RR,
Many thanks for your note.
So you have no problem with the Bible Students being defined in the terms of a high control religion, or a cult? Cults and high control religions seem to have less to do with beliefs and more to do with methodology. In fact often the theology, as with the JW's is relatively unimportant against the backdrop of the 'Governing Body speak for God' methodology. Cults and high control religions have historically a record of the abuse of an individual rights, I am sure you would never agree to the Bible Students being tarred with such a brush?
NO, I don't have a problem, I know it's not true, my brethren know it's not true, anyone informed knows it's not true. People will always bel;ieve what they want
.
Then just to clarify as I seem to have misunderstood your original
rebuttal, you *do not* view the Bible Students as a high control religion or a cult?
I know how agitated people can become when their religion is described as a cult, I was in one once, I should know. I am quite sure you know the definition of a ?cult? RR. Do you view the WTS as a cult? I wonder if you would be prepared to suggest to this forum the reason why the Bible Student should not be viewed as a cult?
For example, you mention numerous Pioneers, Bethelites, elders etc. who became Bible Students after leaving, what clearly is a cult / high control religion, the WTS. Now, the doctrines of these two groups are not a million miles apart, but how what would you say is so different about the *methodology* of the Bible Students and the WTS that in your mind at least, might preclude one from being described as a cult and another not?
Without Russell there would never have been a Rutherford, without Rutherford there would never have been a WTS and without the WTS there would never have been spiritual and emotional imprisonment. Russell made the WTS possible, perhaps even probable.
That may be true. Why not go further and blame it on Jesus? If Jehovah had not sent His Son to earth, he would have founded Christianity, because Christinaity founded the Watchtower Society.
Your reply is disingenuous RR. Neither the WTS nor the Bible Students would allow themselves to be classed as mainstream in their doctrine. Indeed they have many exclusive doctrines in common, doctrines that many in mainstream churches would argue are not part of the Christian body of beliefs. The rejection of the Trinity for example. Whether you like to accept it or not, the Bible Students and the WTS have many *exclusive* and *unique* similarities, including a common foundation, that would make them *both* a target for the ire of former Jehovah?s Witnesses. Few XJW?s I would propose, even non-believers would blame Christianity for the WTS. Many would however would see Russell and Rutherford as participants in the negative experience as Jehovah?s Witnesses.
I know that you are an elder with the Bible Students, were you an elder with the JW's? If you were, how would you say that the exercise of your responsibilities differ? For example, how do you define and then treat 'apostates'?
There are no "apostates" in the Bible Student movement. At least we don't label people in that way. You'd be surprised. We have people who believe in the presence some who do not, others who totally reject the chronology, and others who have devised new ones. There are opther differences. Often at conventions we have panel discussions to discuss these issues with the whole audience participating, by asking questions.
I am pleased to read that dissension, which is always healthy for
a religious group, is allowed. Is that what I am to take from your comments?
.
The worst thing that can happen, should a person have differing views, is that a congregation would never elect him to the position of eldership. SInce it is the congregation that nominates and elects who should serve in the congregation. And rightfully so, I wouldn't want someone teaching me hat I myself do not believe. Now every congregation is different, I know of some that have elders who have differing views and it makes for interesting studies.
This does seem a sound way of handling the situation, provided of course that congregational politics and personality did not play a part in the election process. Visions of potential elders smiling and polishing the heads of the children of voters does spring to mind. But at least your congregations get to elect who serves them and who does not. God bless democracy and those who fought for it.
Best regards - HS
