Why cults hide their old publications.

by refiners fire 39 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • refiners fire
    refiners fire

    Here is a classic example of why it is that cultic religions find it necessary to conceal their old publications from the scrutiny of the membership.

    This example is from 7 th Day Adventism, but I assure all readers it is a classic and well worth the reading. Still, it is necessary to lay out a little background to the speech I will be quoting from before proceeding.

    The 7 th day Adventists had an expectation of Christs return revolving around the end point of 1844. Nothing happened. And so a retrospective understanding that pure worship practises needed to be restored after 1844 came to be. In fact, 1844 came to be understood as a wake up call to the spiritually minded. A last chance to be saved. I have demonstrated before (using Mormonism as an example) that revelations pertaining to ‘restoring’ pure worship practises (lost since apostolic times) follow on inevitably from prophetic failures. The Adventist understanding of post 1844 pure worship revelations revolves around what are called the “3 Angels messages”. These are found in scripture at Revelation 17 and 18. It came to be seen that the First angels cry pertained to William Miller and his 1844 prediction, a wake up call so to speak. The 2nd angel cried out for all Christlike ones to leave Spiritual Babylon and abandon false worship. And the 3 rd Angel was Ellen G White herself and her message to ‘restore’ the pure practise of the Sabbath.

    It is pertaining to the “Second Angels message”, that call to “get out of Babylon” and form a separate (pure) church that I will be quoting in this thread.

    A reader of Adventist publications will see that the prophecy of the “second angel’ was begun of fulfilment in a sermon preached by one Charles Fitch, an Adventist illuminari, in 1843. The speech was called

    “GET OUT OF HER MY PEOPLE.”

    And it was the first public call for Adventist believers to exit the churches they attended and form their own sect.

    But a reading of the actual speech delivered by Fitch reveals something little known, something rather unusual. Here are some quotes from the speech conveying the ghist of what Fitch actually said:

    “What is Babylon? It is Antichrist. What then is Antichrist?… 1 John 4 says: ‘Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God, because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the spirit of God. Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God.’…. 2 John 7: ‘For many deceivers are entered into the world who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an Antichrist”.

    So Fitch declares that any church that does not preach the LITERAL Physical return of Christ is an Antichrist Church. He continues:

    “Now as surely as the birth of Christ was personal and not spiritual, his life, his death, his ascension literal, so surely his coming must be. We have therefore only to inquire who is opposed to the personal reign of Christ on King Davids throne in order to ascertain who is Antichrist and who is in Babylon’... ‘When the papacy came into power they concluded to have Christ return not visibly, but spiritually, and thus the Pope entered into the stead of Christ and undertook to rule the world for Him”.

    Not only the Catholics are ‘Babylon’, but all the Protestant sects deny his visible return too. As he says, they have their reasons for not desiring to visibly see Christ come:

    “Each one of these sects is willing to rule the world for Christ but no one of them is willing to have Christ come to earth and reign for Himself …Inasmuch as these multiplied sects are opposed to the plain Bible truth of Christs visible reign on earth they are Babylon”

    In fact ALL the churches, except Advent believers preach an invisible return. And so, are Babylon. In righteous indignation Fitch calls for the Advent believers to exit their churches and form their own sect:

    “And now away forever with your miserable transcendental philosophy that would make the throne a spiritual throne, and the coming of Christ an invisible one, and hid reign spiritual. No, no. Jesus has been raised in David flesh immortalized. And he shall come in that flesh glorified ”.

    Regrettably this speech is not much read these days by Adventists. And little wonder, for, a mere 3 YEARS after this speech, condemning “Babylon” for making Christs return invisible, The Adventist themselves spiritualized the fulfillment of their 1844 expectation by declaring that Christ entered the sanctuary in heaven rather than the earthly sanctuary. The 1844 prediction was declared fullfilled Invisibly, Unseen by human eyes.

  • Prisca
    Prisca

    1844 + 70 years brings you to 1914. Is there a connection?

  • refiners fire
    refiners fire

    sure is.

    1844 1874 1878 1881 1914AD equals 0 29 33 36 70CE

  • plmkrzy
    plmkrzy

    I'm soo confuzzed. Ok I am expecting Russell to pop up later and take some of those advents away and dub them bible students. But considering the way things have unfolded, why bother. Doesn't make a lot of sense. So what exactly was it then that "summond" Russell to ...oh wait, forget it. I'm getting to far ahead.:) I wasn't aware that all other religions (or most) believed that christ came in the "spirit". Reading this confirms my belief that all religion is bad and to be avoided like the pox.

  • refiners fire
    refiners fire

    Year zero. Christ is born. equals 1844 the beginning of the awakening.

