Posts by vienne

I know mom liked 'talking' to people here. She was very ill for a long time. She wanted to live to see her next book, the one she was writing with Bruce, published. The book will be published without her.

We are all very sad.

Annie

20

You are afraid of children Jehovah witnesses after criminal tragedy in Kerch 2018?

by Pit123123 in

why are the leaders of the watchtower corporation modestly silent about this shame jehovah witnesses?.

all children jehovah witnesses potential terrorist?.

only not politics!

vienne

Simon, he has all the hallmarks of a typical Russian troll: presumptions without evidence, associations without foundation. Kinda sad.

78

Is White Nationalism A Major Problem In Your Opinion?

by minimus in

jw
friends

after seeing the atrocity in new zealand, do you think white nationalism is a major issue affecting you or where you live?.

somebody already called out chelseaclinton, blaming her for the attack!

.

vienne

I'm white. I do not feel bad for being white. Privilege? I worked for everything I have. What privilege?

9

When did jws start viewing the "worldly" as bad associates?

by nowawake14 in

jw
friends

any of you that had been in the organization for decades are welcome to answer.

really, who started this craziness?.

vienne

From the forthcoming volume 2 of our Separate Identity:

Russell wrote a commentary on the First Psalm, saying said that the “righteous man” pictured “those … justified by faith … new creatures, walking in their Master’s footsteps.” They were “sometimes imperfect” through fleshly weakness. The Psalm says the righteous should avoid: “(1) the ungodly – literally, the wicked, (2) sinners or transgressors, and (3) scorners or the conceited and unteachable.” “The proper course is to have no fellowship (sympathy and common interest) with people of any of these classes.” Russell wrote that this did “not mean that we are to treat them unkindly or discourteously, nor that we are never to be seen walking, standing or sitting with such; but it does imply that our company should, as far as possible, be select, and of those who reverence our God, and that other fellowships should not be encouraged.”

Russell felt most believers would avoid common sinners and the unquestionably wicked. But most were “in danger of getting into fellowship with the scorners or unteachable.” Association with them would lead “to the same spirit, and that leads gradually to violation of the covenant with God; and that leads to open wickedness and willful sin.” The safe way was to have “no fellowship with darkness: it is never profitable.” This affected church affiliation:

"In all the nominal churches there are many who have a form of godliness, but who are really ungodly – far from being in harmony with God and his plan. In the nominal churches are also many sinners, living in known violation of their covenant with God. And there, too, may be found, alas! sometimes even in the pulpits, those who are of an unteachable, haughty spirit, who even scoff at God’s Word and make it void through their traditions. Come out from among them; and neither sit, nor stand, nor walk in fellowship with such. (Rev. 18:4; Isa. 52:11.) Stand with God, even if that should seem to imply standing alone. The Lord knoweth them that are his, and he has yet more than seven thousand who bow not to the idol of sectarianism."[1]

Obedience to the principals of good fellowship brought happiness rather than social isolation:

"Some might suppose that one thus isolated would have an unhappy lot; but no, he is truly said to have a delightful experience. He delights day and night in meditating upon God’s will and plan. In this he finds a joy and a peace which the world and a worldly church can neither give nor take away. One thus consecrated and full of the spirit of the Lord finds that God’s laws of righteousness are not restraints which he would fain be freed from; but, like the Master, he can say, “I delight to do thy will, O my God: thy law is engraven in my heart.”"[2]

[1] The seven thousand who do not bow to sectarianism comment is a reference to 1 Kings 19:18.

[2] C. T. Russell: The King of Zion, Zion’s Watch Tower, March 15, 1892, pages 90-91.

35

Do You Think The Bible Teaches A Trinity As Religions Teach?

by minimus in

jw
friends

i’m not asking whether you believe in the bible.

i just want your opinion as to whether you think the bible teaches it.

i don’t, for what it’s worth..

vienne

No, the Trinity doctrine does not appear in the Bible.

