Posts by Maximus

Farkel, since you are such a talented pianist, you will appreciate the barbarous musical plagiarism of Beethoven's "Appassionata" in the old songbook.

'When Jehovah dee-creed that a DELuge,
Should dee-stroy that old world long a-go-OH'

And from Mendelssohn's "Midsummer Night's Dream":

'How luv-LEE are,
Thy dwell-INGS Lord ...'

And from the Creation Oratorio:

'The heav'ns dee-clare,
The glo-ree of the LOH-urd'

The list of similar music from "Christendom" [sic] that was wiped out goes on and on. Perhaps few here are old enough to remember a time when the public talks at district conventions and even circuit assemblies had live musical programs with orchestras prior to the public talk, to attract the public. Some of the musical presentations were quite good. Have you heard the recordings of Fred Franz singing four-part harmony? Sounded like a barbershop quartet.

But finally that all went down the drain, including the piano player at local meetings. It was a service privilege generally given to sisters, remember? I recall serving a congregation with one old sister who once played honky-tonk in her youth and shall we say, took liberties with the Kingdom songs. All that was missing was a cigarette hanging out of her lips. It was great! My wife and I wanted to scream with laughter but worked very hard to put on the deadpan expected of us.

Ah, but the uniformity/conformity watchword caught up, and soon it was the vinyl recording. A moneymaker, too. All those musicians donating their time.

This is a metaphor for the downward spiral of individuality that goes back many, many years. Homogenization; ain't it wonderful? Everyone hears the same experiences, the same droning words--carefully planned.

Got carried away. Thanks for the entre to Professor Gruss, who telephoned me. We've connected.

Maximus

15

Brave New Genus

by AlanF in

jw
friends

seems to me that we've seen the rise of a new genus of human-like creature over the last century:.

cephalomorticus.

this is evolution in action!.

Maximus

Alan F
A genus all his own,

Cerebrovivens scampicus impicus

Picture taken at his conception, with apologies to William Blake

Maximus

12

beth sarim

by jurs in

jw
friends

i've been reading up on beth sarim.

once, when i was out in servive, a householder mentioned that rutherford had lived in a mansion.

i thought it was a lie that some evil apostate made up.

Maximus

Permit a correction. It's not William Boyd. The last name is Heath, and he was always referred to as Bill Heath. Anyone doing research needs to know this--especially the Coca-Cola connection. Reminds me of COHI and Mighty Distributing's Dick Wallace, who fronted for lots of Society property purchases, so local residents, including those displaced, would not object.

As to your relative, are you speaking of Hazel B? I'm also curious if you got this material directly from professor Ed Gruss' books on the two properties--not many know about Beth-Shan. I haven't read them.

"Bad health." Guess who started the spin doctor stuff? There was absolutely no question to visitors what Beth Sarim was all about. You know, of course, it means "House of Princes" in Hebrew. Youngsters were bug-eyed upon being told, "King David is going to live in that room. And Moses will be right across the hall here." The plumbing was fabulous. The ancient worthies would have been stunned out of their wits at the opulence.

Maximus

59

Blood, The Watchtower and Deceit

by Maximus in

jw
friends

while much attention is given to doctrine in sites such as this, very little is noted about the watchtower societys intellectual dishonesty in its publications, especially when it comes to quotations.. oftentimes the societys writers will cite a scholar or author of some repute: "professor blank observes that blah, blah, blah.

" the reader assumes from the quotation that professor blank is in agreement with the organizations position, of course, and that the quotation chosen accurately depicts the authors thoughts.. heres the catch: the words between the quotation marks may be accurate, but the snippet may not at all faithfully represent someones actual thesis or position.

much like a newspaper ad for a movie that quotes a reviewer as saying "monumental!

Maximus

Thanks for the "circular reasoning" post, Farkel.

For those of you writing me and asking what the picture is beneath my moniker, see below. Sigh. That's getting more play than my material.

59

Blood, The Watchtower and Deceit

by Maximus in

jw
friends

while much attention is given to doctrine in sites such as this, very little is noted about the watchtower societys intellectual dishonesty in its publications, especially when it comes to quotations.. oftentimes the societys writers will cite a scholar or author of some repute: "professor blank observes that blah, blah, blah.

" the reader assumes from the quotation that professor blank is in agreement with the organizations position, of course, and that the quotation chosen accurately depicts the authors thoughts.. heres the catch: the words between the quotation marks may be accurate, but the snippet may not at all faithfully represent someones actual thesis or position.

much like a newspaper ad for a movie that quotes a reviewer as saying "monumental!

