Posts by stirred but not shaken

79

I know 2 of the Elders on the Ray Franz JC

by James Jackson in

when i read coc, i was stunned that the 2 elders (theotis french & rob dibble) were on ray franz judcial committee.

i have known these men for over 20 years having done rbc and convention work with them.

they are still elders today which means they were in their early 30's(which is unheard of for a case of this importance to have inexperienced elders to sit on) on this committee.. without revealing myself, i have never tried(but have wanted to), ask them about their on having to judge a former gb member.. then out of the blue, about a year ago, i was mentioning how hard it is trying to get younger ones to volunteer to one of these elders, and he says"this is nothing compared to to sitting on the committee that had to disfellowship ray franz".

stirred but not shaken

Dis Member. Have you tried this appoach yourself or know of anyone that has, and were the results positive? I know what you're saying, and it would seem like the right thing to do...but..I really don't want to derail this thread, but feel that "response" is very relavant. I'd be looking for a favorable or positive response. It took knowledge, tact and other learned techniques to convince them to change and accept our theology and convert. That was the "prize" we sought. The difference now is, that they know you've defected in some way and they have been warned by the constant flow of information from the org and other friends, that you are to be held at a distance even if you haven't been DFd or DAd. Since I and others like me are interested in helping them see the real truth,.. knowledge, tact and technique are still good tools, and to be used to get positive results. Being abrupt and forthright may not get the desired response, in fact it will likely deepen their resolve. From my own experience, I would have put up a walled, immoveable, defense, had I been approached by one of my long time mentors intent on exposing "my beloved organization". Unfortunately we're in a delemma that is, to say the least, frustrating. Something has to set their alarm off, and to initiate that successfully is the technique I, for one, would welcome. I have literally hundreds of friends and at least 75 relatives involved with this organization and would like nothing more that to help them "see the light".

JJ is probably experiencing something similar. In my opinion, you can't just tell your wife that her new dress makes her butt look big. It may be true, but you won't get the desired response. Perhaps if you installed a 3 part, full length mirror, she would see it for herself. I'm hoping that mirror finds it's way into a few of those loved ones posession.

79

I know 2 of the Elders on the Ray Franz JC

by James Jackson in

when i read coc, i was stunned that the 2 elders (theotis french & rob dibble) were on ray franz judcial committee.

i have known these men for over 20 years having done rbc and convention work with them.

they are still elders today which means they were in their early 30's(which is unheard of for a case of this importance to have inexperienced elders to sit on) on this committee.. without revealing myself, i have never tried(but have wanted to), ask them about their on having to judge a former gb member.. then out of the blue, about a year ago, i was mentioning how hard it is trying to get younger ones to volunteer to one of these elders, and he says"this is nothing compared to to sitting on the committee that had to disfellowship ray franz".

stirred but not shaken

Dis-Member. I'm in a similar situation. Served with extensive priveleges for many years and helped many "into the truth". At least a half a dozen became elders, and all became good friends. They're just as indoctrinated as I was. When I meet them now by accident, they're uncomfortable and make an awkward attempt to converse. The "switch" has gone on. It's called Satan alert. CAUTION! So I'm wondering what kind of response you think you'd get if you went back to all those that you studied with and tried to reverse what you had taught them? JJ is doing some balancing. Coming off as a raging apostate, or even a calm one, will close if not slam the door. You gotta pick your time and place..and that ain't easy.

15

I want to know. Don't you?

by Old Goat in

some of you are probably a bit tired of me promoting these history books, but im doing it again.

1. nelson barbour: the millenniums forgotten prophet.

de vienne is not.

stirred but not shaken

OG..Thanks for keeping this alive. Hopefully others here will see the importance of having their facts straight before engaging in mud slinging regarding Russell. His thinking, ideas and teaching was like so many others of that time. They didn't all agree, in fact they seldom agreed, but they were hospitable (with some exceptions) and even published each others views. Men like Barbour, Stettson, Storrs, Thomas(responsible for the Christadelphian movement), etc., were involved in dialogs that would often take pendulum type swings as world events changed.

