You can follow their research on their history blog. Link was posted earlier.
It's good to hear they are continuing with this book. Does it have a name at this point? Or if not, how would you search for it at the above link?
Review of Dr. Chryssides' new book on Jehovah's Witnesses
by Old Goat 41 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
ScenicViewer
-
Old Goat
It will be Separate Identity vol. 2. You can't search for their book there. What they do is post bits, occasionally whole chapters of the new work. Most of the longer posts are temporary. They put them up for comments, removing them or truncating them later. I check the blog at least once a day, and I contribute research as I can. Several do that. You can see it in the comment trail.
Sometimes they just post a query, a "can you help with this?" question. Or they ask about a reference they can't find. In time a section of new research pops up. They ask that you don't repost it elsewhere. The early day's Watch Tower you thought you knew is false. They write good stuff. And they don't much care if they offend someone in the process. Their goal is to produce an accurate, well-told tale.
-
AndersonsInfo
The following information is mostly a negative review of Dr. Chryssides' new book on Jehovah's Witnesses, by Rud Persson of Sweden:
There are three major books published on Jehovah´s Witnesses in English
in recent years, "Judgment Day Must Wait" by Poul Bregninge (2013) , the
third edition of "Apocalypse Delayed" by M.J. Penton (2015) and
"Jehovah´s Witnesses Continuity and Change" by George D. Chryssides
(2016). Of these three Penton´s work is by far the best in my view.
When I learned about Chryssides´ book I at once ordered it but did not
expect an excellent work. The reason is that I have a book called
"Sacred Schisms" from 2009 in which Chryssides authored a chapter called
"Finishing the Mystery: the Watch Tower and `the 1917 schism´" (pp.
109-127). The book was very expensive, but since I am writing
extensively on this particular subject I felt I had to check it. I am
sad to say that this chapter by Chryssides is one of the worst and least
scholarly presentations of the subject I have ever come across. It is so
full of error as to be practically worthless. Chryssides had not done
his homework properly and had not studied the rich contemporary source
material.
His fresh book does not show as many mistakes about the 1917-1918
events, but there are still so many errors that one can recommend the
book only with strong reservations . He indicates on pp. 78 and 79 that
Rutherford expressed disquiet about the way in which the Society´s
affairs were organized and that as four of the acting directors had not
been properly elected he appointed four new ones. In actual fact
Rutherford voiced agreement with the existing system already in The
Watch Tower, December 15, 1916. He did not think of making changes until
the four he later replaced indicated that the Society should be run by
the Board of Directors, in harmony with the Charter, and not by
Rutherford alone. He felt he had to act against them as he was not
prepared to step down from his position. He stated in print in the fall
of 1917 that if they had not wanted to limit his authority he would
never had called the legality of their directorships in question. The
board of directors controversy was one of the biggest crisis ever in the
Society, but in his new book Chryssides does not even mention that there
was such a controversy!
On p. 79 he claims that at the election in 1918 Macmillan was elected
vice president while Pierson was elected to the Board. In reality it was
C.H. Anderson who was elected vice president and Pierson did not even
make the board. This mistake is inexcusable as the facts are so easy to
ascertain. Chryssides did better in his description of Paul S.L.
Johnson´s activities in Britain. But there he had at his disposal Albert
Hudson´s excellent book on Bible Students in Britain. Still he made the
wrong statement that Johnson left England on "4 April 1917." Johnson
himself repeatedly stated that he left on April 1, 1917. No early source
says he left on April 4.
On pp. 84 and 86 he says that Johnson was "was one of the vociferous
objectors to the Finished Mystery" and that on July 17, 1917 "when a
copy was left at each person´s place at the breakfast table" Johnson
"started a protest and heated argument continued for some five hours."
There is not much truth in these statements. The Finished Mystery was
surely announced on July 17, 1917, but not at "the breakfast table" but
at the dinner table. The book was not left beforehand at each person´s
place. It was stored on a table in the dining room. Not until Rutherford
had announced that he had replaced four directors did he announce that
the book was there for everyone to get. Not one word about The Finsihed
Mystery was said on this occasion, the dramatic announcement about the
board being a much hotter subject. The entire five-hour commotion was
about the board matter. And while Johnson participated he did not
"start" the protests. Johnson and the directors did later speak out
about the book, but it took quite some time before they did.
