If you have joint custody and a religious decisions agreement, get a lawyer. But, you risk upsetting your daughter in ways you cannot foresee. Think it through. Ultimately, baptism means nothing. It's the life choices that are made afterward that matter. You'll be in a better position to "guide" those if she is happy than if she thinks you stood between her and Jehovah.
Old Goat
JoinedPosts by Old Goat
-
28
Question for Current or Former Elders (baptism of minors)
by Michelle365 ini have joint custody of my two children with my ex husband who is still raising the kids on his time as jws.
my 11 year old claims she is getting baptized at the next assembly.
i have heard that i can write a letter to the boe and say that i oppose her getting baptized before she is 18. is that true?
-
-
-
28
Question for Current or Former Elders (baptism of minors)
by Michelle365 ini have joint custody of my two children with my ex husband who is still raising the kids on his time as jws.
my 11 year old claims she is getting baptized at the next assembly.
i have heard that i can write a letter to the boe and say that i oppose her getting baptized before she is 18. is that true?
-
-
Old Goat
In this country, if you don't have custodial care or joint custody, your objection would mean nothing.
-
46
I Just Had A Big Fat Bomb Drop On My Head and It Leaves Alot Of Questions
by TotallyADD inwhen i got home from work this afternoon my wife was standing near the door looking at me and said you need to sit down i have some hard news to tell you.
so i sat down and she began saying my brother called and i imminently ask if my mom had died.
she said no but my mother told my brother a deep family secrect that no one knows about.
-
-
Old Goat
My sympathies. I have a half sister I've never met. When I found out she existed, she was underage and I did not contact her. I have no clue where she lives now. She would be in her 40s. I don't think she knows I exist. But every so often I think about her and wonder if my idiot father ever did right by her and her mother.
My dad was a bad man. Not a Witness at all. Just a rotter.
-
16
Update on the forth-coming history of Zion's Tower
by Old Goat inhttp://truthhistory.blogspot.com/.
one of the author's introductory essay in rough draft.
worth a read and comment, i think.
-
-
Old Goat
I don't see this as apologetic. I’ve never seen such detail. I've chucked at his footnotes. He is an equal opportunity smack-down artist on occasion. He calls crap crap when he sees it. This includes material from watchtower writers and everyone else. If he sees something as historically inaccurate, he says so. I can’t speak for him, but I see implied criticism of what Dr. de Vienne calls on her web page "a well known tract society." See this from his essay:
Mythology replaces history when lack of curiosity is coupled by lack of thorough research. Among Russell’s modern-day friends this is especially pronounced. A number of letters passed between us and institutions representing descendant religions. In a nearly uniform way, they focus on Russell, express lack of interest in anyone else, and simply do not look for detail. This distorts the history. Russell did not function in a vacuum. He was influenced by his friends, by his enemies, by what he read and experienced. These details are recoverable.
There is a fairly interesting examination of Russell's business ventures stuck on the end of chapter one. I'm impressed. I wish there was a bit more depth. But it's an example of what I said above. He takes apart Russelite claims, leaving them in the dust. He takes on some common opposition claims and pretty much trashes them too. So one is left with a flat narrative. I asked him if he intended to enlarge on the subject, and he said most of the business history was more appropriate for book three in this series. I've been looking on my own, but I can't improve on what they've written.
There is more detail (I'm fascinated by the details they give) than I was aware was out there. They mention a furniture business I knew nothing of. Stock investments on Wall Street are mentioned based on the Russell v. Russell transcript. Really fascinating is a quotation from the King v. Ross transcript. J. J. Ross's atorney and Russell. Interesting result. I'd paste it here, but last time I did something like that Dr. de Vienne saw it and scolded me soundly.
