Hi Earnest,
: You say believers "in a God that is controlling things generally ascribe far more than is advisable to the workings of their God". An objective look at history in the past 1900 years would suggest that God has not directly intervened in man's affairs since the resurrection of Jesus. It is quite easy to see the cause and effect of the Reformation and it is purely the eyes of faith that will conclude that God had a part in it. The same goes for the rise of Adventism in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. It can all be explained sociologically and there is no objective evidence it was inspired of God. That is the historian in me speaking.
Excellent points, with which I completely agree.
: On the other hand, Jesus spoke clearly about God's concern for each one of us even counting the hairs on our heads. He is aware even of a sparrow that dies. In Israel of old it seems that everything that happened was directly instigated by God. If a woman became pregnant it was God's will. If she was barren it was a punishment by God. If there was a drought or a flood or any catastrophe it was specifically intended by God and was only relieved when he determined to do so. Well...do we just conclude that Jesus was using hyperbole ? And that the God of the OT was a tribal God worshipped by primitive people who had no clue about sperm counts and barometric pressure.
Based on the available evidence, that's what I've concluded.
: If we attribute inspiration to the Bible do we pick and choose which parts God wants us to believe is true ? I do not know. I know enough not to be dogmatic but that is about all.
In a general sense that's a wise course. However, from my personal experience I've concluded that either God does not exist at all, or if he does he's so completely different from what the Bible describes that it's not the same entity.
: But the believer in me inclines to see a pattern in the increasing availability and spread of the good news from the time of the early Christians till now and to conclude there has been a speeding up in my lifetime.
In the sense that Christianity as a whole has become widespread over the centuries, I'll agree with you about the spread of "the good news", as long as what 'the good news' means remains as fuzzy as the definition of Christianity itself. As to the "speeding up" of its spread, it's been speeding up in a certain sense for 2000 years, and especially since the Renaissance. An interesting book called The Roots of Fundamentalism (Ernest Sandeen, ca. 1970) traces the rise of modern fundamentalism to late-18th-century Christians. But these people also gave rise to the various Adventist movements and related schools of thought. It's hard for me to imagine that the emotional, thoroughly whacky Pentecostal branch of the fundamentalist movement has grown from a few thousand around 1900 to over 200 million today based on a somewhat obscure NT prophecy that "the work" would be speeded up. Surely you don't put any stock in the claims of these people, and similarly it would be surprising if you put stock in similar claims by anyone else.
: And I do think JWs have been used in this respect although I reject the exclusivity they claim.
Many people who have for all practical purposes left the JW mindset feel the same way.
: I quite accept that you are convinced by what you have seen and heard of Rutherford's alleged conduct but will have to wait for publication before reaching conclusions myself.
A wise decision.
: However, I do think it is slightly disingenuous to suggest we are free to check with the Watchtower Society about any and all of these things.
Why would that be? In principle one is completely free to do so. In practice, both you and I know that it's quite unlikely that a random person who calls them up would be told the truth. Nevertheless, one can glean good information even from replies that attempt to mislead. JWs are disinclined to tell outright lies to your face, so the extent to which someone in Bethel will attempt to steer a conversation away from dangerous territory will tell you how true the allegation of misconduct is. If the allegation is completely false, they will tell you that outright. If the allegation is true, the response you get will depend on many factors, such as what effect a clear admission of screwing up would have on the reputation of the JW organization. The only way to see for yourself how this works is to call Bethel yourself and ask to speak with someone about the issue. Usually you can do this and get someone to talk to you.
: At the time that Raymond Franz was expelled from Bethel I was profoundly disturbed by events and corresponded with both RF and WTS to try to reconcile what I read and heard with what I believed. I was completely stonewalled by the WTS and there is no reason to suppose they would be more forthcoming about Rutherford's alleged peccadillos.
In the same way that you were stonewalled years ago, you'd probably be stonewalled today, unless you managed to get around the system some way. I've done this, so I know it can be done, but it takes a few special contacts and a good deal of guts to see it through. If you're interested enough to attempt to contact some WTS people by name, let me know via private email and I'll give you some names.
AlanF