Separate Identity, volume 2, co-authored by my mom, is scheduled for release in March. B. W. Schulz, the series editor and mom's co-author has posted an update.
Update on Mom's Book.
by vienne 8 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Sigfrid Mallozzi
Thank you,
Vienne.
-
vienne
very welcome
-
Half banana
Hi Vienne daughter, thanks for update information.
I wonder how does your mother's co-author Schultz manage to tell the truth about the history of JWs and still remain a witness? A significant characteristic of the JW leadership is to give a Watchtower spin to all information and exclude any material directed at the flock which does not originate with HQ.
Is BW Shultz, to use their annoying term, "in good standing", and how does the GB view this scholarly appraisal of their history? If they concede this academic evaluation, it would not bode well for the approval of other intellectual investigations into their doctrines.
-
vienne
The Watchtower does not comment on the work of outsiders. As some of you know, Bruce is my grand uncle. He is a retired educator, and he is dedicated to telling the story as it is. I do not think the Watchtower has a strong connection to Russell, and they probably do not care.
B is infirm, very old, and viewed with considerable respect inside and outside of the Watchtower. His work has been accepted and published by academic journals. He is endlessly curious, seeking out obscure references. He is guided by the verse "speak truth to one another."
Mom's introductory essay [Mom was not a Witness] contains some mild criticism of the current Watchtower which I quote below. But the most interesting part of her essay is a discussion of the historic antecedents of Watch Tower faith in the Russell era. Here is what Mom wrote about researching the Watchtower:
Acknowledgements and Cooperation
Before considering some important thoughts, we have some housekeeping issues. First, we have many to thank for their assistance. I cannot possibly name them all, but our thanks are due to those who supported our research. We owe an extra amount of gratitude to Antonius (Ton) Adrianus de Geus of the Netherlands who continued to send us stellar research until his death. He was a beloved family man and my friend. We owe a continuing debt to Alan Whitby of the United Kingdom. In addition to those whose help we acknowledged in volume one, we owe Dr. George Chryssides our thanks for helpful comments on the rough draft of one of our introductory essays and a chapter. Professor Andrew Grzadzielewski proofread parts of our work and helped us acquire original source material. Stéphane Jeandrevin also read this volume, fact checking and making helpful suggestions. Bernhard Brabenec of Austria provided us with rare photos and helped locate biographical information. He drew the map found in a later chapter. Dr. Kevin Cason, Archivist at Tennessee State Library & Archives was exceptionally helpful. He gave us access to papers important to our research, doing so promptly and without hesitation. He stands in stark contract to the dilatory and obstructionist ways of the Watchtower Society’s Office of Public Information.
We have received a steady stream of queries asking if our work is sponsored by the Watchtower Society. It is not. We have corresponded with them from time to time. They are usually slow to answer; they have a cumbersome correspondence system especially when confronted with a request for documentation. Among the answers we received were: We don’t have that; we can’t locate that in our files; we don’t know any more than you do; and once they undertook considerable work to reclaim a document but without success. They sent a few pages of photocopy, all of which, except four pages, we had. More recently they sent three newspaper articles that will be helpful when we write the final book in this series. They continue to refuse us access to the original ledger book, and recently they refused to let us see the original of a letter quoted in Proclaimers. In another setting, a refusal to share cited material would call into question the accuracy of the quotation. I do not think the letter in question is misquoted. The issue is attitude toward ‘outsiders’ rather than accuracy.
Researching Watch Tower Faith
An article published in the June 1, 1997, Watchtower said: “True religion in no way practices secretiveness. Worshipers of the true God have been instructed not to hide their identity or to obscure their purpose as Jehovah’s Witnesses. The early disciples of Jesus filled Jerusalem with their teaching. They were out in the open as to their beliefs and activity. The same is true of Jehovah’s Witnesses today.” [Italics are mine.] The same is not always true of Jehovah’s Witnesses today, nor has it been true since the Rutherford era. While their doctrine and practices are easily found in their literature, they withhold historical material. I cannot explain why. I believe an accurately told history of the Watch Tower movement benefits all of the descendant religions.
