it has been said that the gb are just followers of followers.. they had belived a lie all their lives and have taught others the same.. in another post i've disscussed how i'd like to know more about russell and rutherford.. were they followers of followers or corupt.. many seem to point to rutherford as the bad guy.. even in the societies own books he seems to come off as a dodgy guy.. was russell guenuine in his belief , or was he courupt too?.
so who is mostly to blame for the jw religon russell or rutherford?.
or is it ourselves ,did we just decive ourselves and seek to pass the blame when the truth dawned?.
MIKE:
Since 95+% of the people here either have their emails locked or are using anonymous accounts, it is safe to say that most folks don't want strangers knowing their personal info for reasons that are obvious to everyone except you.
Does having your account open somehow make you superior to those who do not?
Only in your own mind, where I'm sure there are many, many other delusions rattling around.
it has been said that the gb are just followers of followers.. they had belived a lie all their lives and have taught others the same.. in another post i've disscussed how i'd like to know more about russell and rutherford.. were they followers of followers or corupt.. many seem to point to rutherford as the bad guy.. even in the societies own books he seems to come off as a dodgy guy.. was russell guenuine in his belief , or was he courupt too?.
so who is mostly to blame for the jw religon russell or rutherford?.
or is it ourselves ,did we just decive ourselves and seek to pass the blame when the truth dawned?.
RoRo:
Ah Madman, this is exactly why I won't help you.I did't ask you to help me. I ask you to post the Russell/Pyramids photos for their educational value to all viewers of this DB.
I don't see what the big fuss is about photos of Russell at the great pyramid.
There you go again. How many lies can you tell in one thread?
Where are the originals? I have no idea, Dr. Leslie Jones published the reports, he left the Society in the early 1920s, he died in the 1930s. he had no family. perhaps they're sitting in somebodies photo album, I don't know.IF you are telling the truth, then your research efforts are piss-poor, and your alleged exhaustive WTS history book will be nothing but a rehash of previously published info.
BUT, then, you really don't want to find anything that would upset BS theology, do you?
You and BSers are nothing but unheated JW left-overs.
more than likely this will sound like a naive question to some of you, but what is your theory as to the wbts' secret agenda?
i don't see any of them living it up....as far as i know all the governing body lives at bethel year round, eating in the cafeteria with everyone else.. what would their reason be to collect & hoard money, or belong to the un?
RoRo:
I am a "moron", for it takes a blunderhead to try to carry on a discussion with someone LIKE YOU, who is willing to lie and deceive, as you demonstrated in this thread:
. http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=14912&page=3&site=3
BUT, you are also a BIGGER MORON!!!
First, you try to justify your earlier blunder by redefining your earlier verbiage by saying:
I'm talking about Church organization.
BUT THEN, look at your very next sentence:
The Society in Russell's day was not a organizaton. It was a publishing house. There is a difference.Are you asking us to believe that Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society, which Russell established as a legally incorporated ORGANIZATION was in fact NOT an organization?
Are you asking us to believe that ZWTTS was NOT a "church" or "religous" organization, but rather was an unorganized printer of religious materials? (If you lose your job at the Post Office, you can go to work for the WTS's Writing Dept.)
Save your illogical meanderings for your BS friends, who think JWs are morons and people like you are geniuses.
AGAIN, read ^^ABOVE^^ what Woodworth wrote about the "Society" only a few weeks after Russell's death.
As I said in the "Rutherford's Fault" thread, your WTS history book will obviously be nothing but the Bible Student's version of the Proclaimers book. You have aptly demonstrated that your "objectivity" is on the same level as is the WTS Writing Dept's.
more than likely this will sound like a naive question to some of you, but what is your theory as to the wbts' secret agenda?
i don't see any of them living it up....as far as i know all the governing body lives at bethel year round, eating in the cafeteria with everyone else.. what would their reason be to collect & hoard money, or belong to the un?
RoRo:
You state:
Russell was totally against organization.If Russell was totally against organization, why did he form Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society only 2 years after starting the magazine?
If Russell was totally against organization, why did Russell then have ZWTTS legally incorporated 4 years later, so that his supporters could name ZWTTS as a beneficiary of their Will?