An example of a "you got it wrong" smack down is found in Chapter Two. Chapter two details his connections to Wendell and Stetson, giving extensive biographies of both men. (They quote from Pittsburgh papers about Wendell's first visit. Very interesting stuff). When the chapter transitions from Wendell to Stetson they write this:
Some considerable nonsense has come from the pen of Ralph Orr, one time editor and writer with the World Wide Church of God (Armstrongites). Orr asserted that Wendell predicted the return of Christ for 1874 and that he was responsible for the 2520 year count for the Times of the Gentiles. He says that after the failure of 1874, Wendell “replaced” that date with 1914. None of this is true. Gomes and Bowman suggested that Wendell provided a Seventh-day Adventist influence. This piece of utter nonsense should bring a sense of shame to the authors and their publisher Zondervan, though it probably does not.
They can become snippy. And it's very equally distributed.
In short, I don't see this as an apology, and I don't think they intend it to be one. I think we should take him at his word and see it as an attempt to tell accurate history.
I shouldn't get in trouble by noting this from the last chapter of volume one, the book due out sometime next year, because they posted it on the public blog:
Russell presupposed things about Adam’s creation and subsequent sin that aren’t found in the narrative or in the Apostle Paul’s comments. Russell wrote that Adam had significant grounds for doubting God. “What did Adam know about the matter?” he wrote. “Here was another being at his side who contradicted God, telling him that he would not die … that God was Jealous, because eating of this fruit would make him a god also.” He thought everyone would make the same decision Adam made. He thought God permitted Adam’s temptation and sin because “it was necessary that his creatures should know good from evil.”
Russell’s statement betrays profound scriptural-ignorance at least on this point. In the Genesis narrative the Serpent speaks to Eve not Adam. The Apostle’s commentary on this says Eve was deceived. Paul says Adam was not deceived, hence a willful sinner. Russell altered this view in later years, though he continued to think Adam would be resurrected and rehabilitated. If he had in 1878 seen Adam’s test as “fair” and Adam as “fully equipped mentally” his rebuttals would have been more to the point.
This does not seem to me to be something an apologist would write.
On Terry's definition: Many Baptists emphasize christ's return. They are not adventists. Besides, you're replying to their discussion without having read it. That's a bad idea. In the 19th Century there was a distinctive difference between Literalists and Adventists. Adventist historians such as Froom (Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers) discuss this. Both sects emphasized Christ's return. But Literalists were not Adventists. An attempt to draw Literalists into the Advent fold failed because Literalists thought Adventists were stupidly ignorent of the scriptures. This is not a new thought. This is well doucmented by Adventists in their own histories back to 1874 and discussed on the Voice of Truth back in the 1840s. This material is not hard to find.
-
16
Update on the forth-coming history of Zion's Tower
by Old Goat inhttp://truthhistory.blogspot.com/.
one of the author's introductory essay in rough draft.
worth a read and comment, i think.
-
-
-
16
Update on the forth-coming history of Zion's Tower
by Old Goat inhttp://truthhistory.blogspot.com/.
one of the author's introductory essay in rough draft.
worth a read and comment, i think.
-
-
Old Goat
They tell all that with startling clarity. But they tell more of the story than anyone else, and they take you places that Russell only hints at. They explore all the Millerite connections. There are photos of advertisements Storrs placed in NYC newspapers saying the end would come in 1843. But they also show whose doctrine shifted. Storrs’ did and dramatically so.
Chapters two and three are entitled:
2 Among the Second Adventists, Millenarians, and Age-to-Come Believers: 1869-1874
3 Among the Second Adventists, Millenarians, and Age-to-Come Believers: 1874-1876
They explore all the Adventist connections. But they also take you into his Millenarian connections. Millenarians were a separate group – the group Russell self-identified with. There are photos of and extracts of articles from contemporary papers and magazines. You will be pleased.