Maximus

Thanks for your kind words, Farkel.
Philo:
:: Do you feel they employ these dishonest means across the board, or only carefully and in respect of a small range of difficult issues?

The latter is really the case. How do they get by with it? Few in the Society’s audience are equipped with the facts, or the ability to grasp basic fallacies in reason, much less challenge them. Please note that the Society quotes but does not cite or give the reference, and not many would take the time to check the facts.

You must also understand there is a certain culture in the Writing Department that allows this kind of dishonesty. And AlanF is right on target. A certain infallibility complex is there among some, a kind of license under the aegis of the "spirit-anointed governing body."

Thinking of Marvin’s post above, let me say that they will tell you that they are the ones who can understand and interpret what Tertullian meant, never mind what he actually said, because they start with a premise rather than reaching a conclusion after looking at all the facts. They make quotations to make a point, period. They’ve got the backing of the faithful slave, you know, even if individually they do not profess to be of the anointed.

Too, there is a certain circular reasoning that obtains: ‘since the Watchtower is food at the proper time, and since these statements appear in the magazine, they must be true—because they are a product of the holy spirit.’ That is the mindset even with governing body members, who get their magazines, i.e. get fed, at the same time as do other Bethel family members.

Thoughtful persons who know better just keep their mouths shut or pay a price for honesty by being labeled a doubter or troublemaker or worse. Reminds me, Nathan Knorr was actually boastful when he stated to intimates that he had no time to read the publications.

Let me give you some insight: it was painfully obvious to many that the Society’s vacillations on numerous items of policy were glaring to the point of embarrassment. So the late Karl Klein, a senior writer and one of the GB himself, wrote the very strained Watchtower article on "tacking," in an effort to explain away and justify how they could veer left, then right.

Karl himself never embraced the 1975 date; neither did others—Lyman Swingle never embraced the 1914 stuff period. But Karl was an apologist for the Society’s position and loyally tried to explain away the difficulties.

In 1966 I asked Karl how Fred Franz could be trotting out that hoary reasoning on dates again; weren’t we going to be in for a disaster in 1976? Karl told me that it was much like the Judge, who after admitting he had "made an ass of himself" over the 1925 prophetic failure went right back to date-setting. Karl said: "The Judge just really wanted to see the end so bad in his lifetime that he got to believing his own writings." He observed the same thing had happened with Fred Franz, and that FWF felt the stimulus would be good for the organization even if it were not true.

What you have is followers following followers following followers, in a system that has momentum of his own and not easily changed.

Let me offer another example of the use of selective quotations. For many, many years the Society has quoted famed British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle out of context. They have portrayed him as against evolution and as a creationist. I’ll be charitable and say that writer after writer trotted out the same stuff for years, without checking. You can find the citations for yourself, so I’ll just supply Hoyle’s.

Take a look at the dust jacket of his book "The Intelligent Universe" which speaks for itself: "The **Darwinian** theory of evolution is shown to be plainly wrong. Life has evolved [!!!] because biological components of cosmic origin have been progressively assembled here on Earth. These components have arrived from outside, borne in from the cosmos on comets" ... "The key to understanding evolution is the virus. The viruses responsible for evolution and the viruses responsible for diseases are very similar." (Published first in 1983 by Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.)

Note that it is Darwinism and not evolution that Sir Fred takes issue with. He believes that our planet is an "assembly station" that was "seeded" from outer space and that life did indeed evolve, just not from inanimate matter. Please also note that his thesis is not buried somewhere in his books; they are the heart and soul of his clearly written argument.

It is difficult to believe that the Society’s writers have never read an entire publication by Sir Fred or more than a line or two. If they have not, their misrepresentations are indefensible. If they have read his books, they are obviously suppressing or misrepresenting what the distinguished astronomer really espouses, because it is quite impossible to read his books without understanding what he clearly articulates.

In using this and similar books in the past, perhaps the Society’s writer looked only at the FRONT of the book’s dust jacket, whose subtitle is "A New View of Creation and Evolution," and did not look at the BACK, on which there are a picture of the astronomer and in large print the words, "We have DESCENDED FROM LIFE SEEDED FROM THE DEPTHS OF SPACE." (Caps mine.)

On page 41 of the Creator book under the heading "A Deliberate Intellectual Act" in another, longer quotation we read (finally after all these years) the all-but-buried clause referring to Hoyle, "even espousing that life on earth arrived from outer space," while the paragraph ends by quoting him that "it seemed better to suppose that the origin of life was a deliberate intellectual act." (You are encouraged to read the entire page for yourself.)