As you point out, they call out Zydek, a so called specialist on Wt. history for his inaccuracies. It was suggested to me to read his writing when I began to search, and I know that I repeated what I read to others. But it was not accurate. Now I have egg on my face. The authors of Separate Identity are far more faithful in their research and reproduce the documentation for the reader.

It is a long read. As JWs we were not used to that. As it is, I learned from my experience with Zydek and others, not to make statements that can't be verified. It makes the Wt. dissenter (honest or otherwise) appear what the org wants others to believe - spiteful, hateful liars.

I think it's evident that I would recommend the book and the one previous about Nelson Barbour.

Oh, and thanks for clearing up Schulz' JW affiliation.

15

I want to know. Don't you?

by Old Goat in

some of you are probably a bit tired of me promoting these history books, but im doing it again.

1. nelson barbour: the millenniums forgotten prophet.

de vienne is not.

stirred but not shaken

The books OG refers to are the most comprehensive and well documented history of Russell and those who were known as associates at that time. For starters, he was never a second adventist and had almost nothing to do with Wm. Miller. He was associated with "Age to Come" believers. The dealings with some of those mentioned in the Proclaimers book such as George Stetson, Jonas Wendell, George Storrs, Henry Grew, W.H. Conley, etc., are well documented accounts. The authors are only interested in presenting the facts, and if there is no documentation for it, it won't be presented. I'm not so sure if Schulz is presently a JW..I don't think so.

The work is far, far more detailed and documented than anything the WBTS has presented or could. It is at first a bit laborious, but for those who want to know where all this came from, it is well worth the read.

After having been personally associated with the WBTS for over 60 years and being the 3rd generation, I'm still trying to unravel all the old myths. These books help put things in perspective. You will be particularly impressed with George Storrs.

Attacking statements that some have made regarding Russell and others involved in the groups previously mentioned, are passed on without verification and can and will damage credibility. These books will help those on this board who wish to comment on the WBTS history, to be accurate and more credible. I know I've learned a ton, and only about half done with the second book.

50

My daughter's wedding dilemma

by RULES & REGULATIONS in

my daughter will be getting married this coming august.

she and her future husband are not jehovah's witnesses.

they will have a non-religious wedding ceremony.

stirred but not shaken

Having been a long time elder, I can predict what the "faithful" will do, especially if any have positions of oversight. If they are not previously informed, they will feel obliged to leave, and feel justified with an impending reward for being faithful.

JW Facts mentioned "reality"...I agree, it must be faced. It would be something like inviting orthodox Jews and serving a ham dinner disguised as lamb. When they find out, they'll be incensed. "You should know better, and you tried to pull something over on us".

The caveat here might be that it is a non-witness wedding and they can invite anyone they wish, and the excusing witness will not feel that they have to be forewarned, because it is afterall, a non witness affair. They will then expect that there will be non-witness relatives and other worldly guests. If this cousin attends, they will likely take their usual position of ignoring that individual.

I was once informed by a former CO at a rather large and rather ornate reception, that if the separated and disfellowshipped husband/father appeared, we would all have to leave. He didn't, and all went well..whew.

18

Charles Taze Russell

by thedog1 in

jw
friends

i think i read somewhere, here or maybe on another forum, that somebody claimed that c.t.

russell stood on the brooklyn bridge with some others, all in white robes, in 1878, waiting for the rapture.

any truth in that?.

stirred but not shaken

Old Goat has nailed it. The book (the second in a series) he refers to is by far the most comprehensive and best documented account of the history of Russell and the Bible Students. In an attempt to vilify Russell, too many make inaccurate statements, passing on rumors as facts. This only gives the opposition the powder they need. BTW, Russell was never an adventist.