    29CE ,Christs revealing as messiah, equals 1874 Christs return as saviour

    33CE, The ressurection of Christ parallels to 1878CE the resurrection of the sleeping saints

    36CE, The door of salvation opened to Gentiles parallels to 1881 and the "shut door" of salvation.

    70CE, End of the Jewish System parallels to 1914 End of the System of things.

    Parallel Dispensations of equal time length

    Apologies to "some" for not explaining what i was on about.

    Plummy. I suppose the thought in the speakers mind at the time concerned the "pre" or "post" millenial "return". Maybe he thought those who favoured a post millenial 'return' were spiritualizers. But those who convert literal expectations into figurative returns are 'spiritualizers' in my book.

  • onacruse
    onacruse

    RF, do you happen to have a copy of Seventh-Day Adventism Renounced, by D. M. Canright (1889)? He was SDA for 28 years, and his book is rather like Thirty Years a Watchtower Slave. One passage that caught my eye (p. 71):

    "But were not the Adventists in 1843-4 very confident that they were right?" Confident is no name for it. They were sure they were right, they knew they were right, for they proved it all by the Bible, every word of it, positively. The Bible said so; to deny it was to deny the Bible.

    And from the Seventh-day Adventist Fact Book (Southern Publishing Association, 1967), under the tab "History and Beliefs; Disappointment" it says:

    When October 22, 1844, the day on which the Millerites expected the second coming of Christ (based on a study of the prophecy of 2300 days in Daniel 8:14), passed and Christ did not come, there was great disappointment. Many people gave up all interest in prophecy. Some set future dates and experienced repeated disappointment.

    And the next tab "Right Date, Wrong Event":

    A small nucleus of Advent believers, convinced that their calculation of Daniel's time prophecy was correct, continued to study their Bibles and pray for further understanding.They became convinced that the prophecy's reference to the "cleansing of the sanctuary" (Daniel 8:14) referred not to the earth but to the priestly ministry of Christ in heaven and to the investigative phase there prior to His coming.

    Oh, Lordy Lordy, how the WTS has carbon-copied that same game-plan.

    Speaking of copies: If you'd like, I would be glad to send you photocopies of these two books.

    Craig

  • refiners fire
    refiners fire

    Craig. Below is a good link to a book by Francis Nichol refuting Canright. Its called "Ellen G White and her critics'. Apparently Canright was a very troublesome apostate type.

    http://www.whiteestate.org/books/egwhc/egwhctoc.html

    Of course, id be interested in those books you mentioned provided inconvenience isnt caused for you. I'll PM you and make contact brother. Perhaps we could swap some info. Ive got a rather extensive library on cult and religious subjects and may have something youve wanted, but havent obtained.We should PM on the matter.

    The adventist church, from what ive observed, is a hotbed of disputes/ splits etc, an ongoing debating society with everyone quoting EG White to back their own agenda. Ive been to church meetings where there were more sev vies outside arguing doctrine than there were inside listening to the program. Perhaps because of the ongoing fragmentation of the adventist movement (perhaps caused by a policy of a degree of free debate) the dubs have learnt from their forefathers and opted to conceal every mistake by sweeping it under the carpet and silencing all dissent.

  • DIM
    DIM

    all seems like religous babble to me, just as bad as the JW's. I'd rather read the Lord of the Rings and drink an Americano than be bothered with 1844. Pass me my bagel please.

  • AlanF
    AlanF

    Very interesting information, RF and Craig. Nothing new under the sun, eh?

    Just a small clarification on the SDA's: The Seventh-Day Adventists themselves did not predict 1843/44 -- the Millerites did. Immediately after the "great disappointment" a number of groups split off from Miller's movement for any number of reasons, including that Miller himself abandoned the prophecy business. Most of these groups disappeared in a few years, but a few, like the SDA's, grew. The SDA's got fairly well organized by about 1848/49, and grew rapidly after that. Other groups that C. T. Russell lumped together as "Second Adventists" also grew out from Miller's movement. They published newsletters and so forth. Various groups remained loosely associated. Nelson Barbour formed his own loose group, which after the collapse of his 1873/74 prediction of the 'end of the world' was pretty well discredited among other 'Second Adventists'. It's not clear just what group Russell came into contact with in the early 1870s, since they were all loosely organized. One thing is clear, though: these groups were quite separate from the SDA's.

    AlanF

  • Buster
    Buster

    It was bad enough to realize that I had fallen for that claptrap foisted by those clowns in Brooklyn. But I always pictured those loony numerology buffs hunched over charts and reading their bibles to come up with that stuff. It somehow seems worse that they were not even original. They were dimestore paperback copies.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit