Posts by stev

57

Barbara Anderson- Your new book on Russell

by IW in

jw
friends

barbara,.

i read this recently on the biblestudents.net forum:i know barbara, we use to talk on the phone, when she learned i was writing a history of pastor russell and the ibsa.

in the countless hours we spent on the phone.

Barbara Anderson- Your new book on Russell

by IW in

jw
friends

barbara,.

i read this recently on the biblestudents.net forum:i know barbara, we use to talk on the phone, when she learned i was writing a history of pastor russell and the ibsa.

in the countless hours we spent on the phone.

stev

Below are three quotes from the volumes. The "writer" in each case would be Charles T. Russell, and not Maria.

C93

was predicted for the first movement, and waiting for the 1335 days was necessary; but the second was not a disappointment, and a waiting was no longer necessary; for fulfilment came exactly at the close of the 1335 prophetic days--in October 1874. It was just following the close of the 1335 years, the period of "waiting," that the fact of our Lord's presence, as taught by the foregoing prophecies, began to be recognized. It was very early in the morning of the new age, but it was the "midnight" hour, so far as the deep slumbering of the virgins was concerned, when the cry (which is still ringing) went forth, "Behold the Bridegroom!"--not Behold the Bridegroom cometh,* but Behold he has come, and we are now living "in the [parousia] presence of the Son of man." And such has been the character of the present movement, since that date: a proclamation of the Lord's presence and of the kingdom work now in progress. The writer, and colaborers, proclaimed the fact of the Lord's presence, demonstrating it from prophecy, and on charts or tables, such as are used in this book, until the fall of 1878, when arrangements were made for starting our present publication, "ZION'S WATCH TOWER, and Herald of Christ's Presence." By the Lord's blessing, millions of copies of this publication have carried abroad the tidings that the time is fulfilled, and that the Kingdom of Christ is even now being set up, while the kingdoms and systems of men are crumbling to their utter destruction.

C312

Thinking it might be interesting to our readers we give below

Prof. C. Piazzi Smyth's Letter
Clova, Ripon, England, Dec. 21, 1890 Wm. M. Wright, Esq.,

Dear Sir: I have been rather longer than I could have wished in looking over the MS. of your friend, C. T. Russell of Allegheny, Pa., but I have now completed a pretty careful examination, word by word. And that was the least I could do, when you so kindly took the pains to send it with such care between boards by registered parcel, with every page flat, and indited by the typewriter in place of the hand.

B223

Nor is it a cunningly devised correspondency, arranged to suit the facts; for many of these parallels, and other truths, were seen from prophecy, and were preached as here presented, several years prior to A.D. 1878--that year being announced as the time of returning favor to Israel, before it came, and before any event marked it so. The author of this volume published these conclusions drawn from Scripture, in pamphlet form, in the spring of A.D. 1877.

57

Barbara Anderson- Your new book on Russell

by IW in

jw
friends

barbara,.

i read this recently on the biblestudents.net forum:i know barbara, we use to talk on the phone, when she learned i was writing a history of pastor russell and the ibsa.

in the countless hours we spent on the phone.

stev

Regarding the claim that Maria Russell wrote the first 4 volumes of Millennial Dawn:

After thinking about it, I am skeptical of this claim.

It is true that Charles T. Russell did acknowledge the help of his wife in connection with the volumes, and did use an editorial staff, and Maria was Associate Editor without her name attached to her articles.

On the other hand, like Maria, Charles was capable of writing the books himself. He had written the Object and Manner booklet (1877) , and the Tabernacle and its teachings (1881). Maria could not have helped him with Vol. 5 (1899) or the lengthy Vol. 6 (1903).

Charles was probably more familiar with the time proofs than Maria, having preached them with Barbour, and modifying them in the Tower.

If it is true, Maria was the one responsible for originating the "that servant" doctrine and applying to her husband Charles. If she did indeed write the four volumes and knew it, it seems unlikely to me that she would have done this. The volumes at that time were the main means of spreading the "present truth". This would confirm to me that she thought that Charles had written the volumes himself, and not her.

If Charles was as egotistical and demeaning toward women as the judge in the court case determined, than it doesn't seem reasonable to me that he would arrange for his wife to write the books and palm them off as his own. An egotist would have written the books himself.

It is difficult to imagine any person like Charles who thinks they know the Divine secrets of the timing of Christ's invisible presence and the end of society and feels it is their personal mission to tell others, would give up the opportunity to write about it. There is much ego involved in being a prophet, and would have Charles passed up on being the author of these books?

Even if after the bitter court case, Charles still promoted the Studies in the Scriptures, and made the claim that they were the key to understanding the Bible, and necessary for staying in the light. This extremely laudatory promotion of these books is understandable if he wrote them himself, but does not seem credible if Maria wrote them.