One of our prepublication readers suggested that Watchtower Society reluctance to open its archives derives from a fear of misrepresentation. Internal matters, policies for church headquarters staff and similar matters generate documents not generally circulated by any religion, though few hold them as secrets. Carolyn Wah, a Watchtower attorney, tried to refute the commonly made observation that the Watchtower is secretive and uncooperative, writing: “As an active Witness for over twenty years, I was initially puzzled by comments indicating that professional researchers had found it difficult to gather information about Jehovah’s Witnesses. Information about the Witnesses is, in fact, voluminous, detailed, and readily accessible. The Watchtower and Awake! magazines have been published ... for many decades and are regularly distributed ... .”[1] She blamed researchers for not consulting available material, quoting Rodney Stark and Laurence Iannaccone’s 1997 article found in Journal of Contemporary Religion which noted lack of serious and thorough research into Jehovah’s Witnesses. Though that situation is slowly improving, we obviously concur with Stark and Iannaccone. Wah is absolutely correct when she suggests that academic researchers should do their homework. Witness doctrine is not secret. It is clearly explained in Watchtower publications. Much of current congregation practice and social structure is elaborated in easily accessible Watchtower publications.
The Watchtower Society has over the years treated academic researchers as agents of mystical Babylon the Great [All false religion in their view] or of Satan. This was the experience of M. S. Czatt in the 1920s and Stroup in the 1930-40s, and some claim it remains the common experience today.[2] A letter from the Watchtower to Witness elders dated April 25, 2001, for the United States, and July 1, 2002, for the United Kingdom remains current policy. That letter suggested that elders use extreme caution when dealing with academic researchers, that they inquire how the information will be used and who the researcher represents. It advised referring them to previously published literature. The Watchtower expressed fear that individual Witnesses would “express personal viewpoints that may not be in line with Bible principles” as presented in Watchtower Society publications thus presenting something other than a united front.
George Chryssides related an incident illustrating Watchtower’s past propensity to control the message. When contributing to an anthology, his work was altered without his permission to fit the demands of Watchtower editorial staff. Some four thousand words were added to his text, and a note was added in his manuscript’s margin referencing an early-days court case, reading: “Britain Branch would prefer this not to be mentioned.” They also objected that Chryssides did not cite the Watchtower product Jehovah’s Witnesses: Proclaimers of God’s Kingdom. While no-one should ignore that book, it is not written to an academic standard, is in no sense original source material, is un-footnoted, and relies on material the Watchtower Society usually refuses to open to outside scholars. It is hagiography and not history.
[Rachael expressed her intention to enlarge this paragraph to note that for Chryssides, the situation significantly improved. In 2017 he noted: “In the course of writing two major books on Jehovah’s Witnesses ... researchers at the Society’s New York headquarters were only too pleased to scrutinize my text meticulously, make suggestions, and provide material that is not in the public domain.”[3] -BWS]
I should add that our personal experience with this occurred when ready to publish Nelson Barbour: The Millennium’s Forgotten Prophet. Someone, then a member of the Watchtower editorial staff, told my coauthor to not publish but to send the manuscript to the Watchtower Society ‘for their files.’ This man saw independent research and its subsequent publication as trampling on Writing Department prerogatives. I should state that the Watchtower Society has in no way tried to guide our work or suggest changes to it. And their view of academics seems to be slowly changing. One indication of this is the tasking of an Office of Public Information to deal with, among other things, queries from academics.
