Posts by Old Goat

16

miller and russell... the best laugh i've had for a while

by Aussie Oz in

i just can't contain my mirth (and disgust ) about the the history of the wt soc any more!.

the history of miller and his teachings, barbour being a millerite and a guide to the then young russell cemented the truth of the modern day wt organizations history as opposed to its own whitewashed version of history.. for 37 years i saw them as the one true religion.

now i just see them as total frauds.

Old Goat

Every religion has connections to the past. Jehovah's Witnesses are a millenarian movement and connect to that movement in broad ways. The millenarian movement is wider than Millerism, including in its scope many British and German theologians. A recent post over at http://truthhistory.blogspot.com/ reveals Russell's dependence on William Warleigh, an Anglican. That was total news to me.

As far as Nelson Barbour goes, read Nelson Barbour: The Millennium's Forgotten Prophet by Schulz and de Vienne. It's excellent history, entertaining to read, and will open your eyes. It's not an anti-witness book, just history, and probably more important for that. You can buy the book via lulu.com .

I'm not disturbed by a Russellite connection to Miller. And that there is one is not news. What disturbs me is the persistence among modern Jehovah's Witnesses of a dictatorial approach to theology. They stifle theological debate under the guise of banning apostate thinking. They formulate practices that go beyond Biblical practice. You don't really need a list do you? I don't reject Witnesses as Christians. I do reject the practices of Witness Hierarchy as un-Christian and dictatorial. Yes, the Bible says to respect those taking the lead, but one has to answer the question: "Leading to where?"

47

OMG! I am 50 this year! Why am I freaking out? Anger - how do you cope?

by hamsterbait in

jw
friends

i was told when i hit thirty and was catastrophising, "just wait till you are 40, it just gets better.".

ha!.

i am fifty in a few weeks.

Old Goat

I'd be happy to tell you how I coped, but I'm not sure I remember 50 at all. It doesn't get better, it gets worse. My only problem at 40 was some butt-spread. My hair started thinning at 50. At sixty I started to hurt constantly. Now ... sometimes i remember to tie my shoes ... I can hardly wait for 80. So near, so much fun, such adventure, such aches and pains! Quit yer whinin' buster! You're a spring chicken.

2

Simply Amazing

by Old Goat in

i lurk mostly.

i enjoy reading the posts.

i shake my head at some, nod with others and have endless sympathy for many posters.

Old Goat

I lurk mostly. I enjoy reading the posts. I shake my head at some, nod with others and have endless sympathy for many posters. My interest tends toward history. If you've read my previous posts you know this. I recommended the new book on Nelson Barbour. You should read it. It's fun to see straight history as told by a Witnesses with little toleration for either Watchtower or anti-Watchtower nonsense.

I follow the author's blog. It's lain fallow for a while, but I see he's been posting his research again. (I wish he'd learn how to formant things!) His newest post consists of rough draft of material on the first Watchtower tracts. I see that he intends much more with this than he's posted thus far. What struck my interest is that he probes into the background of Russell's belief system, and he doesn't spare Russell when he's being idiotic. Of course some of us will ask, "When was he not being a bit idiotic." But we won't argue that point now.

In the current post he delves into Russell's belief that the existence of evil was essential. He traces it to an English clergyman from whom Russell borrowed with out credit or reference. While analyzing one of the early Bible Student Tracts and the influences behind it, he writes:

"Neither Russell nor Warleigh relied on Biblical proof for any of this. Instead they relied on a chain of inferences, some of them quite flawed. Warleigh’s definition of pity was especially flawed, and both Russell and he limited the scope of Adam’s perfect intellect so that they presupposed a need for experiential learning. Apparently neither of them thought Adam or Eve capable of abstract reason.

Russell liked what he read of Warleigh’s work and adapted it uncritically. Warleigh wrote: “Man was the masterpiece of all creation” This viewpoint may be more understandable in him because he was Trinitarian and saw Jesus as uncreated, a part of the ‘godhead.” Still, it is hared to forgive him this bit of nonsense in the light of the Psalm that has man a little less than angels. Russell borrowed this though wholesale, writing that man was “the masterpiece of God’s workmanship.” At least Russell had the good sense to limit that status to man’s state among earthly creatures. Even then the though implies that the rest of God’s earthly creation was only practice and not as well formed.