Sounds great, he believes in God and creation, right? Once again the sentences are taken out of context, so that the reader will infer what the author does not imply. The reader readily concludes that a toweringly important scientist believes what JWs believe.

Read for yourself Hoyle’s discussions about cosmic intelligences superior to ours. And what does he actually believe about creation?

In his own words: "It makes little difference whether the Universe was created in 4004 BC as Archbishop Ussher asserted, or 10,000,000 years ago, if indeed there ever was a creation, which as we have seen there are plenty of reasons to doubt." [!]

Hoyle winds up his argument by noting: "Because the correct logical procedure is to build upwards from precisely formed subroutines, we on the Earth had to evolve [!] from a seemingly elementary starting point. Yet so powerful was the onward surge, so urgent the climb up the great mountain, that on Earth a creature at last arose with an inkling in its mind of what it really was, a whisper of its identity: We are the intelligence that preceded us in its new material representation—or rather, we are the re-emergence of that intelligence, the latest embodiment of its struggle for survival." (Pp. 238, 239.)

You be the judge: Does Sir Fred Hoyle believe what the Society would have you think? Is the basic belief of Sir Fred Hoyle supportive of the Society’s position? Absolutely not. That hasn’t stopped them from misquoting him for years.

A final thought: When teaching at Gilead School, Bert Schroeder (now an aged and frail member of the GB) used to cite the rule "falsus in uno, falsus in toto" as a standard to determine trustworthiness—"untrue in one, untrue in all."

Time to apply this yardstick.

Maximus

59

Blood, The Watchtower and Deceit

by Maximus in

jw
friends

while much attention is given to doctrine in sites such as this, very little is noted about the watchtower societys intellectual dishonesty in its publications, especially when it comes to quotations.. oftentimes the societys writers will cite a scholar or author of some repute: "professor blank observes that blah, blah, blah.

" the reader assumes from the quotation that professor blank is in agreement with the organizations position, of course, and that the quotation chosen accurately depicts the authors thoughts.. heres the catch: the words between the quotation marks may be accurate, but the snippet may not at all faithfully represent someones actual thesis or position.

much like a newspaper ad for a movie that quotes a reviewer as saying "monumental!

Maximus

Farkel, I know schmucks. And you are no schmuck. And certainly no dummy.

Come on, now. "Truth will set you free." Latin, for my persona and to remind me of my own integrity, not to communicate. (Should have written YOU a la NW translation; it's plural.)

Motto of Johns Hopkins. Er, didn't some other dude say that?

But you comment on three words rather than my post. Not even a smiley.
I dunno. Maybe it was in a language people don't understand? Folks are more interested in other stuff that I'm too old to get into. I'll leave that to you and Alan.

M

59

Blood, The Watchtower and Deceit

by Maximus in

jw
friends

while much attention is given to doctrine in sites such as this, very little is noted about the watchtower societys intellectual dishonesty in its publications, especially when it comes to quotations.. oftentimes the societys writers will cite a scholar or author of some repute: "professor blank observes that blah, blah, blah.

" the reader assumes from the quotation that professor blank is in agreement with the organizations position, of course, and that the quotation chosen accurately depicts the authors thoughts.. heres the catch: the words between the quotation marks may be accurate, but the snippet may not at all faithfully represent someones actual thesis or position.

much like a newspaper ad for a movie that quotes a reviewer as saying "monumental!

Maximus

While much attention is given to doctrine in sites such as this, very little is noted about the Watchtower Society’s intellectual dishonesty in its publications, especially when it comes to quotations.

Oftentimes the Society’s writers will cite a scholar or author of some repute: "Professor Blank observes that blah, blah, blah." The reader assumes from the quotation that Professor Blank is in agreement with the organization’s position, of course, and that the quotation chosen accurately depicts the author’s thoughts.

Here’s the catch: The words between the quotation marks may be accurate, but the snippet may not at all faithfully represent someone’s actual thesis or position. Much like a newspaper ad for a movie that quotes a reviewer as saying "Monumental!" when in actuality he has fumed about its stupidity and saying it is "a monumental piece of poo." Just one solitary example for now:

In the Watchtower 10/15/00 Questions from Readers about its policy on blood and blood fractions, there appears a quotation from "Professor Frank Gorman," which reads: "The pouring out of the blood is best understood as an act of reverence that demonstrates respect for the life of the animal and, thus, respect for God, who created and continues to care for that life."

