I was shocked to hear how the slander against Jehovah's name that we see in the world can be compared to a good man accused of being a child molester. He went on to describe how terrible such an accusation would be, and how "friends" of the accused would know he's not capable of such an act and would rally to his defense. At several points in the talk, he refers back to the child molester "example" and how eventually, despite the hideous slander heaped on a man in this situation (depicting Jehovah in the bigger picture, we assume), that man's good reputation would be restored.
We know Jehovah's name is beyond any sort of accusation, but such an example (torn from the headlines??) diminishes his point because he doesn't consider or allow for the possibility that some "good men" have been victimizers and responsible for hideous abuse. Waldo expects us to take sympathy against what can only be described as a "good" man, because only Jehovah knows who is good. The big problem is that child molestation is not something that should be used as an example in such a setting: how many women and men have been victimized, but only in this scenario they are portrayed as hateful slanderers who will be "proved" wrong.
Given Penn State, etc...should such an example be given? The pain suffered from victims of this type of horror never goes away--I'm sure they appreciated the reminder at the convention that they attended to be upbuilt. And, certainly there are those who are guilty of such and never caught...they probably were amused at how easy it would be to continue fooling others given the presupposition of innocence Waldo portrays. Because never once does he acknowledge that such an accusation could be true...thus visibly implying that we should doubt such as well.
Shouldn't any examples about Jehovah's superior name be above what is fodder for daytime television? Shouldn't a less controversial tone have been set for a public talk? For new attenders, I'm afraid they may have come away with the idea that the "good" man is always right, and the victims of such merely slanders. What a hideous example to have used. In addition, it actually encourages slander among the congregations because he mentions the lengths "the friends of the good man" would go to in order to clear a "good man's" name....is he encouraging people to take their own action in such a matter or let the elders handle it? It makes no sense that this illustration was used OR that he continued to tie it in throughout his talk. This is a real issue, not a theoretical what-if. What business does it have in such a setting?
What you say you, brothers?