Posts by vienne

18

J.W.Sisters are not recognized as part of the 144000 Anointed class by the Governing Body of Jehovah`s Witnesses and never have been.

by smiddy3 in

rev.14: 1-6 describes the 144000 as males who do not defile themselves with women and are classed as virgins.?.

how does the governing body of j.w.`s explain that a man having a sexual relationship with a woman defiles a man?.

isn`t this or shouldn`t this be an affront to women who are jehovah`s witnesses ?

vienne

this from the 1974 Watchtower is still current teaching as far as I know:

In what way are they “virgins”? The Bible explains. Concerning the 144,000, who are seen standing with the Lamb of God on the spiritual Mount Zion, it says: “These are the ones that did not defile themselves with women [like the religious harlot Babylon the Great, and her daughters]; in fact, they are virgins. These are the ones that keep following the Lamb no matter where he goes.” (Rev. 14:4; 17:3-5) After becoming spirit-begotten ones, having hope of reigning with Christ in the heavens, they do not commit spiritual “adultery” with this world. Consequently, these Christians do not defile themselves with the religious and political system of this world. They do not meddle or interfere in any way with politics or the operations of human governments.—2 Tim. 2:3, 4.

23

Stroup's "The Jehovah's Witnesses."

by em1913 in

a book that doesn't get a lot of talk these days is herbert h. stroup's 1945 study "the jehovah's witnesses.

" which is too bad, because in the field of jw studies it pretty much stands on its own as a serious, scholarly look at the rutherford era of the movement -- one written with no theological or doctrinal axes to grind, but rather with the impartial eye of a professional sociologist.. stroup received no cooperation whatever from brooklyn in writing this book, but he spent a great deal of time among rank-and-file witnesses of the late 1930s and early 1940s, attending their meetings, joining them in field service, and eating at their homes, and what emerges is a picture of an overwhelmingly working-class movement which overlapped in its hopes and ultimate goals the ambitions of other radical social movements of the 1930s.

the witnesses were not marching in labor parades or participating in sit-down strikes or engaging in other forms of street-level radicalism, but stroup finds that, in their individual views on the social and economic structures of the time, they were largely in harmony with those who were, even in spite of their religion's supposed disavowal of politics, and he sees them as much as a political movement in that sense as a religious one.

vienne

We should probably note that up to 1940 clergy in the South and in rural areas elsewhere were often illiterate or nearly so.

Liston Pope’s analysis of clergy education in Gastonia County, North Carolina, illustrates my point:

The policy of the Baptist churches has been even less exacting. The denomination has never erected an educational requirement for its ministers, or maintained an informal standard, or insisted on a course of study. In 1869-70 there were only two college graduates in the Baptist Association which included most of the churches in Gaston County. In 1903 few Baptist preachers in the county had even a high school education and college men were almost unknown. The tendency in more recent years has been to give preference to better-educated men, but only 56 per cent of them at present have college degrees and only 18 per cent have completed a seminary course.

The newer sects in the county are led by ministers almost wholly uneducated. Several of them find it necessary to have some more literate person read the Scriptures in their services. Others did not go beyond the fourth or fifth grade in the public schools; none have college degrees. Most of them are on sabbatical leave from jobs in cotton mills. There are no established educational requirements for preachers in the sects with which they are affiliated, though there are trends in that direction.

As compared with Presbyterian and Lutheran standards, Methodist demands have been relatively low. The Methodist Episcopal Church, South, did not establish a college degree as a prerequisite to ordination until 1934, and it was possible until 1940 to circumvent this requirement. Less than half of its preachers in Gaston County at present have had seminary training; most of them now have college degrees, but several older men, representative of past standards, have only a high school education or less.[1]

[1] L. Pope: Millhands and Preachers, Yale University Press, 1942, page 107-109.

23

Stroup's "The Jehovah's Witnesses."

by em1913 in

a book that doesn't get a lot of talk these days is herbert h. stroup's 1945 study "the jehovah's witnesses.

" which is too bad, because in the field of jw studies it pretty much stands on its own as a serious, scholarly look at the rutherford era of the movement -- one written with no theological or doctrinal axes to grind, but rather with the impartial eye of a professional sociologist.. stroup received no cooperation whatever from brooklyn in writing this book, but he spent a great deal of time among rank-and-file witnesses of the late 1930s and early 1940s, attending their meetings, joining them in field service, and eating at their homes, and what emerges is a picture of an overwhelmingly working-class movement which overlapped in its hopes and ultimate goals the ambitions of other radical social movements of the 1930s.

the witnesses were not marching in labor parades or participating in sit-down strikes or engaging in other forms of street-level radicalism, but stroup finds that, in their individual views on the social and economic structures of the time, they were largely in harmony with those who were, even in spite of their religion's supposed disavowal of politics, and he sees them as much as a political movement in that sense as a religious one.

vienne

I think the lack of Black "servants" in the 30s and 40s was due to poor quality education afforded that population. But I haven't really researched that. My current interest is the Russell era. We have books outlined through 1977, but both my health and Dr. Schulz's age/health make it unlikely that we'll get that far. I'll be pleased if we finish the Russell era. Everything else will be ice cream topping. In the Russell era some Black clergy converted to Watch Tower theology.