This is a history and not a theology text, and I will not discuss the theological merit of these ideas at length. The two most obvious problems were that Warleigh and Russell after him relied on “reason” and not scripture. They denied that their scheme made God the author of sin, but if He saw it as “necessary” so man could be taught “good,” planned for it, made it inevitable – who else was?

This belief undercut his more thought-out view of Atonement and Reconciliation, though it was scant few of his opponents that saw the flaw. Many of them shared his admiration for Warleigh. Most of this doctrine was abandoned by Jehovah’s Witnesses under J. F. Rutherford. Many Bible Students continue to believe it, though without any understanding of its roots."

In these few tame and scholarly words, this Witness writer does more to expose Russell as the theological bumbler he was than almost any of the sensationalist material that floats around on the web. I love this! Dry history? Yes, I suppose. But such gems hidden in this research!

Visit the blog. Wade through the history and look for the gems! http://truthhistory.blogspot.com/

And I recommend his book too: Nelson Barbour: The Millennium's Forgotten Prophet. (lulu.com)

24

More from the June 15th WT on the Love at the meetings.

by life is to short in

this wt just keeps getting better and better, ok well the start of it was the worst the generation change but man this whole wt is really ticking me off.

i must just be in some mood right now.

it has taken me the whole week to listen to it.

Old Goat

As my name implies, I'm old. I figure that I've attended about 17,000 meetings, including conventions and assemblies. (That's a rough guess and probably a bit low considering the years when we treaveled and attended more than more than our share of conventions.) Out of all those meetings, I probably enjoyed 500. Now that may seem like a lot of enjoyable meetings, but spread that out between the mid 1940's and now, and it ain't many, bub.

The meetings fail in many ways, but the gossip, back biting, stupidity, and idiocy just leave me cold. I was raised in a congregation that thought of itself as having "high standards." The standards were set, not by the Bible, but by the personal opinion of a bunch of old women who held the congregation servant's ear. (CompanyServant way back when.)

Love among the "brothers" is startlingly rare. Pettiness is common.

2

Vintage colour WT

by 5thGeneration in

jw
friends

anyone know where i can get a vintage colour wt like the one below?.

i kind of want one with the nice colours, crosses and masonic cross and crown.. i wanted to frame it for my office and just tell people it's part of my truthtm heritage.

.

Old Goat

Watch for it on ebay. It's expensive though. Maybe you can find someone who can make a color photocopy?

16

TEST YOUR INSIDE KNOWLEDGE: Watchtower Origns: a Saga begins

by Terry in

[if !mso]> <mce:style><!

v\:* {behavior:url(#default#vml);} o\:* {behavior:url(#default#vml);} w\:* {behavior:url(#default#vml);} .shape {behavior:url(#default#vml);} [endif][if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>normal</w:view> <w:zoom>0</w:zoom> <w:donotoptimizeforbrowser /> </w:worddocument> </xml><!

[endif] .

Old Goat

None of the “core beliefs” attributed to Ellen G. White came from her, and Russell owes nothing to her. The beliefs listed were common to the Millerite movement, and preceded E. White’s “visions.” (She was a plagiarist, stealing freely from other Second Adventists including Horace Lorenzo Hastings.)

Russell entered Adventism on the non-sabatarian side of the clan. He was most influenced by those associated with Advent Christians, the Life and Advent Union, and various smaller sects who used the name “Church of God” or Restitutionist.

In my opinion Russell weasels out of the association by saying he owed something to Second Adventists (He mentions Stetson [Advent Christian] and Storrs [Formerly Life and Advent Union, independent at the time of their meeting]). His doctrines were borrowed from them, or he was introduced to them through Adventists. This included soul-sleep, his date system, his view of the labor/capital conflict, etc.

The Russellite date system was the creation of Nelson Barbour. (The best resource on Barbour and his associates is the book Nelson Barbour: The Millennium’s Forgotten Prophet, available at lulu.com. I can’t recommend this enough. It’s straight history, not a polemic. And it’s more damaging because it is well documented history and not speculation. The authors manage to point out the faults in previous discussion of Barbour and his time with Russell. The chapter on Russell is too brief for my taste, but apparently they intend to enlarge on it in a follow up book.)

Barbour had nothing to do with Seventh-day Adventists. After severing ties with the Advent Christian Church and then with Russell, he identified with The Church of the Blessed Hope, founded in Cleveland, Ohio, by Mark Allen. The church still exists as about two or three small congregations.

