Americans have a constitutional right to form or reject associations. The suggestion that the state curtail this right is abhorrent. I don't want to be compelled to be anyone's "friend." If families shun us, it is their choice, even if the choice is made based on religious belief we may see as stupid. My brother is an idiot. He's made life choices I reject. Even if I were not still nominally a Witness, I'd "shun" him. Do I want a law in place that compels me to talk to a vulgar, womanizing, drug-taking, former Ministerial Servant? Not very likely.
Old Goat
JoinedPosts by Old Goat
-
183
Article: It's Time to Outlaw Extreme Shunning in Modern Society
by AndersonsInfo inhttp://gilmermirror.com/bookmark/23272594/article-extreme%20shunning#.ufwjurllscm.facebook.
extreme shunningthe gilmer mirror.
its time to outlaw extreme shunning in modern society by: richard e. kelly .
-
-
-
39
AVOIDING A SHEPHERDING CALL: Suggestions pls
by grumblecakes inyup got a voice mail bright and early this morning "grumblecakes, we would like to schedule a shepherding call".. how do i get outta this?.
.
thanks!!
-
-
Old Goat
There is no obligation to meet with them on any account. A simple, not now will do. Tell them you'll call them if you want a visit.
-
19
Watchtower leaders imprisoned! Details prove fascinating...
by Terry in[endif][if gte mso 10]> <mce:style><!
[endif][if gte mso 10]> <mce:style><!
[endif][if gte mso 10]> <mce:style><!
-
-
Old Goat
At back of the trial was clergy opposition. The American Protective League formed to oppose "subversion". In Chicago a Polish Catholic woman took a Watch Tower publication to her bishop who promptly wrote to the US AG. The APL, largely catholic in that part of the country, added its voice. The ban in Canada and in the US was payback time on the part of the clergy.
The Canadian archives on this are open. You can read the letters from clergy. The US archives are nominally open, but it is impossible to get any meaningful material from them. You can, however, find articles in various contemporary magazines and newspapers where the clergy vent and exult. Read Preacher's Present Arms. It will give you a starting point here.
-
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
Rutherford had been dead not quite four years the first time I walked into a Kingdom Hall. Old Timers (I guess I'm one of those now) saw him as a bulwark against the world. "Bible Students" hated him, and still do. When I was new to Witnesses, I read everything he wrote. He was quite a character. I dont' believe many of the things said about him. That photo that floats around of him and a group drinking makes me laugh. I'm old enough to remember rootbeer dispencers. That's what's in the photo and that's what their drinking.
Other issues? I just don't know. A good place to start is to doubt everything.
-
19
Watchtower leaders imprisoned! Details prove fascinating...
by Terry in[endif][if gte mso 10]> <mce:style><!
[endif][if gte mso 10]> <mce:style><!
[endif][if gte mso 10]> <mce:style><!
-
-
Old Goat
Macmillan died "faithful." He stayed in our house a time or two. He never left the Watchtower. C. J. Woodworth remained a witness all his life. He was a very odd and very talented man. Also sentenced, but not a director was Giovanni De Cecca. He remained a witness until his death. He had an unexpected sense of humor. Robert Martin remained a witness until his death in 1932. He was Knorr's predicessor as Factory Manager.
F. W. Robison switched to universalism and associated with the Unsearchable Riches group.
-
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
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.
-
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.
-
-