You're still presuming, on second hand testiony from someone with an agenda of her own, that it happened. Bad practice. "Where there's smoke there's fire," is a bad basis for a conclusion. Personally, and without any better proof, I believe something happened. I don't believe it happened as Maria told it. The ideal find would be personal papers of Rose Ball's tellling her version of the story.
Old Goat
JoinedPosts by Old Goat
-
34
A handy CHRONOLOGY of the life and times of Charles and Maria Russell
by Terry in1852 charles taze russell was born in(february 16) in pittsburgh, pennsylvania.
he was raised in a strict presbyterian home.. 1868 (age 16) in an encounter with a non-believer he became disillusioned over the subject of whether god as a heavenly father would burn his children in hell.
side note: 1869 (joseph franklin rutherford was born and raised a baptist).
-
-
-
34
A handy CHRONOLOGY of the life and times of Charles and Maria Russell
by Terry in1852 charles taze russell was born in(february 16) in pittsburgh, pennsylvania.
he was raised in a strict presbyterian home.. 1868 (age 16) in an encounter with a non-believer he became disillusioned over the subject of whether god as a heavenly father would burn his children in hell.
side note: 1869 (joseph franklin rutherford was born and raised a baptist).
-
-
Old Goat
That all seems accurate. I'm not sure there is a lie here, though. The only photo of her I have is from very late in life. I'd like to see a photo of her at 25 or so.
As my granddaughter would say, "Russell was a creeper." But probably not in the ways everyone assumes. Russell's enemies presume that Rose told the truth, or that Maria repeated what she said accurately. I see no reason to do that. From the point of view of "proof" everything is third-hand.
I've suspened judgment until I can find something more substantial.
-
34
A handy CHRONOLOGY of the life and times of Charles and Maria Russell
by Terry in1852 charles taze russell was born in(february 16) in pittsburgh, pennsylvania.
he was raised in a strict presbyterian home.. 1868 (age 16) in an encounter with a non-believer he became disillusioned over the subject of whether god as a heavenly father would burn his children in hell.
side note: 1869 (joseph franklin rutherford was born and raised a baptist).
-
-
Old Goat
Rutherford was wrong. The census data is online. You can check it for yourself. There was no legal child care document. She was in her bother's care while living with the russells. There is no proof that Russell did anything with Rose Ball. There is proof that she carried tales, true or not. No one suggested that Rose "asked" for anything. You've got the story wrong. Do the research, starting with the census data.
-
34
A handy CHRONOLOGY of the life and times of Charles and Maria Russell
by Terry in1852 charles taze russell was born in(february 16) in pittsburgh, pennsylvania.
he was raised in a strict presbyterian home.. 1868 (age 16) in an encounter with a non-believer he became disillusioned over the subject of whether god as a heavenly father would burn his children in hell.
side note: 1869 (joseph franklin rutherford was born and raised a baptist).
-
-
Old Goat
Terry,
There are a few errors of fact, but you raise good questions. Russell met Wendell in 1869. We can date this from Russell’s own words and from an article in World’s Crisis. Russell dates the formation of the Bible Study Group to 1871. He does not say he started it, only that he attended it. His father came into the group the next year. They elected him pastor in 1876.
Schulz and de Vienne, the authors of the Nelson Barbour biography, note on their history blog that Russell did not accept Adventism, but was persuaded to associate with Abrahamic Faith believers. I cannot reproduce their work here. It’s on their private, invitation only blog and consists of chapters two and three of their forth-coming book. It is, however, a well documented bit of research drawing on many One Faith/Age-to-Come periodicals. Before I started reading their work, I had no clue these existed.
Russell did not claim that his theology was revealed directly from God. He was a restorationist theologian. (I use ‘theologian’ very loosely.) He believed truths lost were restored in the last days. He tells us, if we’re alert to the clues, from whom he got his beliefs.