Chapter four is entitled A Separate Identity. It considers the early Bible class, starting with its real nature. The Watchtower CD shows a group composed of all men. Turns out this wasn’t so. They present a newspaper article that shows the bulk of those attending were women. There are brief biographies of W. H. Conley and G. D. Clowes. Clowes was elected pastor of the Allegheny Church of God (the group to whom Wendell preached). The Conley bio. is especially interesting. I thought he was an Adventist of some sort. Turns out he was not, but was connected to Peters (Theocratic Kingdom) and attended Peters’ church in Plymouth, Ohio.
They consider the group’s doctrinal journey. They break this down into key areas: 1. End of the Age; 2. Second Probation; 3. Ransom and Atonement; 4. Parousia and Restitution; 5. Restoration of the Jews; 6. World burning; 7. Baptism; 8. Resurrection; 9. Approach to Chronology and End-Times Prophetic Framework; 10. The Trinity; 11. Devil and Demons; 12 The Great Pyramid. 13 Church polity and other doctrines. In detail, citing original sources including Russell’s own words and the writings of those he knew (Storrs, Stetson, the Wilsons, J. A. Seiss, Shimeal, etc.) They show where his doctrines came from. Most of his doctrine is not Adventist at all but Millenarian.
The detail is – to use one of Dr. de Vienne’s favorite fluff words, “stellar.” Their book challenges accepted concepts, but I don’t think they lose the Adventist story at all. If anything, they tell more of it than anyone else has. This is, I think, a bit of forensic history.
-
21
Where did Pastor Russell get his TRUTH?
by Terry inmost jehovah's witnesses are aware there once lived a man named russell and he had something to do with the early years of their religion.. but, generally, interest in the early days is almost non-existent.
after all, nobody was running around calling themselves jehovah's witnesses, so what difference does any of that really make?.
russell and the origins of jw doctrines are, as a result of this total black out of curiousity, hidden and permanently obscured.. in fact, the only time charles taze russell is discussed is because some expose' by an apostate has raised a stink.. admitedly, most anti-jw books seek to dredge up scandals, lawsuits, accusations and failed predictions swirling around russell's ministry.. in my own opinion, none of that is half as interesting as the missing part of the equation: where from did pastor russell get his truth?.
-
-
Old Goat
By the time Russell met him, Barbour was no longer an Adventist, but was teaching millenarian, age-to-come belief. Storrs left Adventism in 1844 for an independent age-to-come belief system which he maintained and continued to advocate even while associated with the Life and Advent Union. If you read the truthhistory blog you will also see that the Allegheny church was not Adventist but One Faith as associated with The Restitution. They did not teach Adventist doctrine, and none of Russell's doctrine is uniquely Adventist. He, in fact, says it's not. We have every reason to believe him.
The two doctrinal sets are significantly different and the two groups said really nasty things about each other. When Schulz and de Vienne's new book comes out, you will find much of this detailed in the first three chapters. All of Russell's principal doctrines are derived from Age-to-Come belief. All Russell owed to Wendell is relief from hell fire belief.
The 1914 date is not derived from Adventism. Barbour got it from an Anglican, E. B. Elliott. Date speculation predates Adventism. You will find it among 18th Century German Lutherans and Anglican millenarians. You're articles are interesting, but you're barking up the wrong tree. Another example would be the 2520 year count of time. Not Adventist in origin. American Congregationalist from a book published in 1808.
Russell's unique view of restored paradise for many and heaven for few is not adventist. It comes from an Anglican and from a Brethren commentator. The idea that the jews would return to God's favor was strongly rejected by Adventists, but is an Age to Come belief. His view of resurrection, what some called "simultaneous resurrection" doctrine came from Benjamin Wilson. Wilson was an Age to Come adherent, never an Adventist. The two stage advent Russell taught until 1881 derives from Anglican commentators of the 17th and 18th Century. It is not an Adventist doctrine. Rejection of World Burning came from One Faith believers. It was the known teaching of J. T. Ongley, a one faith evangelist who preached to the Allegheny congregation. You will find somewhere on the truthhistory blog a copy of the One Faith church directory listing them as approved One Faith (aka restitution church, church of god) congregation.
