpret the law in the light of overriding philosophy and pre-existing bias; it is not enough simply to find an honest one who knows how to swing a gavel. And no topic can trigger overriding philosophy and pre-existing bias more than child sexual abuse.

    Stories of Jehovah’s Witnesses and child sexual abuse are certainly not nothing, and it is easy to see why a journalist might go there. However, by being so selective in what he reports, the Inquirer writer maligns a faith whose overall record of producing fine people of integrity has already been mentioned, by a harsh critic, no less. As the “if it bleeds it leads” theme fails to excite a hardened public in the way that it once did, the Philly source appears to have found a more potent substitute.

     

    ***~~~***

     

    *The frequency of child sexual abuse within a religious laity is almost impossible to compare because it has never been tracked by denomination, save for Jehovah’s Witnesses, who did so for purposes of protection and discipline. Still, from time to time there are clues. During his lifetime, Ray Franz was a hero to Witness detractors. He was once a high-ranking member, he separated over various disputes, and thereafter never ceased to criticize those he once rubbed shoulders with. He has proven decidedly unhelpful to them, however, with regard to the topic of child sexual abuse. When specifically asked by a Witness opponent, he replied that he really didn’t think there was much of a problem at all, and that it had all been blown out of proportion in the media.

    **Case Study 54 of the Australian Royal Commission mentions reports of abuse from the JW community within the period extending from the ARC’s initial investigation to its final report. It is possible to work out ratios, compare them to the non-Witness community, and conclude that the Witness organization’s vigilance has paid off, perhaps by as much as a factor of six, though there are many factors making this less than a fine science. During a time interval in which there were 27,058 reports of child sexual abuse in a greater Australian population of 23,968,973, there were 12 of such in an Australian Witness population of 67,418. For various reasons, it is not a comparison of oranges to oranges—the reports are at different stages of investigation, for example—but neither is it oranges to apples. Call it oranges to tangerines. If any other group had bothered to track the crime within its community, there would be more to go on.

    ******  The bookstore