The real questions here are those about M. F. Russell. I’ve read the divorce transcript. Russell does not come off well but neither does Maria. I don’t know why they agreed to a celibate marriage. Maria did not accuse him of adultery. The Watchtower claim is accurate. But there are elements of that story that give one pause. Also, Johnson in his Parousia Messenger (I believe) recounts a controversy at Bethel where one of Russell’s secretaries (a man) accused him of improperly touching female bethelites. Johnson, who was there, makes light of the accusation, but Johnson saw Russell as a second Christ.
The transcript shows how the Russells worked as a team. Charles would outline an article, passing it to Maria. Maria would write it. Trouble arose when she deviated from his outline.
Being celibate but married does not seem healthy. Russell as a pervert? Not proven – yet.
My copy of the transcript is a third or fourth generation photocopy. It does not scan or copy in readable fashion. Don’t ask. It’s out there. Maybe someone here has it in better form than I do and would make a pdf file.
The Russells did not adopt Rose Ball. She and her brother lived in their house. Their parents (at least the father) was still alive. My impression of Rose, as the story is told in the divorce transcript, is that she was a flirt but dressing as a younger girl. Russell was confused about her age; so were others. She was older than is usually presented.
On Russell’s business ventures: What among all his complex business ventures was unethical? I’ve read the claims, some of them quite emphatic. I’ve followed this in detail, and I cannot find anything illegal, unethical or even questionable. All I can find is the claim. A claim is not proof. I can claim that you have six toes. I can repeat it ad nauseam, but the proof rests in what is in your shoes. I want to see the proof. (About Russell, not your toes.) Russell had scrap iron, oil lease and equipment interests, invested in the stock market, owned part of a home furnishings business, various clothing stores, invested in a turpentine business (it was a fraud perpetrated by A. D. Jones who turned into quite a crook.) and there are hints of other business ventures. He wasn’t the golden boy of business his worshipers make him out to be. He didn’t originate the chain-store model as some claim. Schulz and de Vienne point to pre-existing stores of that type.
Miracle Wheat was a non-scandal. Russell was suckered by a sales brochure and the claims of an associate. There were miracle beans too. He was looking for proof that the Millennium had begun and restitution was at hand. The original Department of Agriculture reports are online, I believe.
“The truth is out there.” It may not lead where we think. But we need to ask the questions and follow the trails. The Watch Tower society won’t, or if they do, they’ll hide what they find.
-
31
JC was formed, without even letting me know!?
by magotan inno one will take my intent to da or df seriously.
they called me again (three brothers this time) and asked me to meet with them.
i had no intention of doing so....simply told them there was nothing to talk about.. .
-
-
Old Goat
The elders' power is imagined. They don't understand "no." Try, "I don't recognize you as a competent counselor. I don't recognize you as an authoritative representative of God or Christ. There is no reason for me to meet with you."
-
63
Book - "A People for His Name" by Timothy White
by VM44 in.
"a people for his name" by timothy white is an early, but still excellent, book about the history of the jws.. here is a page containing portions from the book.
http://members.fortunecity.com/peopleforhisname/peopleforhisname.htm.
-
-
Old Goat
Another book you should read is Nelson Barbour: The Millennium's Forgotten Prophet by Schulz and de Vienne. Impressive history. e-book on barns and noble or paper at lulu.com. The detail is impressive.
Russell took key elements of his end-times theology from Barbour (and others). Barbour was a fruitcake. Is fruitcakeism catching?
-
11
How many current Elders,M.S's,C.O's D.O's are around that were pre 1975?
by karter inin my old congro i think there might be 1 elder who was pre 75 no m.s's .. c.o's only 1 i know of.. .
karter.. .
-
-
Old Goat
I was an elder in 1975. I was a congregation servant before that. I became a Witness in the late 1940s. The 1975 mis-adventure opened my eyes to the Watchtower's double standard. If anyone else had proposed that folly, they'd have been disfellowshipped or at least they would have been 'warned' not to speculate. F. W. Franz drove huge numbers of Witnesses off some sort of mental cliff. He should have been removed from his position. I would have been if I'd done something like that. He wasn't.