I like your articles, Terry. But you're on the wrong trail. You're just repeating what you find on the internet and in poorly researched books. You can trace the real story through The Restitution and Bible Examiner. They're hard to find, but not impossible to locate.
Why do some expect Russell to have originated anything. That wasn't his goal, and he never claimed to do so.
I may get kicked off Schulz's private blog for doing so, but here is a small extract of what they've written:
Curry and those who have followed him base their conclusions on a series of misstatements and misperceptions. Russell, far from avoiding any connection with Miller, referred to him approvingly. So while it is true that Miller believed in a fiery end and rejected Conditional Immortality in favor of Inherent Immortality, these things did not serve to separate Russell from Miller. He saw the Millerite movement as the first step in a prophetic fulfillment, but wrong in doctrine. The idea that Russell avoided Adventist identity so that he could appear to be the independent restorer of primitive Christianity is invented from whole cloth. Russell saw himself as a kind of cut-and-paste Bible Student, reassembling from scattered sources the Old Theology. Russell said as much in 1889:
We must disclaim any credit even for the finding and rearrangement of the jewels of truth. “It is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes.” The writer wholly disclaims superior ability or qualification for the reorganization of the truth in its present solidarity. As the time had come for the bringing together of the scattered thoughts of past centuries in the marvelous inventions of our day. – so the time had come for the bringing together of the fragmentary hopes and promises of God’s Word scattered through Christendom. To deny that the Lord has simply “poured out” this harvest time blessing of “present truth” in his own due time and in his own way, would be as wrong as to claim it as of our own invention. … It came gradually, silently, as comes the morning dawn: the only effort necessary was to keep awake and face in the right direction. And the greatest aid in so doing was the effort put forth to awaken others of the “household of faith” and point them to the light and in turn to urge upon them the necessity for serving also, if they would overcome the lethargic “spirit of the world,” and be ready to go in to the marriage of the Lamb.
Russell believed he was led by God into increased understanding and a sound theology. Curry’s conclusion that all of Russell’s theology was Adventist is wrong. Russell’s doctrines came from outside the Adventist movement, or were held in common with others, or developed by others. Adventism wasn’t the source of his belief. Dunn, Seiss, Heath and others who influenced his thinking were anything but Adventists.
-
16
Update on the forth-coming history of Zion's Tower
by Old Goat inhttp://truthhistory.blogspot.com/.
one of the author's introductory essay in rough draft.
worth a read and comment, i think.
-
-
Old Goat
http://truthhistory.blogspot.com/
One of the Author's Introductory Essay in rough draft. Worth a read and comment, I think. I'm really impatient. I wish this book would finally hit the presses.
I'm interested in your reactions to this essay.
-
24
Look at this ...
by Old Goat inone of the authors of the soon to be published history of the watch tower's early years posted a small part of it in "rough draft.
" take a look http://truthhistory.blogspot.com/ .
if you like their work (i think its superior, even in rough draft), give them some encouragement.. .
-
-
Old Goat
Penton on Schulz and de Vienne
http://www.channelc.org/ChCForum/forum/index.php?action=display&forumid=1&msgid=16306
-
43
Protesting
by zound inis watchtower baiting apostates with this new awake?.
"is protest the answer?".
http://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/g201307/is-protest-the-answer/.
-
-
Old Goat
most of the public and all of JWs view convention prosters as near idiots and fanatics. It does no good. I remember Goodrich (You may not know of him) and his sandwich board. That was in 1946 or 7. Don't remember which year exactly. Guys in scruffy jeans wearing top hats and tails handing out mimeographed tracts. Yes, I took one. The grammar was bad and the tract nearly unreadable. The bag head people shouting and carrying signs. Petacostals in seattle one year way back when, shouting and trying to pray with anyone. Other than annoying witnesses, this converts no one.