Posts by Old Goat

19

Finally

by Old Goat in

http://www.lulu.com/shop/b-w-schulz/a-separate-identity-organizational-identity-among-readers-of-zions-watch-tower-1870-1887/paperback/product-21541658.html.

dr. de vienne tells me there are some problems with ebook formatting and it will be released later.

until they review the advanced copy, it is only available on lulu.com.

No, not what you meant. Do they think they're better than anyone else? I don't get that from the book or from interacting with the authors. They're professionals. They teach history, write history. Would you have them repeat the mistakes of others just to be polite? Correcting a mistake does not mean they think they're superior.

What I see in their book is a research standard few meet when dealing with Russell and similar topics. The level of accuracy is astounding. I taught history for years. There are few writers on Witness related topics that come close to Schulz and de Vienne. An adiquate vocabulary does not mean one is elitist. It means they're educated.

Dr. de Vienne writes in her introduction (both authors wrote introductory essays):

Theologically I’m a skeptical believer. I approach historical research in the same way, which means I question everything including commonly believed “facts.” Many of those proved absolutely true. Some proved false. As you explore this first volume of A Separate Identity you will encounter the familiar and the new.

The men and women in this story, long dead though they are, produced an emotional response. I came to like some of them. Some of them are remarkably distasteful, mean spirited and delusional. No historian writes an impartial history. But we have written to the full measure of our ability an accurate one. Despite our best efforts, we have probably made some errors of fact. We hope not, but given the depth and complexity of this research – and the newness of some of it – it seems inevitable that we got something wrong. It won’t hurt my feelings if someone points out a flaw, but I expect proof, not mere opinion. I expect critics to be as competent as we are, and I hold them to the same standards of historical research we manifest here.

I've read the book three times. This is a subject that I know well. I became a Witness in the late 1940s, and I started researching Witness and Bible Student history in 1955 when a Watchtower series on Witness history was published. I am left with some questions, but I haven't found anything I see as inaccurate. All my questions concern things that are probably unknowable.

I read a lot of history. Many history books are boring. This one held my interest on two grounds. I think it's well written. And I'm interested in the subject matter. I don't see it as 'elitist,' but they're writing with a vocabluarly that is familiar to me. Most things written about Russell are excrementious. (yes, i just called them that.) It's refreshing to have someone write with a dedication to accuracy.

19

Finally

by Old Goat in

http://www.lulu.com/shop/b-w-schulz/a-separate-identity-organizational-identity-among-readers-of-zions-watch-tower-1870-1887/paperback/product-21541658.html.

dr. de vienne tells me there are some problems with ebook formatting and it will be released later.

until they review the advanced copy, it is only available on lulu.com.

Old Goat

elitist? I don't think you know what that means. It's academic. It's not popular fiction. It's not the usual sensationalist crap about Russell either. It's history. Well written history. Eye opening history.

20

Have Jehovahs Witnesses Changed the Bible to Fit Their Beliefs

by KSFernando in

no, we havent.

on the contrary, when we have discovered that our beliefs were not completely in line with the bible, we have changed our beliefs.. is this correct?.

gods name in greek scriptures?

Old Goat

I only have two years of NT Greek, so I can't comment in any authoritative way. Huge sections of the NW are really good, I think. Franz relied on Vine, Grim-Thayer and Liddell and Scot. Where it fails is in the Englsh grammar. Reflexive pronouns, bad syntax otherwise, make it hard to read. I still use it. But I never used it alone. I've always compared it to other translations. Sometimes I'm pleasantly surprised by the NW. Sometimes I shake my head.

In my opinion (just opinion, mind you) it's more faitful to the original Greek text than New Inernational is.

I have no background in Hebrew. But my comment on English grammar applies to the old testament too.

19

Finally

by Old Goat in

http://www.lulu.com/shop/b-w-schulz/a-separate-identity-organizational-identity-among-readers-of-zions-watch-tower-1870-1887/paperback/product-21541658.html.

dr. de vienne tells me there are some problems with ebook formatting and it will be released later.

until they review the advanced copy, it is only available on lulu.com.

