RUSSEL MEETS RUTHERFORD: a fantasy conversation

by Terry 48 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Cygnus

  Terry, I would consider myself an authority on JWism and their history, but what you've done here puts any thinking of mine to shame. I would like to PM you.
• 

  Terry

  Terry, I would consider myself an authority on JWism and their history, but what you've done here puts any thinking of mine to shame. I would like to PM you.

  Gorshk, thank, Olive!

  As long as "PM" doesn't hurt....sure...go ahead.

  T.
• 

  CountryGuy

  Wow! What a great read! Thank you for sharing this with us.

  CountryGuy
• 

  Terry

  Kinda makes me want to do an animated tv series about the J dubs.

  T.
• 

  AlanF

  Terry, that was a superb piece of fiction! You really nailed the spirit of the charlatans at the head of the Watchtower organization. You ought to do something like that with Franz and Knorr.

  As for the point that Leolaia brought up, I hate to rain on a great piece of writing, but this stuck out for me, too, as an error. Russell never predicted Armageddon. Rather, he mostly taught that it had already begun. Indeed, his first published writing that anyone knows of was his 1876 entry in The Bible Examiner, which simply parrotted the views of Nelson Barbour as published in 1875 in Barbour's magazine Herald of the Morning. Barbour had predicted that the world "would be burned" in 1873, and when that failed, 1874. When that failed, he quit publishing for a stretch, until one of his subscribers noted an unusual rendering of Matthew 24:3 in The Emphatic Diaglott, namely, that the Greek word parousia was rendered "presence" rather than the correct "coming". That allowed Barbour to claim that his prediction of 1874 was indeed correct in terms of time, but that he got the way of Jesus' return wrong, i.e., that the return was invisible rather than visible to all mankind. Thus, Barbour saved his prediction and some of his audience. When Russell showed up, he adopted pretty much all of Barbour's end-times theology, and eventually plastered on much of his own. That included the teaching that the Battle of Armageddon had started in 1874 and would reach a culmination in 1914. But by about 1904, Russell saw that nearly all of his predictions had failed or were about to fail, and so he revised a good deal of his teaching. In particular, he now began teaching that Armageddon would begin in or near 1914. So, Russell's teachings about the date of Armageddon's beginning changed radically when his predictions failed, and so they would again, when the drunken Rutherford and his more sober lackeys figured out that everything that both Russell and Rutherford had predicted had failed.

  AlanF
• 

  Terry

  As for the point that Leolaia brought up, I hate to rain on a great piece of writing, but this stuck out for me, too, as an error. Russell never predicted Armageddon. Rather, he mostly taught that it had already begun. Indeed, his first published writing that anyone knows of was his 1876 entry in The Bible Examiner, which simply parrotted the views of Nelson Barbour as published in 1875 in Barbour's magazine Herald of the Morning. Barbour had predicted that the world "would be burned" in 1873, and when that failed, 1874

  Thanks Alan. Duly noted.

  There is a distinction here that does rather stick in the throat like a chicken bone.

  Russell, it seems, was like most of the really effective salemen I've known in my life. They are the biggest marks when it comes to being sold themselves.

  Russell seems to be like a kid in a circus. He LOVES to be persuaded by "evidence" that looks like a science. The numbers, the measurements, the chronologies dazzled him. He just could not get around the confluence.

  But, he was an intelligent man. I think he is a WONDERFUL writer with quite a polished command of the language. He is persuasive and really marshalls his "facts" to build his case.

  Pity that he was suckered. Being bitten by the date-setting bug he could not shake the ironclad conviction that SOMETHING BIG was his to reveal.

  William Miller was a neophyte. He was self-taught. But, he too had the power to persuade. When Miller got up in front of people for the very first time to tell his version of events (as he saw them) he was astounded at the overwhelming acceptance by the crowds. They ate him up.

  That launched his "career". He was fairly pushed into his preaching by Baptists who loved the drama and conviction behind his "proofs".

  I based my view of Russell on Miller. Seeing the belief and the awe in the eyes of people who listen to you can fill you with the conviction that something special is yours to give. Rather like being loved by a beautiful women--it fills you with a sense of transcendant power.

  Maria Russell knew a good thing when she saw it. I think of her as a Hillary Clinton type. I'm sure she was sexually frustrated. However, the supposed dalliance with the young girl (Russell's ward) was more than she could handle. The parallel with Clinton applies here too. Maria gave the Watchtower Society of the future the very doctrine it lives on to this day: the FDS mush.

  What exactly did Russell predict about 1914?

  He kept changing the wording in revisions of articles that were SOOOO CERTAIN that hedging his bets became a sickness. Did he realize how confused he was? I can't say. But, Armageddon was necessary for him to hold on to his sanity; so, he just granted it existence.

  That's my view.

  Thanks for your evaluation. It is appreciated.

  Terry
• 

  AlanF

  Very good additional points, Terry. Here's something else.

  In the year that Maria Russell said Charles was dallying with Rose Ball, she wasn't the young thing of 10-12 years that Charles made it appear in court, so that he could claim his affections were purely fatherly. She was 24 years old, and he was 42. That he might play around with her is quite believable, since his marriage to Maria was, from day one and by mutual consent, non-sexual.

  AlanF
• 

  BrendaCloutier

  
  Terry, Alan F, you guys are awesome in your research and knowledge of our illustrious- erm dillusional past.

  Thank you so much for your work.

  Bren

  edited to add: Leolaia, and Cynus and all you others out there digging up the dirt and uncovering closeted bones
• 

  Cognitive_Dissident

  Great post, Terry. I can easily see that dialogue performed as a one-act. Excellent piece of writing. Keep 'em coming if you've got 'em!
  
  :Russell, it seems, was like most of the really effective salemen I've known in my life. They are the biggest marks when it comes to being sold themselves.
  
  that comment reminds me of the concept of doublethink in 1984, the higher up in the Party a person was, the more skilled they had to be in using doublethink. Knowing that the doctrines they were selling were not at all what they purported to be in order to function on a pragmatic level, but also being able to actually believe 100% in their own lies when it came to defending the party line. It seems like that's the case with many witnesses in "middle management", although at the highest levels I don't see it as being anything more than the desire to protect their own future existence by whipping the masses with fear just to keep them from running away.
• 

  Terry

  reminds me of the concept of doublethink in 1984

  If you go back and read the novel anew the parallels are not only parallel to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society; they mirror it in every way detail for detail.

  I'm no conspiracy theorist, but, the correspondency is so exact as to be dictated by a careful shadowing of the Thoughtspeak policies and Doublethink.

  Chilling.

  T.