All Black congregations had an all Black "servant body." I haven't read Cohn's thesis, though eventually I will. Title is the same as the later article.

23

Stroup's "The Jehovah's Witnesses."

by em1913 in

a book that doesn't get a lot of talk these days is herbert h. stroup's 1945 study "the jehovah's witnesses.

" which is too bad, because in the field of jw studies it pretty much stands on its own as a serious, scholarly look at the rutherford era of the movement -- one written with no theological or doctrinal axes to grind, but rather with the impartial eye of a professional sociologist.. stroup received no cooperation whatever from brooklyn in writing this book, but he spent a great deal of time among rank-and-file witnesses of the late 1930s and early 1940s, attending their meetings, joining them in field service, and eating at their homes, and what emerges is a picture of an overwhelmingly working-class movement which overlapped in its hopes and ultimate goals the ambitions of other radical social movements of the 1930s.

the witnesses were not marching in labor parades or participating in sit-down strikes or engaging in other forms of street-level radicalism, but stroup finds that, in their individual views on the social and economic structures of the time, they were largely in harmony with those who were, even in spite of their religion's supposed disavowal of politics, and he sees them as much as a political movement in that sense as a religious one.

vienne

Yes, that's true. The nature of the congregations changed in the Rutherford era. Character Development was the Russellite expression of a late 19th Social Reform theory advocated by some psychologists and what then passed as social workers who were often religious. I understand why Rutherford attacked it. It didn't work as intended and led to strife within the congregations. Self reform [character development] theory is not, in the Christian perspective, the same as emulating Christ.

One source says that in the Rutherford era the average education was to seventh grade. This is sometimes used to denigrate adherents, but it was part of the Common School system to end education for most at 7th grade. The education system evolved in America in the 1930s to include high school. High schools existed before, but they were not anything like those of today. And it was rare for someone to enroll. Maria Russell graduated high school, but for her that meant at best one or two additional years.

This is from the rough draft of volume 2's first chapter

"Maria was somewhat better educated than Russell. She graduated from Pittsburgh’s High School, where Russell took classes at the YMCA. She was admitted in 1864 for the 1864-1865 class. Admission to Pittsburgh Central High School on Smithfield Street was by examination; questions were asked addressing basic education on grammar, geography and history, and the examination lasted two days. Maria’s contemporary, George Fleming, described the process: 'There were at least three [math] definitions to answer and a question in long division; one involving an equation with one unknown quantity and one of the ten questions with a requirement of fifty percent; ... . In other studies also fifty per cent. [This is how percent was then written; it’s the abbreviation of the Latin Per Centum.] was required except spelling where sixty per cent. was the minimum.' The exam room was poorly lighted, which made cheating difficult, but not impossible, and it was sometimes happened.

"It appears that she was enrolled in the ‘normal,’ or teacher training cohort. There is no record of attendance beyond the one year, though we suspect she attended at least one more year. When asked by her attorney: 'Where were you educated, Mrs. Russell?' she listed Pittsburgh High School and Curry Normal School. She did not claim to have graduated from either."

After graduating she attended Curry Institute taking the teacher training course. Some writers represent this as college. It wasn't. This is another quotation from the rough draft of chapter one:

"Some mistake Curry Institute for a college. Though it became one before its demise, when Maria Ackley attended it was not one. Founded by Robert Curry, PhD, it was ‘celebrated’ for its ‘normal school’ program. Normal schools were teacher training institutions. Some evolved into regular colleges, many did not. The ‘normal’ course work, that for teacher training, lasted six months. Following her older sister Salina, Maria sought qualification as a teacher, receiving her Permanent Certificate in the fall of 1870. We do not know if she had a temporary certificate prior to this but suspect that she did. The 1870 R. L. Polk Directory lists her as a primary grades teacher."

Common school textbooks of the Russell era are way beyond what we expect of students today. In small town schools and country schools some teachers had no appreciable education, and post 1929 American schools were in a funding crisis. So for young people, those just 'coming up' education was short changed. Also the idea that only certificated teachers [in opposition to parents] were fit to teach children started entering what was then called "Educational Psychology" text books, giving license to teachers to foist any cock-eyed belief on the students. Most affected by this were working class families whose jobs left them little time to educate their own children.