Chryssides also discussed the problem of citing source material not open to outsiders. His work was altered on the basis of something written by Jack Felix entitled History of Britain Branch, a typescript manuscript not made available outside the Watchtower Society. A redacted version was published as a history essay in the 1973 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses, but Dr. Chryssides was not referred to that and was left puzzled by the reference. Felix’s work, even as printed in the Yearbook, contains errors the severity of which depends on one’s point of view. But the Watchtower representative saw it as authoritative because it was the sponsored product written by a prominent adherent.[4] There is a vast difference between academic writing and what the Watchtower produces. None of the Watchtower’s product is meant to be academic.[5] It is meant to guide Witness belief and practice. We cannot fault them for writing to their specific audience; even if it occasionally makes a researcher’s job the more difficult.
The issue of withheld resources continues. Major portions of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Europe: Past and Present, a multivolume anthology presenting Witness history in various nations, were written by Watchtower archivists. I do not suggest that they fabricated anything, and, though the writing is ‘spotty,’ researchers should read this. But frequently original sources cited are locked in a Watchtower archive, inaccessible to outsiders. In the history of the work in Belgium “the archive” is cited without saying which archive, who owns it, or what document is meant. This leaves anyone interested in following the research trail without resources and dependent on the Watchtower’s view of self. No rational, ethical history is this unbalanced.[6] A friend to this research who is best classed as an “insider” tells me that even Governing Body members must submit a request stating their reasons for wanting access to historic Watch Tower documents. While I believe this is true, I cannot fully sustain it from outside sources.
Chryssides suggested that Witness authorities marginalize or even retaliate against unauthorized Witness writers. Correspondence with Witness writers suggests this is sometimes true. Nevertheless, the Watchtower Society seldom acknowledges or cooperates with authors inside or outside their faith.[7] In many cases this is a rational response. Some writers have a clearly anti-Witness agenda. We can hardly expect the Watchtower to cooperate with those whose objective is to trash their faith. A Watchtower elder who read an early version of this essay suggests that the usual Watchtower response to ‘unauthorized’ Witness writers is to ignore them. This appears to be true. Though it was suggested to me, I don’t know that they are trying to hide anything. Perhaps they’re avoiding the appearance of endorsing the work of others. But in matters of documentation their decisions seem arbitrary. I hope that the Watchtower’s Office of Public Information will create a better relationship with academic writers.
Researchers into contemporary Witness history should be aware that the Watchtower Society revises previously published material. Using the online library or the Watchtower CD may not lead a researcher to the original, sometimes significantly different statement. The most widely discussed instance is a revision to the January 1, 1989, Watchtower which originally read: “He [i.e.: the Apostle Paul] was laying a foundation for a work that would be completed in our 20th century.” The Watchtower library CD reads: “a work that would be completed in our day.” Controversialist writers charge the Watchtower Society with some sort of misdeed here. But while changing the wording found in the 1989 magazine, apparently to conform to its international issues, they let other similar statements remain unchanged, and there seems to be no significant revisionism in the CD.
There were revisions to Truth that Leads to Eternal Life to eliminate references to 1975 as a year of Biblical crisis. These were unannounced except on the dedication-copyright page of the 1980 and subsequent editions. Revisions generally cannot be found through the Watch Tower publications Index.[9] This makes consulting the original publication, when possible, necessary.[10]
[1] C. R. Wah: An Introduction to Research and Analysis of Jehovah’s Witnesses: A View from the Watchtower, Review of Religious Research, December 2001, pages 161-174. Among the resources she recommended were two of Firpo Carr’s books, poorly written, neither particularly helpful, and sometimes inaccurate.
[2] See M. S. Czatt: The International Bible Students: Jehovah’s Witnesses – Yale Studies in Religion Number 4, [1933] page 20. Rutherford’s response to Czatt is found in the March 6, 1929, Golden Age. See the article entitled Timely Warning. Rutherford detailed his conversation with Czatt describing him as “a preacher [who] seems to be employed by the active members of Satan’s organization to gather information.” Both Czatt and Stroup were clergy – Congregationalist and Presbyterian – and this alone explains Watchtower reluctance. But most modern researchers are not clergy. I am not totally unsympathetic, especially in Stroup’s case. He was devious, lying and willing to fabricate. See B. W. Schulz’ Introductory Essay.