Great quote, huh? It's accurate, every word cited correctly. Sounds like he agrees with the Society’s views on respect for the "sanctity of life," right? You’re impressed, yes? A "professor" buttresses the policy and position, Christians should pour out blood rather than accept it. Lofty language that sanctions the death of a child from "declining" a life-saving infusion of packed red cells as an act of reverence. You’re impressed, right?

Guess what, folks. The Watchtower writer omitted Gorman's very next sentence! And he ignored the preceding material as well. Like to know what the author's true argument is? Here’s the true quotation about pouring out blood, directly from his book, specifics further down.

"IT IS A HUNTING RITUAL THAT IS ENJOINED ON [who?] THE ISRAELITES and is distinct from, but not related to, THE RULINGS ON ISRAEL’S +RITUAL+ ACTIVITY IN RELATION TO THE ALTAR. IN POURING OUT THE BLOOD, THE HUNTER ‘PRESENTS’ THE LIFE OF THE ANIMAL TO YAHWEH." (P. 104)

Hunting ritual? Hel-lo! Did the Watchtower writer just not read that next sentence after the one he quoted? Did he just stop reading one sentence too soon?

Let’s start reading at the subheading that precedes the material from which the W writer took his single sentence. Here’s the accurate quotation: "Verses 13-14 ADDRESS THE QUESTION OF ANIMAL BLOOD IN RELATION TO [now get this, dear reader] HUNTING." (P. 103)

Ooops. The W writer must have missed that sentence too. Let’s go on:

"There is a basic ruling (v. 13) and an explanation for it (v. 14). In the explanatory statement, the association of the life of an animal and its blood connects this unit to the previous one. [see below] The blood of an animal or bird killed for food must be poured out on the ground and covered with earth (v. 13). The explanation follows: ‘because the life of all flesh, its blood is bound up with its life.’ (v. 14). This is a restatement of the notion that the life of an animal is in its blood (vv. 10-12). Yahweh has prohibited the consumption of blood precisely because the life of an animal is in its blood. Any person who eats it will be ‘cut off.’"

Then comes the sentence the Watchtower quoted about pouring out blood as an act of reverence! Now you get the context. And then comes the sentence that IT IS A HUNTING RITUAL enjoined on the ISRAELITES. The author is very clear on this. One would have to be braindead to misunderstand his reasoning.

Do you think the Watchtower writer just didn't read the surrounding material? He read just once sentence without looking at the context? At best the quotation is careless and merely misleading. In reality it badly twists and distorts the truth and gives the thought that an authority, a PROFESSOR (they could have chosen to call him Dr. Gorman) is in agreement with the Society on this sacred blood issue. They want you to believe that true scholars, like "true Christians" (in Watchtowerese), subscribe to this view of blood. Dissenters are just out of step.

Where was the governing body when this deceitful gem was put in the "food at the proper time"? Does this strengthen your faith in a 'faithful slave' that is viewed de facto as infallible?

This kind of dishonesty is a regular practice, of which enlightened readers are well aware, and of which more than a few even in Writing are ashamed. ‘Ah, but we make no pretense at infallibility; we’re imperfect. Just wait on Jehovah to correct matters.’ That's getting very old.

The Society’s current policy on the use of blood and blood fractions is horribly inconsistent and dead wrong--and many in high places know it. The QFR was a transparent attempt to portray the policy in a more favorable light. In so doing they really distorted both the facts and the essence of Professor Gorman’s lucid argument, wanting readers to infer what he does not even imply.

More information for those interested, worth the time it will take to read further: The book is "Leviticus, Divine Presence and Community," Eerdmans, Grand Rapids MI, 1997, a 160-page paperback. It presents the holiness code of Leviticus 17-26 very lucidly; it’s very informative and instructive, "practical for our day." (You will find nothing about blood transfusion prohibition, of course.) Its author is Frank H. Gorman, Jr., Chair of Religious Studies at Bethany College, Bethany, West Virginia, a school which is affiliated with the Disciples of Christ.

Gorman sees holiness not as an abstract quality but as "a relational category that comes into being in, by, and through enacted relationships based on justice, integrity, honest, and faithfulness." A comment, then more of his material.

I wonder how Gorman would feel if he knew how his well crafted sentence was lifted out of context? Ethics? Bet he has no idea that what he has written about "justice, integrity, honesty and faithfulness" in the Christian community has been distorted in millions of magazines all over the globe, in scads of languages—in furtherance of a flawed, inconsistent policy that lets children literally die to show respect for life symbolically. Someone ought to write him and ask him what he thinks about the Society’s honesty and faithfulness!