23

Stroup's "The Jehovah's Witnesses."

by em1913 in

a book that doesn't get a lot of talk these days is herbert h. stroup's 1945 study "the jehovah's witnesses.

" which is too bad, because in the field of jw studies it pretty much stands on its own as a serious, scholarly look at the rutherford era of the movement -- one written with no theological or doctrinal axes to grind, but rather with the impartial eye of a professional sociologist.. stroup received no cooperation whatever from brooklyn in writing this book, but he spent a great deal of time among rank-and-file witnesses of the late 1930s and early 1940s, attending their meetings, joining them in field service, and eating at their homes, and what emerges is a picture of an overwhelmingly working-class movement which overlapped in its hopes and ultimate goals the ambitions of other radical social movements of the 1930s.

the witnesses were not marching in labor parades or participating in sit-down strikes or engaging in other forms of street-level radicalism, but stroup finds that, in their individual views on the social and economic structures of the time, they were largely in harmony with those who were, even in spite of their religion's supposed disavowal of politics, and he sees them as much as a political movement in that sense as a religious one.

vienne

In his own way Russell was a social- justice warrior. But he approached that from his theology rather than current political thinking. Thanks for the conversation. It's fun to have an exchange with someone who knows their subject. In volume 2 we will have a chapter on Russellites and the era in which they lived based on comments found in Zion's Watch Tower. It's partially written. Researching for it has taken me off into areas normally outside my interest and expertise. I've enjoyed every minute of it.

You may want to read Raushenbush's Christianity and the Social Crisis [1913] . You can download the entire text from books.google.com

23

Stroup's "The Jehovah's Witnesses."

by em1913 in

a book that doesn't get a lot of talk these days is herbert h. stroup's 1945 study "the jehovah's witnesses.

" which is too bad, because in the field of jw studies it pretty much stands on its own as a serious, scholarly look at the rutherford era of the movement -- one written with no theological or doctrinal axes to grind, but rather with the impartial eye of a professional sociologist.. stroup received no cooperation whatever from brooklyn in writing this book, but he spent a great deal of time among rank-and-file witnesses of the late 1930s and early 1940s, attending their meetings, joining them in field service, and eating at their homes, and what emerges is a picture of an overwhelmingly working-class movement which overlapped in its hopes and ultimate goals the ambitions of other radical social movements of the 1930s.

the witnesses were not marching in labor parades or participating in sit-down strikes or engaging in other forms of street-level radicalism, but stroup finds that, in their individual views on the social and economic structures of the time, they were largely in harmony with those who were, even in spite of their religion's supposed disavowal of politics, and he sees them as much as a political movement in that sense as a religious one.

vienne

Presbyterians and Congregationalists had and still have identical doctrine, differing only in methods of church governance. They had union congregations, where a pastor form either church could officiate. In the little town where I grew up one still existed. I do not know how wide spread the practice is today.

23

Stroup's "The Jehovah's Witnesses."

by em1913 in

a book that doesn't get a lot of talk these days is herbert h. stroup's 1945 study "the jehovah's witnesses.

" which is too bad, because in the field of jw studies it pretty much stands on its own as a serious, scholarly look at the rutherford era of the movement -- one written with no theological or doctrinal axes to grind, but rather with the impartial eye of a professional sociologist.. stroup received no cooperation whatever from brooklyn in writing this book, but he spent a great deal of time among rank-and-file witnesses of the late 1930s and early 1940s, attending their meetings, joining them in field service, and eating at their homes, and what emerges is a picture of an overwhelmingly working-class movement which overlapped in its hopes and ultimate goals the ambitions of other radical social movements of the 1930s.

the witnesses were not marching in labor parades or participating in sit-down strikes or engaging in other forms of street-level radicalism, but stroup finds that, in their individual views on the social and economic structures of the time, they were largely in harmony with those who were, even in spite of their religion's supposed disavowal of politics, and he sees them as much as a political movement in that sense as a religious one.

vienne

I would have like to have talked to him too.

Interesting observations. I don't think that Rutherford got his anti-Big Business viewpoint from Socialist writing. He worked for the W. J. Bryan campaign and was connect to that wing of the Democrat party. The Democrat party of that era was not as far left-wing as it is today. And this was the era of strong anti-trust action. An out of control drug industry was regulated. This was Rutherford's background, and I believe it is a large factor in the development of his beliefs.

In the Russell era some adherents expressed interest in "Christian Socialism" and one adherent ran on various socialist tickets. Some [John Bartlet Adamson for example. He left the fellowship in the 1890s] found Henry George's economic theories somewhat attractive. So there was a center-left tendency among some believers. Russell discouraged this, saying that a believer's focus should be on evangelism and moral adherence.

