we've posted updated and new research on our history blog.
http://truthhistory.blogspot.com/2018/06/temporary-post.html.
this is rough draft material for a chapter in vol.
Last,
Yet here you are back reading my posts. ... I understand that you do not like the Watchtower and are incurious about its past. But you're also obsessed with it. Shame. Probably explains why you became a Witness in the first place and why you didn't stay.
here are some quotes by the guy, from his youtube channel.
his name is stefan molyneux, and he’s apparently popular among the alt-right crowd.
he’s also widely quoted on these discussion boards, by certain ex-jws, who use him to help promote their political views.
When I was pursuing my education degree I found Intelligence described as the ability to more and more closely associate ideas. I think that covers all of the definitions of intelligence. It covers social skills, survival skills, academic skills.
Without question an IQ test can indicate intelligence, but unless you're joining MENSA, it does not indicate much. For instance, if it takes you ten days to figure out a problem and it takes your friend ten minutes, are you less intelligent? You figured it out, right? Maybe it was a type of problem you'd never encountered before. Next time you see a similar problem, you will have experience to guide you. It will not take you as long to reach a solution.
Being quick witted may be nice, but alone it does not mean you're a superior human. Behavior is what matters. A misbehaving genius is a fool. An mentally under-performing but kind-hearted person is his superior.
we've posted updated and new research on our history blog.
http://truthhistory.blogspot.com/2018/06/temporary-post.html.
this is rough draft material for a chapter in vol.
Sparrow,
Do they match up? In places. Sometimes the watchtower gets it right. But we tell you things they do not. They won't tell you about Russell's early associates who left. We give a huge amount of detail. Vol. 3 of Separate Identity will have the story of Conley, Paton, and Jones' and why they left the Watch Tower. In volume 2 we tell about several who did and why.
I think the major difference is that we tell a full, as complete as we can make it, account. They abbreviate because they're not really writing history. They're writing self-praise. With great probability, they will never quote from our books. A preview of Separate Identity vol. 1 is here. https://books.google.com/books?id=NYiUBgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=schulz+separate+identity&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjPqfDVwvLbAhVEKawKHe9TCPAQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=schulz%20separate%20identity&f=false
Judge for yourself. Personally, I think that Penton [latest edition of Apoc. Delayed] and Zoe Knox recommend our books indicates that we will not get anything from the Watchtower that might take adherents to it.
we've posted updated and new research on our history blog.
http://truthhistory.blogspot.com/2018/06/temporary-post.html.
this is rough draft material for a chapter in vol.
Last,
You do not like the Watchtower. That's fine. There are many reasons why some do not. But your angry comment is off topic. Would not the best way to oppose something be from what really happened and what was really said.
I do not accept Watchtower theology of the Russell era, except in some small areas where my personal belief system derives from Russellite antecedents. History is not about accepting or opposing something. Best history is story telling but done accurately. We write to tell the story, not to bring approval to a discredited religious philosophy or to support a doctrinal set. You are allowed your anger. But you are not allowed to misrepresent others. Go back and look at the blog again. There are hundreds of posts that are documented either with footnotes or photos of the original documents.
An example: https://truthhistory.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2018-06-22T21:06:00-07:00&max-results=100
we've posted updated and new research on our history blog.
http://truthhistory.blogspot.com/2018/06/temporary-post.html.
this is rough draft material for a chapter in vol.
Last,
Then you didn't look at all. Prove your point. Our blog, active since 2007, is full of footnoted articles, photos of original documents and similar things. Your comment is BS.
we've posted updated and new research on our history blog.
http://truthhistory.blogspot.com/2018/06/temporary-post.html.
this is rough draft material for a chapter in vol.
Our blog is here https://truthhistory.blogspot.com/
we've posted updated and new research on our history blog.
http://truthhistory.blogspot.com/2018/06/temporary-post.html.
this is rough draft material for a chapter in vol.