Here Chryssides has swallowed the Society´s and his Watchtower friends´
false presentation's hook, line and sinker. The rich contemporary
documentation of both sides cuts the Society´s history presentations to
pieces. The persons who the Society has relied on have had their
memories weakened and changed after several decades in the organization.
Even Mcmillan had a poor memory after so many years.
It is difficult to escape the impression that Chryssides sometimes
accommodates his Witness friends. He does present criticism at times,
but this criticism seems to be imbedded in cotton so as not to hurt his
friends. His bias is sometimes obvious. He challenges Penton´s statement
that Rutherford made a "dramatic doctrinal switch" regarding the
teaching about the Jews. (p. 114) But Penton was 100 per cent correct.
The 1932 change regarding the Jews was a major one, certainly a
"dramatic doctrinal switch." Chryssides does not seem to be aware of the
pro-Jewish position stated in Rutherford´s earlier writings, such as
"Comfort for the Jews" from 1925 and the book "Life" published in 1929.
Neither of these publications is listed in Chryssides´ bibliography .
Also, Chryssides is weak on the Society´s stance on blood. He does not
outline how the Society in 2004 differentiated between forbidden and
allowable blood components. (The Watchtower, June 15, 2004) Since the
Society claims that blood leaving a body belongs to God and is not
permitted for any use whatsoever and is not allowed even to store, the
the fact that certain blood components nevertheless may be viewed as
permissible has to be viewed as hypocrisy. Not surprisingly Chryssides
does not call a spade a spade.
It would be unfair, however, not to admit that Chryssides makes many apt
observations. He treats the Olin Moyle and Carl Olof Jonsson cases
fairly well and he uses the current elder book (2010) which strictly
speaking is confidential material that he is not supposed to have access
to. He informs his readers about the chronology which was shortened by
about 100 years in 1943, and he offers a number of excellent pictures.
So I will keep my copy. The book was so shockingly expensive that it is
doomed to sell poorly.
Rud Persson
Sweden
April 23, 2016 -
Lieu
Biased people can't read unbiased information without complaining and focusing on minor errors. We should all know that from JWism.
With each book of research, we glean more and more information. Looks an interesting read.
-
Crazyguy
Old goat what's your opinion on when Jesus is said to be born? Some say the gospel of Mathew points to 6bce and Luke 6 AD. One of the big discrepancies between the two gospels is the Syrian governor ordering a census and the life of king Herod. According to records Herod was dead before the governor of Syria was governor. So there seems to be a 12 year difference between Matthew and Luke's accounts of Jesus birth? -
Bonsai
140 dollars? Pounds? No thanks. Maybe 140 pesos and I'll consider it. -
steve2
Thanks Barbara for posting the review by Rud Persson. Interesting comments indeed. I'd certainly be interested in Old Goat's response because, at first gloss, it looks like Persson has done his homework. That said, he has misidentified Chryssides as male.
-
Old Goat
Chryssides is male. de Vienne is not. Personally, I'd include Separate Identity in his list of major works. I think it is story-changing.
De Vienne's review touched on the Jewish issue in Rutherford's day. This doesn't add any thing. Rutherford did indeed express reservations about the society's management, expressing them to Russell. This is in the original documentation His concerns were narrowly focused, relating only to the election process.
We sometimes wish an author addressed our pet issues in more detail. Both de Vienne and Persson fall into that in their reviews, though Rachael de Vienne tells you up front that's what she's doing. Chryssides presents the blood issues in a manner appropriate to a generalist history.
We approach books such as Chryssides from our own viewpoints. Perrson has a personal agenda that shows through in the blood comment. Is Penton's last revision the better book? In some ways, certainly. But they do not approach the matter in the same way. Penton does not address contemporary Witness social structure to the same depth. I have both books. You should too. And if you ignore Schulz and de Vienne's two books, you've made a serious mistake.