14

Dating the writing of a Bible book

by stirred but not shaken in

while doing the research over the last several years that lead me to conclude that the wt.

society was in error, i was introduced to the possibility that the writings of all scripture was completed by the early to mid 60s ce.

the reasoning that is used in the publications varies.

stirred but not shaken

kaik,

There's certainly more than a few theories as to the identity of Babylon the Great. At least a couple of the commentators that I've read have suggested that it is none other than Jerusalem. It seems to be used cryptically. Much like when in Rev. 11:8 says "in a spiritual sense called Sodom" and later in that verse "in a spiritual sense called...Egypt". The only city likened to Sodom in the Bible is Jerusalem. (Deut. 29:22-29; Isa. 1:10;Isa. 3:9; Jer. 23:14; Ezek. 16:46). Rev. 11:8 continues, "the great city...where their Lord was also impaled". Luke 13:33 states: "Nevertheless, I must go on my way today and tomorrow and the following day, because it is not admissible for a prophet to be destroyed outside of Jerusalem."

There are quite a few more biblical references that indicate or suggest that it would be Jerusalem. Getting a historical background on Sodom and Egypt and their dealings with Jerusalem seem to fit. Many prefer to say that it was Rome, but there's a good case for it being Jerusalem. This is a really abreviated rendering, but there's quite a bit more to add. Food for thought. It sure beats the heck out of the "worldwide empire of false religion", shortly to be destroyed by the UN.

14

Dating the writing of a Bible book

by stirred but not shaken in

while doing the research over the last several years that lead me to conclude that the wt.

society was in error, i was introduced to the possibility that the writings of all scripture was completed by the early to mid 60s ce.

the reasoning that is used in the publications varies.

stirred but not shaken

Phizzy,

My purpose for initiating the post, was to point out that there is no book in the christian scriptures that comments on the destruction of Jerusalem post 70 CE. If, as you suggest, they are all later writings, should we not expect some comment on that event? Besides the vast wealth that was to be found in Jerusalem, Herod's temple was a masterpiece of architecture and viewed by many surrounding nations as a landmark. Other than writers like Josephus, there is nothing to be found in the scriptures.

I will still investigate the scholars that suggest the later writing you refer to. I'm not sure where to start, but I'll get around to it eventually.

14

Dating the writing of a Bible book

by stirred but not shaken in

while doing the research over the last several years that lead me to conclude that the wt.

society was in error, i was introduced to the possibility that the writings of all scripture was completed by the early to mid 60s ce.

the reasoning that is used in the publications varies.

stirred but not shaken

Thanks Ann. Phizzy, I'll look that up. I have some of the "old" standard bible dictionaries, concordances and commentaries, like Clark's, Young's, Strong's, Halley, Douglas, Unger and others. But if I recall they will hold to 96-98 with a few exceptions in their notes of a possible earlier writing.

14

Dating the writing of a Bible book

by stirred but not shaken in

while doing the research over the last several years that lead me to conclude that the wt.

society was in error, i was introduced to the possibility that the writings of all scripture was completed by the early to mid 60s ce.

the reasoning that is used in the publications varies.

stirred but not shaken

OT,

When I first started on my search about 2006, I read books from scholars who wrote in the mid to later 1800s. Several have been quoted in WT literature (for other reasons). A lot of them held to an earlier writing of Revelation. Including Westcott & Hort if I remember correctly. I was completely unaware that there could be an alternative date for that book. While visiting the internet on the subject of 607, I saw that book by Jonnson advertised. At the time I was still suspicious of books not sponsored by the WT and found on sites known to be anti witnesses. So what I had learned came from, in several cases, sources that pre-dated the WT Society.

Since then I have come to know more about Jonnson's work, and have read sections from other sources. Many from this forum. There are several JWs who have degrees in Hebrew studies, etc. and I've read some of their work. I will likely get a copy of "Gentile Times..." some time in the future, but wanted to be sure that I could tell people that my sources were not exJWs. I don't have much of a problem with that now.

As to reading or seaching non-cannonical books, I've only read certain quotes, except for the 1 & 2 Maccabees. There is also quite a bit of commentary out there on the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Qumran era that I spent more than a little time on. It is quite revealing to know that there is considerable writings from non-cannonical books found there. They shed light on some things that you won't find in just the scriptures we're familiar with.

All of this is quite a process, but it has helped me quite a bit to reconcile disputed understandings.