Yeh, I know that Russell made statements "against organization". However, such just goes to prove that he hypocritically preached one thing and did another whenever it served his purpose.
...the Watchtower as he stated it was just a business, a publishing house
8:3. And another angel. - Not the "voice of the Lord," mentioned in the preceding chapter, but the corporate body - the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, which Pastor Russell formed to finish his work. This verse shows that, though Pastor Russell has passed beyond the veil, he is still managing every feature of the Harvest work "The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society is the greatest corporation in the world, because from the time of its organization until now the Lord has used it as His channel through which to make known the Glad Tidings."--Z.'17-22; Rev. 14:18; 19:17.
it has been said that the gb are just followers of followers.. they had belived a lie all their lives and have taught others the same.. in another post i've disscussed how i'd like to know more about russell and rutherford.. were they followers of followers or corupt.. many seem to point to rutherford as the bad guy.. even in the societies own books he seems to come off as a dodgy guy.. was russell guenuine in his belief , or was he courupt too?.
so who is mostly to blame for the jw religon russell or rutherford?.
or is it ourselves ,did we just decive ourselves and seek to pass the blame when the truth dawned?.
RoRo:
You state:
Ah Madman, this is exactly why I won't help you. Because you have an agenda, one you won't spell out specifically. You want something, I won't help you,...
If you had come clean, perhaps I would have helped you in whatever way I could, but you hide behind a mask and lock up your identity and e-mail.
Your remark about my "locked email address" identifies you with "MIKE". Either you are he, or you and he are in cahoots. Either way, this shows you to be the only one in this exchange who is deceitful and a liar. Combining this with your earlier "consecrated time" remark also makes you the typical hypocritical, self-righteous so-called "christian".
As for the significance of not publicizing my registered email address, such is merely to prevent spamming of that account. Just how stupid are you? What percentage of "unlocked" accounts are anonymous anyway? Gee whiz!
Talk about a "Cliff Claven" sterotype...
it has been said that the gb are just followers of followers.. they had belived a lie all their lives and have taught others the same.. in another post i've disscussed how i'd like to know more about russell and rutherford.. were they followers of followers or corupt.. many seem to point to rutherford as the bad guy.. even in the societies own books he seems to come off as a dodgy guy.. was russell guenuine in his belief , or was he courupt too?.
so who is mostly to blame for the jw religon russell or rutherford?.
or is it ourselves ,did we just decive ourselves and seek to pass the blame when the truth dawned?.
MIKE:
I don't think much of people who have this mentality:
"I can't speak for so-and-so, but let me speak for so-and-so."
I think my last post above fully explains why anyone interested in WTS history would also be interested in seeing online photos of Russell posing at the Great Pyramid.
Its curious that you come out of nowhere to argue that such photos are "insignificant" after the great BS historian RoRo crawls out of here after being unable to get simple WTS history facts straight.
Youse wouldn't be one of those Fort Worthy Bible Shitters would you?
it has been said that the gb are just followers of followers.. they had belived a lie all their lives and have taught others the same.. in another post i've disscussed how i'd like to know more about russell and rutherford.. were they followers of followers or corupt.. many seem to point to rutherford as the bad guy.. even in the societies own books he seems to come off as a dodgy guy.. was russell guenuine in his belief , or was he courupt too?.
so who is mostly to blame for the jw religon russell or rutherford?.
or is it ourselves ,did we just decive ourselves and seek to pass the blame when the truth dawned?.
Well, does anyone else have access to some of these "memories"?
'Ol RoRo the BS likes to hang around this db and take pop-shots at JWs , but you see what happens when he is given the opportunity to make a positive contribution of documented material.
Truth seekers are not afraid of the light, or what the light discloses!
it has been said that the gb are just followers of followers.. they had belived a lie all their lives and have taught others the same.. in another post i've disscussed how i'd like to know more about russell and rutherford.. were they followers of followers or corupt.. many seem to point to rutherford as the bad guy.. even in the societies own books he seems to come off as a dodgy guy.. was russell guenuine in his belief , or was he courupt too?.
so who is mostly to blame for the jw religon russell or rutherford?.
or is it ourselves ,did we just decive ourselves and seek to pass the blame when the truth dawned?.