41

JUNE 2019 Watchtower: Higher Education - HQ & Bethels are populated with evil, educated folks!

by The Fall Guy in

how alienated from jehovah and un-christian so many bethelites must be, who finished their higher education and gained their degrees!

i don't know how they can live with their consciences!.

pages 6 & 7, pars.

vienne

Higher education can lead you into nonsense. It often does. BUT it also teaches you how to reason, refute, defend.

9

Rough Draft Chapter

by vienne in

a few of you are interested in our historical research.

newly posted to our history blog is a mostly complete, rough draft of a chapter that will appear on separate identity, volume 2.

[we are getting close ...].

vienne

Yes, I know Barbenec very well. He's one of the best researchers out there, focusing (in limited circulation work) on biographies of prominent Watch Tower adherents.

There is no evidence that Russell met Christadelphians in Scotland. His contact with them seems to have been in the 1870s. In that era he was not traveling internationally.

9

Rough Draft Chapter

by vienne in

a few of you are interested in our historical research.

newly posted to our history blog is a mostly complete, rough draft of a chapter that will appear on separate identity, volume 2.

[we are getting close ...].

vienne

Slim,

Fredrick Zydek attempted to make connections to contemporary events. I do not recommend his book. It is very speculative (i.e. he makes stuff up). Zoe Knox does a better job in her newest book. Both are on Amazon.

From Separate Identity Vol 1:

Christadelphian Connections

A number of writers postulate a Christadelphian connection. Among more modern writers one finds repeated references to Benjamin Wilson as a Christadelphian. Russell, they say, got his ideas from Wilson’s Emphatic Diaglott, and Wilson was a Christadelphian. This is a fable. Wilson, son of an Oxford professor of Greek and an immigrant to North America, was associated first with the Campbellites. He was attracted to John Thomas’ teachings but he and Thomas parted company. Thomas was bitter and vituperative. Newell Bond addressed the issue in a letter to Thomas dated October 29, 1866, pointing to Thomas’ “sarcasm and [the] sport made of others who have believed and obeyed the same Gospel.” Such “go not very far with candid, thinking men as arguments in defense of the truth,” Bond wrote. Thomas’ reply was that Wilson was “of that class I am commanded to avoid.” He called Wilson a “rabid politician” and one of “the world’s own.” “I repudiate in toto the idea of such having like precious faith with the Apostles.” Thomas did not see Wilson as a Christadelphian. Wilson repudiated the association. Not at all ashamed of his repeated ad hominem attacks, Thomas published the letters for all to read.

Because One Faith believers and Christadelphians draw from the same Literalist roots, Christadelphians speculated about a connection with Russell. Without confirming it, Christadelphian writers asserted that Russell was once “connected with the truth.” When “The Photo Drama of Creation” was released, The Christadelphian described it as a “piece of apostasy from the truth from which we understand Pastor Russell was in some way connected many years ago.” The editors of The Berean Christadelphain went further:

About 50 years ago a man named Russell attended meetings of Christadelphians in Glasgow. He picked up part of the Truth and then went to America. There he started a new sect, which he called The International Bible Students' Association. Popularly its members were soon known as “Russellites” and he himself as “Pastor Russell.” We heard him on two occasions expound his ideas of religion.

These claims constitute a self-serving myth. Still, Russell was acquainted with Christadelphian theology. He used their descriptors, calling Watch Tower congregations Ecclesias and traveling evangelists Pilgrims. His topic during a speaking tour in late June 1880 was “Things Pertaining to the Kingdom of God,” a characteristically Christadelphian topic and phrasing. We shouldn’t read too much into that. The topic is derived from Acts 1:3 and was used by many who were not Christadelphians. As we shall see in the next chapter, his theology was not derived from that source. It came from the Age-to-Come movement centered on The Restitution. Because the doctrines are somewhat similar and Christadelphians saw the One Faith movement as “vile,” they preferred to see themselves as the source. “He was once in touch with Christadelphains, and is much indebted to their writings for what good his system may contain,” one editor wrote.