Most of Russellite and Adventist doctrine derives from others, particularly Anglicans. The prophetical frame work of both bodies as it was in the 19 th Century was derived from Mede and the Anglican Bishop Thomas Newton. Both authors were circulated and read among Adventists generally, non-Sabatarian Adventists (Second Adventists) in particular.

The basic date system that Russell borrowed from Barbour is the creation of two Anglicans, E. B. Elliott and Christopher Bowen. (Bowen’s bio. is in a footnote in Nelson Barbour: The Millennium’s Forgotten Prophet. Buy this book! You’re missing out if you do not.)

Daniel T. Taylor, a prominent Advent Christian and briefly interested in Barbour’s date setting, wrote Voice of the Church in All Ages. There are several editions; the later editions are more complete. He details where many of the Second Advent doctrines came from, especially their view of the impending millennium. They relied heavily on Anglicans, Lutherans (eg Bengal), and a few non-conformists.

To say that Russell borrowed doesn’t detract from what he tried to do. Borrowing really isn’t the point. It’s not that he borrowed but what he borrowed. The biography of Barbour I mentioned above makes this point:

“What Russell ‘got from Barbour’ is consistently overstated, the object being to discredit Russell on the basis that his doctrine wasn’t original. Russell would be horrified at the suggestion that he originated anything. He sought the ‘Old Theology,’ the Bible’s actual teachings. Even if one believes he succeeded indifferently, criticizing him for lack of originality seems silly.”

I agree with that. There is little that is original in modern (Post Reformation) theology. It’s all borrowed. So what? The issue is the quality of the borrowing. Russell, if you’ll excuse the term, sucked at choosing what to borrow.

Paradise restored, the death state, the Russellite chronology, his view of Armageddon, his no-nameism and more all came from some place else. This is true of Luther, Calvin, and pastor what’s-his-name down the street. All their doctrines are borrowed. It’s a non-issue.

The date 1914 does not come from John Nelson Darby. (Ever read Darby? He’s not the bad guy here. Dispensationalism may be a crock, but Darby was an excellent Bible student. Try reading some of what he wrote.) The 1914 date comes from several sources, but it entered Russell’s theology through Barbour who got it from E. B. Elliot, an Anglican.

Many of the details and sources of Barbourite theology are non-Adventist. Read the dang book I mentioned.

Also, while Russellites still view Russell as the “mouthpiece of God”, Witnesses do not. Witness theology underwent a drastic change in the late 1920 and early 1930’s. It owes more to Christadelphian roots than you may expect. Compare Rutherford’s Light with John Thomas’ Eureka.

94

Jephthah's Daughter

by cantleave in

i have read somewhere that jephthah's daughter did not really go into temple service but was a victim of ritual sacrifice.

the bible says that after weeping over her virginity that the maidens would visit her annually.

how could they visit her if she was killed?.

Old Goat

Based on the Hebrew grammar, A. C. Hervey, author of the commentary on Judges for the Pulpit Commentary, says: ""She was to be 'Jehovah's,' an expression unnecessary if it was to be make a burn offering, and which could only mean 'dedicated to perpetual virginity or priesthood.' ... The inference is imperative. It was not death, but perpetual virginity, to which she was devoted."

Back in the 1890's Patrick Fairbairn wrote an exhaustive article on Jephthah's sacrifice and its implications. He reached the same conclusion. She was dedicated to temple service and a perpetual virgin. (Fairbairn's Standard Bible Encyclopedia).

As I check through most of the commentaries and dictionaries, this seems to be the consensus. The argument that is most persuasive to me is the grammatical one.

14

A CO's diagnosis and counsel

by ldrnomo in

jw
friends

some time back when i was an elder and expressed my concerns about the blood doctrine to another elder (in confidence) the news got back to the whole body of elders and the co who i will just call (bro.

smith) .

after speaking to me for some time and determining that i did not believe in the wt blood doctrine.

Old Goat

38

Science Fiction recommendations

by JeffT in

so i have my daughter (a 33 year old choreographer turned psych student) reading rah.

so far she's read double star and tunnel in the sky, she stayed up all night friday night finishing tunnel.

she's working on the moon is a harsh mistress now.

