Keith wasn't a Second Adventist. He was a resident of Dannsville, New York, who heard Barbour in 1867 and was persuaded. The Keith's were Presbyterians first, then Methodists. Several writers have suggested that Keith was active in the Millerite movement. This is improbable, unless he was a very precocious three year old.
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
The idea put forward as Keith's was of a two-stage, partially invisible presence. This can be traced back to the 1600's and was an issue among aglican expositors in the 1700s who distinguished between a "real" and a "virtual" parousia. When Keith undertook the study, Shimeall, a presbyterian minister, had just published a book that advocated the idea. Keith points to Liddell and Scotts Lexicon, the Emphatic Diaglott and D. D. Wheadon's commentary. (Wheadon was a methodist). Most of what Keith suggested comes from the pages of Wheadon's commentary on Luke. (See Schulz and de Vienne: Nelson Barbour: The Millennium's forgotten prophet. This book is on Barns and Noble as an ebook, on lulu.com as paperback. Well worth the money.)
The problem here is that some are willing to make sweeping statements without having done the research. Our arguments become weak when they're based on imagination. The strongest arguments are based on provable fact. An oft repeated mistake is still a mistake. Senic's statement is an example. Russell did discern an invisible return. The problem isn't with what the proclaimer's book said, but with what it did not say. He discerned it because he got it from others. In this case, he believed it before meeting Barbour and Keith. He tells us in To Readers of the Herald of the Morning, that he got it from Seiss's Last Times.
Russell didn't believe in a totally invisible presence until about 1880. The shift in doctrine was quietly argued among Watch Tower writers; the discussion being prompted by an article by Lizzie A. Allen.
It puzzles me that some are willing to make strong assertions without proof or in disregard to the actual meaning of words. If you want to make a strong argument, you should be accurate. If you just want to rant, then, I suppose, it does not matter.
-
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
The no-sex agreement was mutual. If Russell had a 'problem' here, so did Maria. Who knows, a good romp in the hay might have solved their disagreements.
-
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
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.
-
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.