[3] Retrieved from https://blog.degruyter.com/engaged-research-far-go/ on August 3, 2019.
[4] Felix was a long-serving Circuit Servant [Now called Circuit Overseer], and wrote a revised introduction to the British edition of one of M. Cole’s books. We only address two issues found in Felix’s work. Our comments are found in a chapter on the work in the United Kingdom. One concerns his contention that Sunderlin and Bender traveled together. They did not. The other addresses his comment on the population benefited by Food for Thinking Christians.
[5] There have been occasions when Watchtower writers have sought a semblance of academic quality. Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Divine Purpose [1959] is the first Watchtower book to include extensive footnotes. Its writers, supposed to have been Ulysses V. Glass assisted by Harry Peloyan and others, followed the standard set by the Watchtower author who wrote the 1955 Watchtower history series. A Consolation article cites many references. [June 24, 1942] A Watchtower article entitled ‘The Ten Commandments – of God, Not Men” [Feb 1, 1961] contains twelve footnotes, apparently to make it appear well researched. All the references are derived from one book. The writer nowhere acknowledges that. Bear in mind that this was sixty years ago, and, as far as I know, is not current practice. The 2003 edition of Branch Organization¸ an internal document, indicates that far greater care is taken today than in past years. [See chapter 24.] Insight on the Scriptures cites some sources in brackets. Often these are references to volumes of Lange’s Commentary cited by their individual rather than series title. Some Watchtower publications on evolution are footnoted, though in no proper format. These publications are accused of deceptive use of ellipsis or abbreviated, deceptive quotation. I haven’t thoroughly examined this issue, but an exhaustive list of the supposed deceptive quotations seems to include many which are to the point and accurate. Some of these quotations, while they are to the point, fail to carefully represent the original author’s point of view. A scattering of footnotes appear in Watchtower articles. Little of this is unexpected or unexceptional given the non-academic nature of Watchtower publications.
[6] The series is published by Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
[7] G. D. Chryssides: Conflicting Expectations? Insider and Outsider Methods of Studying Jehovah’s Witnesses, DISKUS: The Journal of the British Association for the Study of Religions, 17:1, 2015, pages 14-22.
[8] See for instance the article Ancient Patterns for the Present, The Watchtower, September 15, 1950, page 324, which reads: “From the foregoing it is clear that the Hebrew Scriptures are not mere ancient history, but contain types and shadows of things now coming to pass upon this twentieth-century generation.” This remains on the Watchtower archive CD as it was in 1950, though it no longer reflects Watchtower doctrine. The CD is faithful to the printed volumes issued after the end of each year. For books and pamphlets it gives the date of the latest revisions, and these are what appear on the CD.
[9] See pages 9, 88 and 89 and compare early editions with later printings. A Witness elder who read an early version of this essay suggested that the “Beliefs Clarified” entry in the Watchtower’s index to publications would remove this issue. An examination of that entry shows that it does not. It does, however, let one follow changes in doctrine, and for that it is worth consulting.
[10] When the book Man’s Salvation out of World Distress was revised to accommodate a new understanding of a parable, adherents were notified through The Watchtower. See the October 1, 1975, issue, page 600.
-
dropoffyourkeylee
Thanks, I will definitely purchase a copy of Volume 2 -
JW_Researcher
"Firpo Carr’s books, poorly written, neither particularly helpful, and sometimes inaccurate."
An understatement, to be certain. Yikes!
-
Nathan Natas
Hello Vienne,
Will Volume 2 be sold on Lulu.com or elsewhere?
-
vienne
lulu which best funds research; b and n; amazon; and a dozen places elsewhere round the world. B hasn't decided on who will do the ebook; that will either be lulu or smashwords.