-
65
What strand of Christianity gave birth to WTBTS?
by Band on the Run ini know about johnathan edwards and william miller being some of the forerunners of the wtbts.
how about much earlier in time?
was there a group during the middle ages or even earlier that preached something similar to the wt doctrine?
-
-
Old Goat
It is a mistake to say Russell was most influenced by Second Adventists (Advent Christians, Life and Advent Union, etc.) Russell self identifies as a millennialist Age-to-Come believer. By the time Russell met him, Storrs had left Adventism and was advocating a British Literalist theology. The same is true of Stetson. Stetson was an Age-to-Come believer, a Millenarian, and in his last years he wrote for The Restitution and The Rainbow, both Millenarian publications. Age-to-Come theology differs radically from Millerite Adventism. Russell also read and knew Thomas Wilson, Benjamin Wilson's nephew. Wilson's magazine is noted in the Herald of the Morning. Wilson was an Age to Come believer, not an Adventist.
While Russell believed Miller played a part in the divine plan, he rejected Miller's theology. He saw Miller as important only because he fit in a date system Russell inherited from Barbour. People often point to Barbour as an Adventist influence. However, by the time Russell met him, Barbour had switched to Age-to-Come belief and accepted Mark Allen's belief system. By the 1880s he associated his congregation, the Church of the Strangers, with Allen's Church of the Blessed Hope. Allen did not advocate any form of Millerism.
Much of what we might see as Russell's radical theology owes its development to British Separatist and Anglican writers. Henry Smith-Warleigh is an example. One can find elements of Russellite belief in various medieval era sects such as the Petro-Brucians and some of the Polish Brethren. You will find some similarities among some of the Paulicans. Some of his doctrine seems to trace to a second century sect called the Abrahamites.
It is an uninformed view that associates Russell with Adventism on the basis of his meeting J. Wendell. Russell felt Adventists were seriously out of the light of truth. You can find several discussions of the three principal approaches to Christ's return in Zion's Watch Tower. He says that Millenarians (British Literalist, Age to Come believers in the US) most nearly approach the truth. He was, as documented by Schulz and de Vienne, an age to come believer from 1870 to 1876, well known to readers of The Restitution. Schulz and de Vienne's next book considers this; their research is stellar.
You can trace Barbour's theology by reading Schulz and de Vienne's Nelson Barbour: The Millennium's forgotten prophet. Russell's Age-to-Come theology is traced on their private blog. You'd have to ask for an invitation. Expect to be quized and maybe turned down. They tend to pick people with professional credentials with a real interest in the subject. You can trace it yourself through the pages of the Age-to-Come preiodicals such as The Restitution.
Schulz and his partner have a public blog, though it is far less interesting than the private one. You can find it here: http://truthhistory.blogspot.com/
To read the private blog one must agree not to repost the material elsewhere. So, while I'd love to quote long sections of it, I cannot. I will say that it presents the most thorough, well documented research I've ever seen. I look forward to the publication of their next book.
-
61
WHAT REASON DOES THE GOVERNING BODY HAVE TO DENY JESUS MEDIATOR-SHIP FOR EVERYONE?
by ÁrbolesdeArabia inaguest, jehovah-jirah, lars58, rick fearon, finkle, or another scholars on jwn.
what reason does the governing body have for telling.
seven million jehovah's witnesses, "jesus is not your man dude!
-
-
Old Goat
Some of you seem to think I support Watchtower doctrine. All I did was explain the belief. You need to ask yourself why a simple explanation would cause you to be offensive. If you finally bother to read Jeremiah, you will see that the New Covenant is only with Israel. Many Christians take that to be "The Israel of God," the body of Christ.
That understanding is much wider than the Watchtower has it. No? But it still leaves out all those who reject Christianity. Others, such as the Church of God - General Conference (Atlanta) take this to apply to literal Jews. If that's true, it's still not an all inclusive covenant because it leaves out all Gentiles.
Even the Watchtower believes that Christ's sacrifice is for all, though they limit the new covenant to the 144k. If you don't know this, you were never much of a Witness. That's very basic Watchtower doctrine.