Old Goat

I've been an Asimov fan since the early 1950's. I like many of the golden age of SF writers.

Ann McCaffrey is good. I like the Pern series best I think, and after that the Rowan series.

David Eddings keeps me entertained. Anything by A. C. Crispin is good. (Full disclosure: Ann's a friend. Her books are good, friendship aside.)

I discovered Rachael de Vienne by reading the truthhistory blog. She co-wrote the Nelson Barbour biography I've recommended on this board. She writes fantasy fiction too, and I fell in love with her book, Pixie Warrior. I bought the audio version from audible.com. I'd have chosen a different reader, but it was well worth it. I also bought the ebook version.

Reading her book led me to her publisher's web site, and I've read a number of their books. The quality seems quite high on average.

I enjoyed all the Artamis Fowel books. Yes, I know they're Young Adult fiction, but they're still fun.

I should plug my own books, but then I'd generate more problems for myself than I wish. If you read YA books, you may find one -- or one can hope you do. My non-Witness dad introduced me to Science Fiction and Fantasy. I have most of his books and re-read them. Between his library and mine and what my wife has added there must be four or five hundred SF and Fantasy books on our shelves.

Guess you can tell that I never paid all that much attention to Watchtower advice not to read either genre.

15

How do elders step down?

by BlackSwan of Memphis in

catching up on some of the posts a thought came to mind..... .

if an elder or ms wants to step down, what is the process?

can it be as simple as saying "i need to step down" without having to supply an explanation?.

Old Goat

Dear Eyeslice,

We had a brother who had to wear a beard. His doctor told him to because of some sort of skin disorder. If he shaved he got some of the worst skin and ingrown hair problems I've ever seen. His beard was clean, neatly trimmed, and very presentable. In the environment in which we both worked (government/academic types) neatly kept beards were common. The majority of the elder body (I think I was the only dissenter) wanted him removed as a Ministerial Servant. The two elders chosen to 'explain the issue' told him to live with the skin condition or be deleted. Understand that this was a painful condition. He kept his beard, and I never blamed him for that. One of the elders said, "People will think he's a hippie!" (That dates the episode) He wore expensive suits. He was very presentable. No one would ever have seen him as a hippie. (Or is that hippy?)

I understand the need to have those on the platform look nice. I don't understand some of the other rules. We had a sister who came straight from her job as a cook to meetings. She came in her work clothes. It was that or not make the meetings. One of the elders wanted to tell her to stop. She came in the last second. She sat in the back. No one minded. We all knew what the circumstance was. That is - no one minded but an idiot elder who wanted her to wear a dress.

Then there was the great plastic coat controversy and its predecessor, the Nehru Jacket conspiracy. One of the brothers bought a black leather sports-coat style jacket. It was expensive and very presentable. He wore it on the platform a few times. No one objected. Brother "I’m pretty much clueless" went out and bought a mustard yellow plastic jacket. You know the type? Fake leather in a color not found in nature? He wore his on the stage. It was second hand and cracking and had a hole in the sleeve. I'm not picking on someone too poor to afford nice clothes. He just liked the coat. We asked him to wear something better. He exploded. The "other brother" got to wear is leather coat, then he should be able to wear this plastic abomination! The resolution? Brother A retired his leather sports coat for casual use only. Brother B still wanted to wear his plastic "thing" but didn't. Petty and stupid.

I'll leave the great Nehru Jacket conspiracy for another day.

Parking? Yes! I was in the attendant department at a convention. Across the street from the convention was a MethodistChurch. Two of our attendants, based on what a department head told them, tried to regulate parking over at the church. Moronic? Heard of the Masonic Conspiracy (don't laugh. I don't believe in it either) This was the great Moronic Conspiracy! Anyway, I walk out to where they were and find them across the street at the Church. I tell them to leave those people alone. They insist it's their job to control parking. I say, not on a public street, it's not, and not in someone else's parking lot. Anyone remember the District Servant named Dugan? Tough man, but fair. He finally had to tell the idiot in charge of parking to stop.

These things are just silly. They do not mark witnesses as perverts, anti-christs, evil sectarians or any such thing. Just as inordinately silly. They put people in positions of responsibility who are not trained, have only marginal good sense, and almost no experience. If there is blame in this silliness, it rests on a governing body that is anti-intellectual and leaves the elders untrained in areas that matter.