We cannot date with any assurance Russell’s first encounter with Christadelphianism. An “old brother Cattelle” claimed to have known him “many years ago” in Allegheny or Pittsburgh. We cannot date this, nor can we identify which Cattelle this was. That leaves us with an interesting claim but no way to evaluate it. It is probable that Russell’s introduction to Christadelphian teaching came early. Adherents were often isolated and attended meetings sponsored by others with similar faith, trying to persuade them to Christadelphian belief. A. E. Williamson, a Watch Tower evangelist, recalled an example of this. He reported that he had to contend with “a Christadelphian, who seemed much incensed because the discourse was so lengthy that he could not have a good opportunity to express himself.”

John H. Thomas, a physician, moved to Pittsburgh toward the end of 1879. The Christadelphian noted him as a subscriber resident in Canada in 1867. By his advent in Pittsburgh he was straddling the line between One Faith and Christadelphianism. Letters and articles from him appear in The Restitution, one of which Russell reprinted in abridged form. Some of Thomas’ lectures were reissued in tract form and sold through The Restitution.

If Russell and Thomas associated on any sort of friendly basis, that ended with the publication of Food for Thinking Christians. A brief notice found in The Christadelphian of 1882 says that “Dr. Thomas lectured twice at Berwick, Pa., and once at Bloomsburg, Pa., at which places he did much to neutralize the influence of that subtle enemy of God’s truth, called Russellism, which is a mottled mixture of truth and Universalism.”[10] He was tarring Watch Tower belief in a fair chance for all with the brush of Universalism. There is no Universalism in “Russellism.” To The Restitution he wrote: “I am sorry to say that the believers here are tinctured a little with Russellism, which is subversive of the truth as it is in Jesus.” It is interesting to note that Berwick, Pennsylvania, believers were on Russell’s speaking itinerary in June 1880.

Thomas drew the small remnant of the original Church of God (Age-to-Come) congregation to himself, acting as its pastor. A letter from a Restitution reader noted that a “body of believers has been called out in Pittsburgh, and that they meet regularly every week” in Thomas’ home.[12] The congregation continued to have mixed views, and Thomas was willing to tolerate these. This caused controversy among his Christadelphian associates. A “brother Gunn” wrote to the editor of The Christadelphian complaining about Thomas. The main complaint seems to have been about his less than pure associates: “I had hoped that some of the brethren in the United States would have cautioned you long ago against Dr J. H. Thomas, who certainly is not sound in doctrine, and is striving to hold a position in which he can do great damage to the truth – passing as a Christadelphian and fraternizing with the vile Restitution.” A letter to the editor of The Christadelphian appearing in the April 1883 issue suggested that he seemed “to hold the truth himself, but is unprepared to exact it in every particular as the basis for fellowship with others.” R. K. Bowles, a fairly prominent One Faith adherent and contributor to The Restitution, commented on this, writing: “I think his remarks are uncharitable and I read them with regret. I do not know that I have seen all that Dr. T. has written, but what I have seen I highly commend, and hope he may prove himself worthy as a good soldier ever to the end.”

Thomas left Pittsburgh for Rochester, New York, about 1883 and the small congregation dwindled. He circulated a broadside announcing his removal to Rochester. “Read and be Wise,” it said. “Dr. J. H. Thomas & Wife (late of Pittsburg, Pa.) at the Earnest Solicitation of Friends Have Removed to this City ... They Have Established for Themselves a Widespread Reputation in the Treatment of Chronic Diseases of Every Description by Electricity.” Thomas continued to lecture on Christadelpian topics and to promote quack medicines. He was as positive about his unfailing cures as he was about his religion.

Lucius C. Thomas, John’s brother, left Pittsburgh sometime in 1882, returning in 1888 for his son’s funeral. He does not seem to have been a Christadelphian or even sympathetic to them. He was an American-born Electro-Medical Physician but a resident of Canada in 1870. The 1871 Census lists their church affiliation as “Church of God,” which would mark them as Age-to-Come (One Faith). His repeated contacts with The Restitution verify this. When his son Irving died in September 1888, G. D. Clowes preached the funeral sermon and The Restitution printed his obituary as written by his father:

He had been an obedient and constant believer of “the gospel of Christ …” for many years. … Elder Cloughs [sic] of Allegheny City … talked to the people about ‘the hope and resurrection of the dead,’ very appropriately and ably; showing that while Atheism, Infidelity, Skepticism, Philosophy and Science can afford not comfort in the time of such bereavements and heart-rending grief, the Scriptures present us with ‘a strong consolation’ – a ‘blessed hope.’”