John Paton wrote the book Day Dawn around 1880, and Russell promoted the book, but when he and Paton parted company, he no longer did so. If Maria did in fact write the first four volumes, it would seem difficult for Charles to think of them as highly as he said.

What's more, if Maria had in fact written the books, then she and not Charles is responsible for the dogmatic and unqualified statements regarding the chronological predictions, and the fatalistic, inevitable, and total collapse of society and the establishment of the Kingdom. Historically, it makes a difference who wrote these claims. To me, if Maria had in fact written them, it would be lower my estimation of her. Whoever was responsible for writing in this tone was not serving the public interest, and is the worst thing that came out of the Russell movement.

Unfortunately, other than a manuscript, there is little today that could confirm whether Maria's claim is true. The circumstances of their marriage is unusual and even bizarre, and we have a "he said", "she said" situation here.

22

Time Magazine (1927) - Rutherford a Circuit Judge for 14 years!!

by VM44 in

here is an article published in the august 1, 1927 issue of time magazine.

the footnote says concerning rutherford that "he was for 14 years a circuit judge in missouri".. where the the time reporter get that information from rutherford?

more accurately it should have said, "he filled in temporarily as a missouri circuit judge for a total of four days".. this is another example of rutherford bluffing and inflating his credentials to make himself look good to the public.. --vm44.

stev

Leolaia

On your post regarding 1928:

The Pastoral Bible Institute (PBI) published the Herald magazine, and not Paul S L Johnson. Johnson split to form his own group and magazine. The issues of the Herald are all online. The Gentile Times Reconsidered book mentions that the PBI expected the end of the Gentile Times in 1934, so that could be why the date 1934 was used.

Perhaps the date 1928 came from Morton Edgar's Great Pyramid Passages. Or from Adam Rutherford, who was also a Pyramidologist.

IMO, good and intelligent men have wasted their talents on finding dates and symbolism in the Pyramid. All the failed dates have shown that this is fruitless diversion.

38

Was Rutherford Mentally Ill?

by VM44 in

in the golden age goodies thread leolaia has posted two letters that were printed in the magazine written by rutherford, one in 1928 and the other in 1938. in both letters rutherford states either that radio "was created by god" or "no man invented radio".. rutherford also goes into his conspiratorial ideas of how the roman catholic church was working with the nazis to overthrow the governments of england and of the usa to bring in a totalitarian fascist government to both countries.. these remarks sound like the ravings of someone who is not mentally all there.. so the question that naturally arises is this: was rutherford mentally ill?.

i believe that he was.. --vm44

stev

Rutherford was a manipulator and a lawyer and had been involved in Southern politics, so I wonder how much of his activity was conscious, planned, crafty. His power plays and changes in policy to gain more power seemed to been have planned and calculated. The craft does not fit the image of a madman.

Whether mentally ill, the comparison to Hitler is apt. If he wasn't mentally ill, then he was an evil man.

38

Was Rutherford Mentally Ill?

by VM44 in

in the golden age goodies thread leolaia has posted two letters that were printed in the magazine written by rutherford, one in 1928 and the other in 1938. in both letters rutherford states either that radio "was created by god" or "no man invented radio".. rutherford also goes into his conspiratorial ideas of how the roman catholic church was working with the nazis to overthrow the governments of england and of the usa to bring in a totalitarian fascist government to both countries.. these remarks sound like the ravings of someone who is not mentally all there.. so the question that naturally arises is this: was rutherford mentally ill?.

i believe that he was.. --vm44

stev

There are other Bible Students whose mental stability has been questioned too - C. T. Russell, Clayton Woodworth, Paul S. L. Johnson. We could add cult leaders, and the founders of any religion we thought delusional, or claimed to be God's messenger. Anthony Storr wrote a book "Feet of Clay" about the psychology of gurus, and discussed Freud, Jung, and Jesus, and discussed the question of mental illness.

There is sometimes a fine line between genius and madness. William Blake was considered to be mad by some of his contemporaries, but by others today he is a genius.

Does delusional thinking cause mental illness, or does mental illness cause delusional thinking?

It's possible for good people to believe delusions.

It is more important to develop and use our critical thinking skills than to diagnose the mental illness of these leaders.

If we consider them mentally ill, it might make it easier for us to excuse their abusive behavior.

There are some religious leaders like George Fox, John Bunyan, Ellen White whose mentally stablity has been questioned but nevertheless it could argued they were a force for good in the world. Ellen White particularly is interesting because of her trances, and the possibility that these were caused by an early head injury.

And there are religious fanatics who yet are lovable eccentrics like the Shakers, the early Quakers, the Amish, and the perhaps even the early Bible Students.

As far as Rutherford goes, whether he was mentally ill or not, I personally have trouble finding something to like about him, and to find a redeeming quality. If there is such a thing as a cult leader, then he would be the classic textbook example.