Old Goat

I should add that sections of the book (in rough draft) are on their blog. Read them for yourself:

http://truthhistory.blogspot.com/

19

Finally

by Old Goat in

http://www.lulu.com/shop/b-w-schulz/a-separate-identity-organizational-identity-among-readers-of-zions-watch-tower-1870-1887/paperback/product-21541658.html.

dr. de vienne tells me there are some problems with ebook formatting and it will be released later.

until they review the advanced copy, it is only available on lulu.com.

Old Goat

Pissed,

I've quoted them here. they don't post here. You're drawing a false conlusion based on something that made me laugh. Their book is good solid history. Why form an opinion based on something that I noted? They do note false statements, sometimes tongue in cheek, but while that may make me chuckle, it's a very small part of the story here.

I don't see the few occasions where they note the errors of others as detracting. Don't you want to know when something is wrong? I do. And they document their claims. I can think of several books that sail under the quise of an academic work that do not do that.

You've made a claim about the book without having read it. If I've given a false impression of the book, I'm sorry. It is well worth a read.

Perhaps I should give a couple examples of what they do when they meet 'error' in the work of others:

From page 208:

The claim made by James Pellechia, a Watchtower Society writer, that Russell founded the congregation at Elyria and a group in Cleveland is incorrect. The Elyria group was originally an independent Age-to-Come body turned into a Barbourite congregation and is mentioned as such in the June 15, 1878, issue of Herald of the Morning. Creta Walker tells us that the congregation was founded by her uncle Thomas Sherwood and that it originally met in a red brick school house a few miles from the Sherwood residence. The congregation styled itself The Church of Christ, a name commonly used by Age-to-Come churches:

From page 287, the first two paragraphs of the chapter:

As with much else in this era of WatchTower history, we find significant, purposefully created nonsense and bad research. For example, Graig Burns asserts that “the Bible Students had split off from a group of Second Adventists under N. H. Barbour, which later became the 7th-Day Adventist Church.” We’re fairly certain Seventh-day Adventists would be surprised to know this. We certainly were.

They were small in number. Firm figures elude us, but we can make an educated guess. They drew from Second Adventists, primarily Advent Christians and Life and Advent Union adherents. Though Second Adventists claimed a combined membership of thirty-thousand worldwide, this was a huge exaggeration and has no basis in fact. Few Adventists found the Barbourite message attractive. Adventists turned to 1877 and then 1879 as probable dates for Christ’s return. Age-to-Come/One Faith adherents numbered less than four thousand. Many Barbourites came from this group, attracted to Barbourite theology by its Age-to-Come belief. In 1885 Barbour reported that the average monthly circulation of The Herald of the Morning was one thousand copies, including missionary and give-away issues. It was probably somewhat less, and we are probably being generous if we say that in 1877 they had something less than two thousand adherents. The regularly-published money-received column suggests far fewer committed believers. This was a very small movement.

Now while you may find the claim that seventh-day adventists were connected to Barbour strange, it's made repeatedly in 'the literature.' Do you want things like that to go unchallenged? They challenge false CLAIMS. False conclusions fall when false claims do. Are you so invested in a pet theory that you don't want it challenged? If so, you will find their book disturbing. If you want good, solid historical research into sources you've never seen, this is the book for you.

Writers commongly say things about Storrs that aren't so. Storrs magazine is not hard to find. I own all of them except the irregular first issues and the first few months of it when he restarted it. Shouldn't a writer read the source material before making claims about it? Schulz and de Vienne did, taking you to the exact issue and pages in their footnotes. Name another writer on this topic that researched Russell's connections to The Restitution, the principal One Faith journal. Restituion circulated his Object and Manner. J. L. Russell wrote to its editor up to his death. Didn't know that, did you? Restitution's readers called him 'brother.' All of this is new.

If you let attachment to a theory you got from others keep you from reading this book, you will continue to parrot it while others move "into the light of truth" historically speaking.

19

Finally

by Old Goat in

http://www.lulu.com/shop/b-w-schulz/a-separate-identity-organizational-identity-among-readers-of-zions-watch-tower-1870-1887/paperback/product-21541658.html.

dr. de vienne tells me there are some problems with ebook formatting and it will be released later.

until they review the advanced copy, it is only available on lulu.com.