I don't see this as about control. Maybe you gave up your right to think and your ability to reason when you became a Witness, but I did not. It's about skewed, narrowly focused doctrine. How, please tell me, does Watchtower teaching on the New Covenant control anyone? No one from Bethel visits each congregation and says, "Well, you can partake of the emblems, but you cannot." If you feel or felt controlled by the Watchtower, then you failed to feel responsible to God and Christ.
If we move this discussion into their very unscriptural Governing Body doctrine, then we can discuss the desire to control. That doctrine isn't rational, and it's not scriptural. Its current expression reminds me of Eli's sons dipping their over large forks in the sacrifices.
All religions have control mechanisms. The Watchtower is no different. Some control mechanisms are more or less scriptural. The Watchtower's structure does not approach the New Testament standard. The Bible has it (in Hebrews chapter 1) that God's voice to us in the last days is through Christ. The Watchtower has it that God's voice is the Governing Body.
The recent change isn't exactly new. In the late 1960s they tried to introduce that through, of all things, a written review. The negative feed-back they received was overwhelming and the matter was dropped. The focus then was the Society's directors. The Watchtower's governance structure is a distorted type of Episcopalianism. The Bible presents a semi-autonomous Congregationalism. I'm not going to discuss that at length, nor am I going to debate Watchtower New Covenant doctrine with you. They have it wrong. But some of you have misrepresented it. Misrepresenting it detracts from any valid argument. Doesn't it?
You're parroting Ray Franz without doing the research. If you're going to object to this doctrine, do it effectively - and accurately. The initial question asked why the Watchtower taught what it did. I answered that question. If you continue filled with anger over what you see as Watchtower abuse, then they do still control you. Substitute reason for anger. And stop calling me names.
I became a Witness in 1948. I've seen many changes and not a little abuse by those in authority. I handled that in various ways, usually privately. That stopped being possible some few years ago. While I differ doctrinally in some areas, it is the abusive, self-worshiping nature of the current crop of administrators that has left me on the outside wondering how I managed to accept all of this for so long.
-
61
WHAT REASON DOES THE GOVERNING BODY HAVE TO DENY JESUS MEDIATOR-SHIP FOR EVERYONE?
by ÁrbolesdeArabia inaguest, jehovah-jirah, lars58, rick fearon, finkle, or another scholars on jwn.
what reason does the governing body have for telling.
seven million jehovah's witnesses, "jesus is not your man dude!
-
-
Old Goat
In Watchtower theology Jesus is mediator of the New Covenant. That much is scriptural. They limit the new covenant participants to God and the 144,000. A covenant is a contractual agreement. The new covenant is described in Jeremiah. The new covenant organizes spiritual Israel as a nation. A mediator is different from a propitiator. In Watchtower theology Jesus is the propitiator (peace maker, reconciler) for all. He is the mediator between God and the Bride of Christ in the New Covenant relationship.
If one believes that only 144K are part of that covenant, then one must believe that Jesus' mediatorship concerns only them and God, the parties to the covenant. There is a distinct difference between a covenant instituting sacrifice and a propitiating (sin atoning) sacrifice. In Christian theology, Jesus' one sacrifice filled both functions. There is Old Testament precedence for that.
The Watchtower does not teach that Christ's sacrifice does not cover all. While their teaching on mediatorship may be flawed, it is consistently misrepresented. They do not teach that all Christians are not covered by Christ's atoning sacrifice. Witness soteriology is unnecessarily convoluted.
Personally, I’m inclined to see the number 144,000 as symbolic, though I admit there is some merit in the Watchtower argument that it is a literal number. The issue rests with God, and, unlike the Watchtower that brooks no contrary view, I’m willing to let it rest with him. I see all the issues as to the timing of ultimate salvation as a replay of 19th Century discussions that went no where then and are meaningless now.
The problem isn’t that they see Jesus' mediatorship as confined to a small number. They see his propitiating sacrifice as applying to all, and that is sound Christian doctrine. The problem rests in their tendency to make basic doctrine as hard to understand as is possible. And they express what are no more than personal beliefs as if they were the inspired word of God.