We do not know what connection Lucius had with Clowes or Russell. It is interesting, however, that he sought out Clowes instead of any of the Christadelphian adherents.

The Pittsburgh Age-to-Come congregation shifted to Christadelphianism by 1893. Henry Cornman wrote to The Christadelphian in late 1893 describing a series of lectures held in Pittsburgh. They added two to their number, he explained, but numbers remained small. What interest there was in Christadelphianism was undercut by Watch Tower evangelism. Cornman wrote that, “being myself acquainted with many who have been drawn to the Russell Party, of Zion Watch Tower fame, our giving up the hall at this time would be very much deplored.” He saw the loss in numbers and worried.[16] Similar complaints continued up to Russell’s death. In 1916 The Christadelphian described “Russellism” as “the system … that has beguiled some among us.”

One must remember that both groups were very small, and though they saw their teachings as of major consequence, they were only marginally influential as religious movements. A continuing Christadelphian complaint was that The Watch Tower drew away “the faithful.” Louis B. Welch, most often called ‘Dr. Welch,’ a dentist in Shire Oaks, Pennsylvania, bemoaned this: “There are many of the faithful who read Russell’s works, and some have allowed their minds to be bewitched by his spiritual sorceries. He is very plausible to those who do not look deeply into the truth.” The difference between Welch and Russell was Christadelphian willingness to find types and symbolisms where Russell saw only the Bible’s plain statements.

Welch wrote to Russell, trying to convert him to Christadelphian belief. He didn’t like the result:

I know the man. I have corresponded with him. I know he is immovably fixed in his beliefs. I cannot therefore be “charitable” to his work, a work so deadly to the truth. He is the bitter, relentless enemy of the truth, though professing friendship for it. He must be treated as an enemy of the truth, and his teaching must be antagonised with all the power of truth at one’s command, regardless of how it may hurt his feelings or wound his vanity, or how it may affect those who, in any way, sympathise with his teachings.[18]

Welch presented Russell’s teaching, which he called Watch-Towerism, as denying “the very foundation of future life and being to us” and as a deadly insult to God and His truth.” Watch-Towerism was worse than Catholicism, worse than Adventism. Welch was disturbed at the significant sympathy for Russell he found among Christadelphian believers, writing:

And you, a brother, a Christadelphian, ask me to be charitable towards such teaching “because of the great work done” by the chief apostle of “Watch-Towerism!” Ah, brother, brother, do you know what you are asking at my hands and at the hands of others who know the length and breadth and depth of “Watch-Towerism?” God forbid that I or you or others should ever subject His truth to such a kiss of charity

Sympathetic voices continued to be raised among Christadelphian adherents up to Russell’s death. In 1915 The Christadelphian released two “cheap” pamphlets to counter sympathies for “Russellism, some of the tenants of which have found favour here and there in the brotherhood.” The magazine “commended” them to “those who may be inclined to be smitten with ‘charitableness’ of this plausible ‘heresy.’” Russellism was, the editor said, “a greatly perverted” system.

Russell was unquestionably familiar with Christadelphian belief. He rejected major portions of it, especially their “narrow” view of salvation. None of his doctrine is traceable to that source. Instead it comes from the One Faith movement with its similar, sometimes overlapping doctrine.

32

The phrase "one of Jehovah's Witnesses"

by Ding in

jws don't say, "i am a jehovah's witness.".

instead, they say, "i am one of jehovah's witnesses.".

what does the second way of saying it convey that the first does not?.

vienne

It's a grammar issue. The name is a plural; focus on the word 'Witnesses.' Because it is a plural, then individuals in the group are 'one of' the group. Hence, the phrase is "one of Jehovah's Witnesses."