Mike:
I certainly hope you have seen photos posted online of Russell and his entourage posing at the Great Pyramid and the Sphinx.
Simply post the URL here. Why the need to send such to my email? I'm sure other readers would like to see some of these photos.
Curiously enough, I have searched the internet multiple times for such, and I have yet to find any. Maybe you are just a better researcher than I? However, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the photos mysteriously appear on some website in the next few days.
Actually, my understanding is that Russell's visits to Egypt were well documented by photos, not just by the ones that made it into the Convention Reports to which RR wants to restrict the discussion. Since such photos are visual evidence of Russell's pyramidology teachings, which both the WTS and Bible Students would just as soon remain undisturbed, availability of previously unpublished photos has become nil. I've heard it theorized that Rutherford had those in the WTS's possession destroyed when he did away with the pyramidology teachings. Nothing like just eliminating the evidence. Some have speculated that BS have done the same, but my opinion is that many BS have too much of an emotional attachment to Russell, including lingering beliefs in his pyramidology teachings, to have destroyed such old and valuable photos. No, I think that BS have simply locked them away, and possibly even r&f BS are unaware of their existance.
SO, YES, I THINK THEY ARE A BIG DEAL!!!
it has been said that the gb are just followers of followers.. they had belived a lie all their lives and have taught others the same.. in another post i've disscussed how i'd like to know more about russell and rutherford.. were they followers of followers or corupt.. many seem to point to rutherford as the bad guy.. even in the societies own books he seems to come off as a dodgy guy.. was russell guenuine in his belief , or was he courupt too?.
so who is mostly to blame for the jw religon russell or rutherford?.
or is it ourselves ,did we just decive ourselves and seek to pass the blame when the truth dawned?.
Sleepy:
As explained in the second paragraph that you excerpted, older Bible Students were contemplating making the ZWTTS a beneficiary in their Wills. However, until then, the ZWTTS had not taken the necessary steps to become legally recognized as a not-for-profit entity. Incorporation was merely a natural progression of the ZWTTS's growth process.
As for Russell's financial situation, he did use his money for ZWTTS purposes, but never got to the point of desperation that you speculate. No organization EVER has all the money it might want, but it is safe to say that between Russell and his supporters (particularly in later years) that the Org could obtain all that it reasonably needed.
as of 6:02 pm last night i received a facsimile from paul hoeffel at the un on the wts.. he gave me 3 of the 4 things i requested in two paragraphs.. i have sent a scanned version to steve bates and someone else.. i sent it to kent and randy.
and kent and randy have posted the official united nations letter on their web sites.. here is the letter - put your cursor on the image and then right click on your mouse and hit "save image" to your computer.. .
after you look at kent's web site and you people still think this it is a fake letter, phone paul hoeffel yourself at (212) 963-8070.. hawk
Moxy:
Failure to acknowledge error discloses much about one's true character.
You first said:
the vaticans status with the UN is as a 'nonmember state observer'it participates and votes, like a member, and unlike an NGO. this is what the NGO coalition in question is objecting to.
mox
The Vatican DOES NOT vote at the UN. That's why it is called an "observer".
ma: afaict, it can vote at policy-setting conferences. obviously there are many different kinds of UN-related votes. we probably hear most often about the votes of the general assembly, which is a totally different matter. the coalition of NGOs object to the vatican having a voice in policy, voting according to its views on for example, family planning, considered widely to be very backward. NGOs do not have this voice.mox
If you originally meant to say that the Vatican could not vote in meetings of the UN General Assembly, but could vote at UN sponsored Conferences, YOU CERTAINLY DID A LOUSY JOB OF SAYING SUCH.
NO, everyone reading this sees through your wimpy rationalization.
AND, I have more bad news for you.
NGOs also VOTE at such Conferences.
*Maybe you should start linking a dictionary to all your posts as a notice to readers that you reserve the right to use every conceivable definition to any word or phrase you use.