I do not know about Rutherford. I think Russell was sincere, but I don't think he got it right. Obviously his prophetic scheme was skewed. He had a strange view of women. He wasn't the moral degenerate people paint him as, but he believed a wife was subsumed by the husband's headship. This was not uncommon in that era. But it is hard to read his views and not shake the head.
The Watchtower has nothing to do with our books, though they have at least one copy of each. We've asked them questions in the past. If we ask to see a document they most often decline. They sent about 8 photocopies four of which were things we had. I am not a Witness. The closest we got to any sort of approval from them was a vague comment not directed to us that an intensive study of an era by a historian changes the narrative. My impression is that while some at the WT find it interesting, most do not like it at all.
Individual Witnesses have contributed a huge amount of material. Some are deeply interested. An example is an aged Dutch Witnesses who spent hours chasing down newspaper articles contemporary to the events. I loved this old man, who has sadly died since.We use much of what he found. Those on 'the other side' have been equally helpful, reading our blog and sometimes commenting or emailing me directly. And there are cognate religions that join with the Watchtower's past back in the 1870s-1880s. Their historians have provided resources and some guidance where we touch on Russell's interactions. The principal surviving cognate religions are the Abrahamic Faith congregations, especially Church of God General Conference (Atlanta). Their historian has helped us gain access to papers and photos. We owe access to all the surviving copies of The Restitution to her.
Some who read my posts think I'm a man. I'm not. I'm mom to five lovely daughters and a retired [health] former professor and teacher.
we've posted updated and new research on our history blog.
http://truthhistory.blogspot.com/2018/06/temporary-post.html.
this is rough draft material for a chapter in vol.
Dear Eye,
Much of what is written about both men is not exactly true, sometimes blatantly false. But I'd never claim that their belief systems were Biblical or that their personal lives were without fault. Because there is so much written by both sides that is wrong, or incomplete, or misleading, we're taking extreme care to be accurate; to tell the story as bluntly and plainly as we can. We base our work on original sources, some of which have been buried for 100 years or more.
We've found and continue to find material hidden in archives leading us to places where Proclaimers will not take you. We've also found astounding misrepresentation in books some of which are seen as authoritative. And example is a book written in 1945 by a Presbyterian minister who wrote as a sociologist. He manufactured quotations. Following his work to the sources he cites shows him to be pretty much a bloody liar.
Then there is plain ignorance. Watchtower books mention people favorably who never were adherents or who left for other belief systems and they do not tell you that. I think they do not know it. Watchtower 'histories' are unfootnoted except for Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose, I have an instant distrust of something that presents itself as a history that fails to footnote. In fairness, I should observe that there are respected authors who've done the same.
We footnote everything because we want our readers to be able to follow our train. We think those who read our books have working minds. I am never disturbed by someone making a decision off available information.. We want the narrative to be refreshed and accurate. As I said earlier, most of what is out there on the Internet and in already published books is false or misleading. There are exceptions. Zoe Knoxx's new book is worth a read. It is very expensive, but you should be able to read it via interlibrary loan. The trend among historians now is to question everything. And to dig deeper. No history is without a least minor faults, but Besier and Stokosa's Jehovah's Witnesses in Europe Past and Present, a multi volume work with essays be 'experts' in their field is as close as one comes. If we make a decision based on a group's history, we should verify what we read.
we've posted updated and new research on our history blog.
http://truthhistory.blogspot.com/2018/06/temporary-post.html.
this is rough draft material for a chapter in vol.
eye,
That's not history. That's propaganda. We don't write propaganda for either side. We write verifiable history, and footnote our stuff so others can see it and verify it.
we've posted updated and new research on our history blog.
http://truthhistory.blogspot.com/2018/06/temporary-post.html.
this is rough draft material for a chapter in vol.
Dear Betterdays,
I've read that, though not recently. It's interesting but not always accurate. Should note here, I think, that the claim that there was a secret gold mine made by some is false. The mine was not a gold mine. It was not secret, and it's on the Federal register of historic places. It was a soda ash mine that did not prosper.