Old Goat

The title is misleading you. The book is an incredibly detailed history of Russell’s early years and his antecedents. Chapter one tells things about Russell’s early years never published elsewhere. I found them revealing. The details present a picture of Russell different from that I had formed. The last section of that chapter gives details about Russell’s businesses that I did not know. I don’t think very many know them either. Music publishing? A furniture store? Stock market investments? Who knew?

The next two chapters define Russell’s relationship to Adventists and Age-to-Come believers. You may think you know what this is all about, but let me tell you, you don’t. There are persons in this story long ignored by those who write about Russell. I’m impressed by the detail and the depth of research. Wendell, who most writers present simply as an Adventist preacher, is given a biography. His sermons in Allegheny and elsewhere are examined. (There is, surprisingly, a record of that.) Stetson’s last years and his non-Adventist beliefs are explored. There’s a real story in that. Again, it is different from what is usually said. Storrs turns into a different person than I expected. Others you may not have heard of are introduced. John T. Ongley, a One Faith evangelist, George Darby Clowes, an ex-Methodist preacher and others are profiled and their place in Watch Tower History restored.

If the Watchtower had ever published something like this, I wouldn’t see them as the dishonest, manipulative, controlling organization it seems to be. The Proclaimers book has what? Two sentences about Stetson? Schulz and de Vienne devote half a chapter to him, his writing and his beliefs. They take readers to private letters, obscure articles, and use them to build a well-researched, connected story. They hide nothing.

I found chapter four especially interesting. Chapter four discusses the bible study group founded by Russell and his associates. To get to his point, the authors have trashed the work of a number of authors. Some of that is funny. They call Zydeck’s book “fantasy fiction” and tell you exactly what’s wrong with his claims. (Contrived, fabricated) Others get the same treatment. I’ve been pursuing Watchtower history since the 1950s. My reaction to this was “about bloody time.”

Chapter four is the title chapter. It traces topic by topic the development of Russell’s theology. They tell you from whom and from where Russell got his belief system. You think his theology was Adventist? Think again. They cite the books, articles and letters of those with whom Russell associated. Most interesting here is a section on pyramid belief: They trace the origins of Pyramidology of course. They correct the claims of a few well-know anti-cult writers. They tell you who believed the theory. That was new to me. I did not know that Clarence Larkin, the Baptist expositor, and T. de Witt Talmage, the then famous preacher both believed similarly.

The remaining chapters consider Russell’s association with Barbour. Biographies are restored. Benjamin Wallace Keith’s biography is fascinating. J. C. Sunderlin was an opium addict, made such by pain killers he was prescribed for Civil War wounds. L. A. Allen, one of the first WT contributors agonized over what appears to have been sexual conduct at an early age. You meet people who thought they heard Jesus’ voice. You find names you’ve probably never heard and their biographies. This is not the candy-coated history the Watchtower Society writes.

They present the group as essentially disunited, the only unity being belief in the near return of Christ for judgment and to raise the saints. They take you to statements by the principals to show this. And this takes us to their premise, which put simply is that continuing fragmentation led (rather perversely) to a doctrinal unity and a distinct identity.

Volume one, the book just released, ends with the split between Barbour and Russell. Barbour embezzles money, seeing it as his right as God’s last days voice. Russell is seen as intellectually struggling.

You should read this book. You will be amazed. So, don’t let the title throw you off. You need to know what this book says. Their discussion of Storrs is especially important. Storrs would be disfellowshiped for his view of congregational authority.

I’ve waited all my life for a book like this. Buy it. Read it.

19

Finally

by Old Goat in

http://www.lulu.com/shop/b-w-schulz/a-separate-identity-organizational-identity-among-readers-of-zions-watch-tower-1870-1887/paperback/product-21541658.html.

dr. de vienne tells me there are some problems with ebook formatting and it will be released later.

until they review the advanced copy, it is only available on lulu.com.

Old Goat

http://www.lulu.com/shop/b-w-schulz/a-separate-identity-organizational-identity-among-readers-of-zions-watch-tower-1870-1887/paperback/product-21541658.html

Dr. de Vienne tells me there are some problems with ebook formatting and it will be released later. Until they review the advanced copy, it is only available on lulu.com. Buy from lulu anyway. Their royalties are higher if purchased from lulu. She tells me there is a dramatic drop in revenue if purchased from B and N or Amazon.