Other than Rutherford raising the issue of the legal form of elections with Russell, Perrson's comments on the 1918 schism are accurate. I still recommend Chryssides' book, though it is obscenely expensive.
I agree with this:
Lieu 2 hours ago
Biased people can't read unbiased information without complaining and focusing on minor errors. We should all know that from JWism.
With each book of research, we glean more and more information. Looks an interesting read.
On the question raised about the date of Jesus birth: Most scholars disagree with the Watchtower by from two to four years. Scholars have been wrong before. I've never seen a good refutation of the Watchtower's reasoning, but I've never perused it either. Sorry, I don't have a well-founded opinion on that issue.
-
Ruby456
interesting that Russell had a brush with atheism during his late teens (known as infidelity then).
on p. 33 of the book a separate identity while trying to convert an atheist, Russell wrote that he fell prey to the logic of infidelity as soon a he began to think for himself. but this did not last long.
-
AndersonsInfo
Further comments from Rud Persson:
"Old Goat stated: "Rutherford did indeed express reservations about
the Society´s management, expressing them to Russell. This is in the
original documentation."
My response was to Chryssides´s claim that Rutherford was concerned
about elections "for life" and that he felt that the charter contained
illegal portions. Rutherford did not voice any concern regarding this
until his position was challenged at least four months after his
election. Nor does early documentation say that he expressed his
later claim in this respect to Russell. What Rutherford did claim in
Harvest Siftings, dated August 1, 1917, was that he had told Russell
when the work was moved to New York that board members and officers
had to be "chosen in the State of Pennsylvania, and nowhere else."
(p. 15) But that was not the point Chryssides was making and to which
I responded.It seems that Rutherford did not convince Russell about
the need for choosing directors in Pennsylvania, for he
admitted that "the Society would be maintained with all its original
powers provided the annual elections are held in Pittsburgh." (p. 16)
His bringing up in 1917 his earlier discussion with Russell was to
lend support to his replacing Robert Hirsh, who was elected to the
board and by the board in New York, at Rutherford´s own instigation on
March 29, 1917! He could have had Hirsh, then a strong supporter of
his, elected in Pennsylvania if he had felt this was the correct way
and if he had so insisted, but clearly he saw no need to do so. All
elections to and by the board after the move to New York were taking
place in New York, and Russell was convinced, and rightly so, that
such elections were legal and proper. Even Rutherford was elected in
this way in 1910. If that had been an illegal election, Rutherford
would not have been a legal director in January 1917 and since the
charter clearly ruled that only directors could be elected president,
vice president and secretary-treasurer, his election to president in
1917 would then have been illegal even though it took place in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. This was pointed out by competent lawyers
during the conflict. J.D. Wright and I.F. Hoskins had been elected to
the Board in Pennsylvania before the removal to New York. Rutherford
would have to come up with something else to get rid of them. It is
here his attack on the charter regulation about election "for life"
became useful.
He claimed in the summer of 1917 that this clause in the charter was
illegal and to no effect, holding that directors had to be elected
annually according to law. This was necessary in order to get rid of
three of his opponents on the board. However, it is clear that Russell
wanted the Society put on a really legal footing when he drew up the
charter in 1884. Consequently he had it examined by competent legal
counsel and had it approved by the authorities. It is not surprising,
therefore, that Rutherford never even attempted to explain how such a
carefully established charter could contain an illegal clause. The
Judge did not care much about the law anyway. In 1917 he claimed that
directors had to be elected annually according to the law. But just a
few years afterwards he felt that such restraint was troublesome and
wanted longer terms. And hey presto! it then became possible to
disregard the rule about annual elections! So much for his concern.
The books by Schulz and de Vienne have been mentioned here and I take
the opportunity to express my admiration for their excellent works.
I also find the material being presented at the site Watch Tower History
first rate. In the sketches I am preparing on people involved in the
1917-1918 conflict, I have accepted and used some of the research
presented at their website, so far on Gertrude W. Seibert and William
F. Hudgings, giving full credit. "
Rud