Under-explored is Russell's Methodist background. Most don't know that even exists. But many of his social views derive from a conservative Methodist connection, rather than his Calvinist background. Rutherford was a Baptist prior to his association. American Baptists in the post Civil War era tended to be Calvinist in basic doctrine, conservative, farmer-rights oriented, often supporting movements such as the Grange. They saw Big Business [Meat packers, railroads, and wholesalers] as abusing farmers. Remember that America was not industrialized then in any way near to what later years brought about. I think Rutherford's attitudes developed out of this background.

Also, Rutherford opposed prohibition and the League of Nations. He did so on Biblical grounds, or what he thought were Biblical grounds. But as social attitudes, these were shared by the American right.

I'd love to read your additional thoughts. This is fun.

23

Stroup's "The Jehovah's Witnesses."

by em1913 in

a book that doesn't get a lot of talk these days is herbert h. stroup's 1945 study "the jehovah's witnesses.

" which is too bad, because in the field of jw studies it pretty much stands on its own as a serious, scholarly look at the rutherford era of the movement -- one written with no theological or doctrinal axes to grind, but rather with the impartial eye of a professional sociologist.. stroup received no cooperation whatever from brooklyn in writing this book, but he spent a great deal of time among rank-and-file witnesses of the late 1930s and early 1940s, attending their meetings, joining them in field service, and eating at their homes, and what emerges is a picture of an overwhelmingly working-class movement which overlapped in its hopes and ultimate goals the ambitions of other radical social movements of the 1930s.

the witnesses were not marching in labor parades or participating in sit-down strikes or engaging in other forms of street-level radicalism, but stroup finds that, in their individual views on the social and economic structures of the time, they were largely in harmony with those who were, even in spite of their religion's supposed disavowal of politics, and he sees them as much as a political movement in that sense as a religious one.

vienne

On what basis are you defining the Watchtower movement of the 1930s as 'left wing.' I would have described it as tending to the right. Please elaborate.

... And thanks for the kind words about our book and blog.

23

Stroup's "The Jehovah's Witnesses."

by em1913 in

a book that doesn't get a lot of talk these days is herbert h. stroup's 1945 study "the jehovah's witnesses.

" which is too bad, because in the field of jw studies it pretty much stands on its own as a serious, scholarly look at the rutherford era of the movement -- one written with no theological or doctrinal axes to grind, but rather with the impartial eye of a professional sociologist.. stroup received no cooperation whatever from brooklyn in writing this book, but he spent a great deal of time among rank-and-file witnesses of the late 1930s and early 1940s, attending their meetings, joining them in field service, and eating at their homes, and what emerges is a picture of an overwhelmingly working-class movement which overlapped in its hopes and ultimate goals the ambitions of other radical social movements of the 1930s.

the witnesses were not marching in labor parades or participating in sit-down strikes or engaging in other forms of street-level radicalism, but stroup finds that, in their individual views on the social and economic structures of the time, they were largely in harmony with those who were, even in spite of their religion's supposed disavowal of politics, and he sees them as much as a political movement in that sense as a religious one.

vienne

Stroup, a Presbyterian clergyman, wrote a polemic in the guise of a sociological study. He manufactured quotations and made insupportable claims. Stroup was never reliable. Specific claims he made that are false include, but are not limited to, his assertion that Russell claimed to be the last-days 'time clock' appointed as the revealer of last days truth. That's a misrepresentation of a 1910 Overland Monthly article by Russell. He misidentified M. F. Russell. He claimed things about Russell's followers footnoting it to a booklet by Burridge. A check of the original shows the citation is false. He made claims about Watchtower convention attendants and the infamous New Jersey speech by Rutherford that are demonstrably false. I've just scratched the surface with this.

Dr. Schulz, the series editor for our books, examines Stroup and some others in his introductory essay to Separate Identity volume 2. [Yet to be published but nearly finished.]

Volume 1 is available from lulu.com and Amazon.com.

Our history blog is here: https://truthhistory.blogspot.com/

19

Blood Transfusions

by new boy in

jw
friends

take a wild guess who dreamt up the idea about no blood transfusions for jehovah’s witnesses in the first place?

charles russell, the founder of the church?

judge rushford, the alcoholic and second president?

vienne

Our research led us to a now deceased physician who told us that he and his partner had a Witness patient [in 1945] who refused a blood transfusion. The two physicians both Witnesses wrote to the watchtower society asking for their help and stating the patient's religious objections. The Society wrote back stating that the patient was correct in his view of Scripture and the first no-blood article followed in short order. Who made the decision at the Watchtower Society level is unknown, but I suspect it was Franz and not Knorr.