And as for his remarks about the radio and the Catholic Church - these might be have been only a reflection of his religious views. He probably saw the radio as a Millenial foregleam, and the Catholic Church as "mother of harlots".

5

Where is the historical evidence of Gentile Times Reconsidered on the web?

by stev in

i was talking to someone about the book the gentile times reconsidered by carl olaf jonsson, and the historical evidence about the 70 years that is presented there.

i had studied the book years ago, and made a timetable myself and became convinced.

my friend would like to see the evidence for himself so he can he make up his own mind.

stev

Thanks for the link. I have emailed it to my friend.

Although I have read the Gentile Times Reconsidered, it was a few years ago, and I had to immerse myself in it for several months before I could reach a conclusion, and I made a timeline with all the information, and I could see that all the historical and Scriptural evidence lined up and harmonized. I showed my timeline to several people, but it was beyond them, and too complicated.

I looked over the historical evidence at AF's excellent blog, and I can hardly make sense of it now myself because it is so highly technical. I am afraid that my friend will be overwhelmed and give up on it. I am looking for something less technical. Is there a webpage that summarizes the events around 1980 with Jonsson, Penton, and Franz, and summarizes the 607 BC./70 years arguments?

Steve

5

Where is the historical evidence of Gentile Times Reconsidered on the web?

by stev in

i was talking to someone about the book the gentile times reconsidered by carl olaf jonsson, and the historical evidence about the 70 years that is presented there.

i had studied the book years ago, and made a timetable myself and became convinced.

my friend would like to see the evidence for himself so he can he make up his own mind.

stev

bump

5

Where is the historical evidence of Gentile Times Reconsidered on the web?

by stev in

i was talking to someone about the book the gentile times reconsidered by carl olaf jonsson, and the historical evidence about the 70 years that is presented there.

i had studied the book years ago, and made a timetable myself and became convinced.

my friend would like to see the evidence for himself so he can he make up his own mind.

stev

I was talking to someone about the book The Gentile Times Reconsidered by Carl Olaf Jonsson, and the historical evidence about the 70 years that is presented there. I had studied the book years ago, and made a timetable myself and became convinced. My friend would like to see the evidence for himself so he can he make up his own mind. Is there a good, concise webpage that summarizes it, without getting too detailed? I will send him the link. Thanks.

Steve

11

Would the Watchtower have 'self destructed' if 1914 had been peaceful?

by AK - Jeff in

another thread sparked this one.. if 1914 had come and gone without the advent of wwi, would the sect of bible students have just faded into the woodwork?.

was the war [obviously heavily referenced as proof of their claims] the bouy that allowed and spurned the growth into what we see today?.

jeff .

stev

Let's compare it to the Miller Movement. 1843 and 1844 came and went without Christ's return. One response is to admit the mistake. Storrs, a leader in the movement, rejected the date, that the movement was led by God, and rejected date-setting. This is the most painful response, but is the healthiest in the long run. Another response is "the wrong event at the right time". This is the SDA approach - the investigative judgment. Another response would be to set new dates. This is what the Second Adventists did.

The Bible Students/JWs have used these responses also.

The Watchtower would not have self-destructed if 1914 came and went peacefully, because it was not like the Miller Movement, which was based alone on the date-setting of 1843/1844. There was not enough to hold them together through the disappointment. The early Bible Students had other beliefs that set them apart from others, and were reasons why people joined Russell's group, such as hell, Arianism, restitution, the Kingdom, the two salvations, and there were ones that were likely attracted by Russell himself. These beliefs would have sustained the group, although many could have left.

Russell's changing expectations about 1914 is complex and not easy to explain. Russell expected that the time of trouble would occur between 1874-1914. There would be the three phases based on Elijah's experiences: War (wind), Revolution (earthquake), and Anarchy (fire). By 1904, Russell expected that the anarchy phase would occur between 1914-1915. But as 1914 approached there was less time for his predictions to come to pass. When the World War started in 1914, Russell saw this as the fulfillment of the first phase of War, which would be followed by worldwide revolution and then anarchy. It was apparent that other predictions had not been fulfilled, so the Bible Students were in a state of confusion, but looked to 1915, 1916, and 1918. Russell died in 1916. After the World War ended, the Russian Revolution occurred, which appeared like the Revolution phase had begun, and that the communists were taking over, as Russell had predicted.

From the vantage point of 2006, it is clear that Russell's chronological system failed, but it was not clear at the time. If nothing had happened in 1914, and Russell had rejected the whole system, the Bible Students/JWs would have been in the long run much heatlhier, although the disappointment and pain would have been greater. But the world events and Russell's death left the BIble Students confused over the predictions and vulnerable, and they never fully recovered. In the aftermath were divisions over Russell's predictions, Rutherford's manipulations, the Finished Mystery, the glorification of Russell, etc.