"Unit Three" of Leviticus Chapter 17 is vv. 10-12 and stands at the center of the chapter, according to Gorman. You really ought to read the whole book; I’ll snip for space. "Although the text does not explicitly state that life is sacred or that it belongs to God, it is probable that the priests would have attached sacred significance to the life in the blood…. The blood is not to be consumed because it has a RITUAL [caps mine] use. The reason for this statement, however, forms the crux of the interpretive problem: ‘because the blood, by the life, will expiate. (v. 11c)’" (P. 102)

Gorman notes that "the life of an animal is in its blood, and the blood has been ‘set apart’ to address a wide range of problems having to do with sin, trespass, and impurity. Thus, it is in the expiatory power of the ritual process that is emphasized in this text. The manipulation of the blood [by placing it on the altar, et cetera] effects expiation. THAT IS THE PRIMARY REASON FOR THE BLOOD PROHIBITION. The reason it is effective in ritual is because it is ‘charged’ with the life of the animal. In addition, it is probable that the text prohibits the consumption of blood because the life of the animal is considered sacred." [Caps mine.]

And again: "The blood expiates because of the life that is in it. Emphasis is placed on the ritual use of the life in the blood. The manipulation of the (life in the) blood, **in the context of ritual,** [Gorman’s own parentheses and italics] expiates on behalf of the Israelites.

"Thus it is the expiatory power of the ritual process that is emphasized in this text. The manipulation of the blood effects expiation. That is the primary reason for the blood prohibition." —(P. 102)

I posted this on the old H20 and thought I would redo it in a second airing even though it seemed to be received with a casual ho-hum. How do you feel about such egregious dishonesty?

Maximus
"Veritas Vos Liberabit"

19

Who Will Cry For the Babies?

by Farkel in

jw
friends

here's something i found on kent's site just now.

i wrote it december last.

i didn't know that he purloined it but then again, he purloins lots of stuff, and furthermore i don't save most of what i write.

Maximus

:: I was forced to study that masterpiece of child-abuse known as “From Paradise to Paradise Regained”

Right on, Farkel, as usual--although that pinches.

For the record, Nathan Knorr wanted to release a book with illustrations (he had an attractive, talented new in-house female artist) for the huge double assembly in Yankee Stadium and the Polo Grounds, along with other literature--a "release" a day. It was to be a book for the Far East in particular, with no negative doctrines like Trinity to be discussed, analyzed and then "right" teaching presented. But the President vacillated and could not really make up his mind. His right-hand man Freddy Franz was, of course, too busy with the other publications, the Daniel book and the NW translation volume, and tepid to the project.

The then-editor of the publications told NHK that time did not permit what it would take to get the book through the factory, including writing the MS. Knorr the businessman decided to divvy up the book between several different writers! (If you have four writers, you can do it in 25% of the time, right? Groan.) Not all got the message. Some thought it was for children. If you have a copy, glance through it and you will see the differences in style, not to mention approach. Cf. the fire and damnation from heaven stuff.

When the final product was read from Chapter 1 onward in MS form, it was an obvious mess which a few thoughtful ones saw clearly. It was too late to do anything about it--a rewrite impossible; Colin gritted his teeth, and the book was mindlessly used as a children's book, despite "official" comments noting that was not its purpose.

It sure did influence young minds. And for many persons I've talked to over the decades, it elicited many nightmares.

Take-home thought to ponder: was this "food at the proper time"? A product from God himself? The r&f have this vision of saintly men praying and the holy spirit prompting their pens--the faithful slave dispensing food via the anointed-remnant GB. Hardly.

I enjoyed the thoughtfulness of your post, Farkel. The cauldron of pain has produced in you a unique combination of head and heart. You've helped so many.

Maximus

36

Report on Jacksonville losing WT convention

by expatbrit in

jw
friends

city loses big convention .

by bill johnson, special to the daily record.

wash your car, it will rain.

Maximus

Sore indeed, Marvin; you do know whereof you speak. I doubt that even Gerald Grizzle knows what many REALLY think.

The strong-arm seminars and later directions were repugnant to many, but dutiful theocratic notes of thanks were sent in. Got to remain loyal, maybe they need more cash, er ....

Similar to what's going on with the blood issue. If they knew what many heavies REALLY think ...

Maximus