by Marvin Shilmer 23 Replies latest jw friends
"Apparently St Paul, St. John and Martin Luther aren't a big deal anymore either. I'm surprised they didn't just put out pictures of the GB and leave it at that." JeffT
You forgot to mention Jesus in that list.
They've been trying to sweep him under the rug for YEARS...
"Did you see this thread which focused on one of Russell's pyramidology based chronology charts:
WT "History Lesson" shows Russell's Pyramidology Beliefs - w2012 8/15
Check it out and notice how the profile of one Benjamin Barton conveniently covers up the whole pyramid." 00Dad, above
Hee heee!
00Dad, I've actually got at least one of their old books with the "pyramid" chart in it. I'll have to pull THAT out, the next time a JW calls at my door...
Whoa [speaking of horses] am I missing something?
I like the illustrations, but I was expecting a nice, juicy article.
Not that I'm DISAPPOINTED, or anything...
Thanks for posting that, Marvin!
-
“With every move the blundering GB make they make things harder for themselves, by getting rid of Russell, a likeable man it seems, and one that no real dirt was ever dug up about as far as JW's are concerned,…”
Phizzy,
For reasons not widely known that’s an interesting comment, and one I had not considered when publishing this blog material.
Here’s the skinny: Watchtower insiders are well aware of two separate Russell biographical works underway but not yet published. One of these is by a long-time JW. The other by a well-known ex-JW. Watchtower disfellowshipped the ex-JW several years ago (for speaking out about child abuse issues). The other author (the current JW) has gotten threats from persons working at Watchtower’s 24 Columbia Heights address. The threats are because of “dirt” that is being uncovered about Russell that will, sooner or later hit the light of day. I’ve seen some of this and in a couple of instances helped locate the original documentation.
Russell is not the soft-spoken ("likeable") figure so often portrayed by historians (including ex-JW historians!). In his personal life he was vindictive, manipulative and downright mean. There is also evidence of hanky-panky with at least one underage female, something Watchtower is acutely sensitive to these days.
So, perhaps Watchtower is distancing Russell for very practical reasons it sees on the near horizon.
Marvin Shilmer
Wow Marvin, thanks for telling us about those books. I can't wait for them to come out.
I was aware that there was a dark side to Russell's nature, but I've always viewed Rutherford as far worse by any measure. It amazes me that the WT doesn't try to ditch both of them. I think they would were it not for the fact that Rutherford invented the term "Jehovah's Witnesses", and they need to keep the 1914/1919 thing going for as long as possible.
Cedars
MS: Watchtower insiders are well aware of two separate Russell biographical works underway but not yet published.
That's intriguing! Any news on tentative publication dates?
Thanks Marvin I was well aware that Russell was not as portrayed by the WT and others, you only have to read what he did to Maria ,( and I believe did not do, was the marriage actually consummated ?) to see that he was a mean tightwad, and the stuff about him and young girls I knew of as accusations.
The actual age of one of them at least is a matter of dispute, so the writers of Biogs need to check their facts very very carefully, one mistake and the whole work will be disredited in JW minds.
But the average JW still refers to him as Brother Russell and looks on him with fondness, perhaps only until the new Biogs come out!
But pushing Russell back in to the shadows, and anybody pre-1919, only puts the spotlight on to Rutherford, big mistake.
ldrnomo - "Watch out Judge, your the next one to get flushed by the New JW Org."
Can't say the guy wouldn't deserve it.
Phizzy - "...puts the spotlight on to Rutherford..."
Yeah, no way that's ever gonna end up backfiring...
If they ditch Rutherford and Co, where would today's GB claim its authority came from ?
They may do it though, by ditching the preposterous 1914 doctrine first, making the whole "choosing" thing later, but that move is a long time in the future I think. Difficult too, the name Jehovah's Witnesses came in a flash of light to....... Rutherford.
Even though they may dearly wish to get rid of the Prohibition busting, self aggrandising drunken womaniser that was Rutherford, they have a problem.