11

why does the GB exclude the word "grace" from the new world translation?

by freckles12 in

Old Goat

Charis (Grace) suggests the kindness of a superior to an inferior. Since God is the bestower of Grace, it is undeserved kindness. Some lexicographers so define it. The NWT follows that trail. Do you merit God's grace? On what basis would you? This is one place where the NWT follows someone other than Vine, though the New Testament translation (Christian Greek Scriptures my eye!) is largely dependent of Vine's word studies.

1

Even closer than it was; more on the new book

by Old Goat in

dr. de vienne has posted a rough draft of the first ten and last ten pages of the final chapter of volume 1 of a separate identity.

this is an academic study, but exceptionally interesting.

http://truthhistory.blogspot.com/.

Old Goat

Dr. de Vienne has posted a rough draft of the first ten and last ten pages of the final chapter of volume 1 of A Separate Identity. This is an academic study, but exceptionally interesting. Take a look:

http://truthhistory.blogspot.com/

10

New Book. Intro essay

by Old Goat in

posted by the authors on their blog http://truthhistory.blogspot.com/.

dr. de vienne tells me they're down to a final edit of the last chapter.

publication is in a matter of a very few weeks.

Old Goat

Since this book only covers up to 1887, most of that isn't relevant. As I understand it, most of that discussion is left for the third and last book in this series, their biography of Nelson Barbour being the first. They consider Russell's business ventures in some detail, though not to anything like what I would like to see. Still, in reading the advanced reading copy I found things I did not know, and I've been researching Witness history since the 1950s. The section on Russell's businesses ends with a note that says Miracle Wheat, special beans and a cancer cure will be considered in book three. I presume more detail on his businesses will appear there too.

I did not know that Russell was a partner in a furniture and home decore store. I didn't know the Russells had a music store (short lived) and that they published sheet music. They untangle conflicting statements about Russell's stores. They tell of scrap iron and used equipment businesses. They mention stock market investments. They find no fraud, and my impression is they looked hard for it. However, they are very patient researchers. I expect much more detail in book three, and they suggest as much.

They have a copy of the Russell divorce transcript and quote from it. I'd expect considerable detail in book three, which I understand will take the story up to Russell's death. This is a scholarly work. It's not sensationalist. However, you will find new things, interesting things. By presenting the facts as they can document them, they pop bubbles. They trash some myths and occasionally take other writers to task. If you've read Zydeck's book and liked it, you will find, as I did, that much of it is made up out of thin air.

I appreciated how they handle the story of Russell forming a partnership with his father at age eleven:

"Clayton Woodworth tells us that “at the age of eleven Charles formed a business partnership with his father, himself writing the articles of agreement under which they transacted business.” Woodworth’s claim is the sole source for this; we cannot find the claim in anything Russell wrote. This story has been taken as evidence of his precociousness, and Woodworth saw it as proof of Russell’s special place in God’s “plan.” An Internet writer distorted this, writing: “In his early teens, Charles’ father made him partner of his Pittsburgh haberdashery store. By age twelve, Russell was writing business contracts for customers and given charge of some of his father’s other clothing stores.” None of this is accurate. There is no original source evidence that Russell wrote contracts at twelve or that he was given charge of one of his father’s stores. If Joseph L. Russell owned a store at all in Charles’ eleventh year, he owned only one. ... It is hard to see young Russell’s agreement with his father as evidence of precociousness or of special divine favor. At best this reflects a serious but fairly ordinary youth trying to assume responsibility. Assuming responsibility at eleven was not unusual in that era. Any agreement between Charles Taze and his father would not have been a complex partnership agreement but a list of his agreed upon duties."

They show that Russell senior was partner in only one store. The explode the myth of Russell as founder of the chain store idea. But this is not an attack on Russell. The principal author is an old time witness, someone I worked with at District Conventions back in the day. But, he has no qualms saying something is false.

When the book it finally out, I'll write a full review. Pet theories die in this book. I'm certain it's not intended, but the contrast between some of Russell's earliest associates and the current crop of Watchtower rulers comes through clearly. In my opinion the Governing Body and its minions come off poorly in comparison. You will find Storrs' comments on church authority illuminating.