We dealt with the USPS inspectors. It does not seem to be the role of a postal inspector to monitor letter content. Police? Yes, if it is threatening. And the letter here is not a WT society letter. Still interesting. I'd like to see the more recent Watchtower Society letters.
Posts by vienne
-
22Request----Federal Post Office Inspector!
by Atlantis inatlantis:.
do you have a copy of a letter that was sent out by a congregation overseer, with a complaint from the federal post office inspector, concerning letters being sent out by jw's?.
yes, i have it, but very few people show any interest in the letters anymore.
-
-
-
10
Letter to the pioneers
by DAWUD inhey!.
is it true that the pioneers used to get letter each year?
does anyone have any?.
-
-
vienne
I would like to see them all. I have 2 terabytes free memory. Can we do this?
-
32
A bit of history ... for you history buffs
by RR ini wasn't sure where to post this.
not sure why i'm posting this.
it's only going to add fuel to the fire.
-
-
vienne
Major portions of Russell's 'restitution' doctrine come from Age to Come and Colonial Era writers, best I can tell. Armstrong came out of the Abrahamic Faith/General Conference movement, so it isn't surprising that he held similar doctrines.
I want to identify as closely as possible what Russell read. Modern Watchtower implies that he derived his beliefs from an intensive Bible study without acknowledging that Russell himself points to others - at one point naming a long list of writers on prophecy.
-
32
A bit of history ... for you history buffs
by RR ini wasn't sure where to post this.
not sure why i'm posting this.
it's only going to add fuel to the fire.
-
-
vienne
I'm also interested in the roots of Russell's 'restitution' doctrine, that is belief in restored paradise earth. His system differed significantly from Adventism. I've read what Separate Identity says, and some research on my own. I wonder what others know. Anyone?
-
32
A bit of history ... for you history buffs
by RR ini wasn't sure where to post this.
not sure why i'm posting this.
it's only going to add fuel to the fire.
-
-
vienne
Joen,
My mom and her writing partner presented considerable background to Russell's probation views:
One of the first issues tackled by the Allegheny group was Probation doctrine. The idea that this life is a probation that ends at death after which one’s destiny is inexorably fixed was deeply imbedded in the thinking of Christians of all sorts, and it was the topic of some considerable discussion. If death ended human “probation,” irrevocably fixing one’s destiny, then there could be no Restitution – no return to paradise earth and no restoration to divine favor for the bulk of mankind.
Articles were written to support the doctrine and others were written to refute it. In this era probation was hotly debated, especially among Congregationalists in America, where many declared “in favor of posthumous probation.” In 1870, The New Englander published an article defending the doctrine, citing among other things, universal belief in the idea:
“In confirmation of this analogy of nature to the Scriptural doctrine that this life is a probation which ends at death, we have the conclusion to which human reason and conscience have come, unenlightened by revelation. It is one of the most striking facts of human history that God, by the reason and conscience of man, has made a universal impression that there is a future life, that there are two conditions there, and two places for the two grades of character. This natural theology also teaches that that destiny is sealed at death. According to the idea of the Armenti of the Egyptians, the Hades of the Greeks, the Tartarus of the Latins, the future lot of all men is decided when they depart this life, and they are at once assigned their final places in the future world. Hear also the philosophical Plato … All of this indicates, as a tenet of the religion of nature, that this life is the only probation, and with this doctrine God’s Revelation is found in harmony.”
Basing a doctrine on the “revelations of nature” or its “universal acceptance” rather than Scripture is poor work. There are more grounds to look askance at a doctrine believed by Greeks and Egyptians than there are to find in them support for probationism. This line of argument stemmed from the enduring influence of Butler’s Analogy of Religion.
The Allegheny Bible class rejected the idea that Christ’s return would end “probation” for everyone. Russell’s reasoning was similar to that which led him to reject Hell-Fire doctrine:
“We reasoned that, if Christ’s coming were to end probation, and bring irrevocable ruin upon ninety-nine in a hundred of mankind; then it could scarcely be considered desirable, neither could we pray with proper spirit, “Come, Lord Jesus, Come quickly!” We had rather request – much as we should “love his appearing” – that he remain away and our sufferings and trials continue so that “if by any means we might save some.” Not only so, but great masses of scripture referring to the Millennial glory and teaching that “All nations which thou hast made shall come and worship before thee,” &c., &c., would be left unfulfilled if at His coming there should be a wreck of matter and a crush of world. …
“The Lord gave us many helps in the study of His word, among whom stood prominently, our dearly beloved and aged brother, George Storrs, who, both by word and pen, gave us much assistance; but we ever sought not to be followers of men, however good or wise, but “Followers of God, as dear children.””
This was a set-piece of Storrs’ theology. Many, many articles from his pen reject the idea that Christ’s return fixed human destiny. Storrs was often accused of Second-Probationism but replied that for many the first opportunity for salvation would be hearing the gospel after Christ resurrected them. This was not, he said, anything like advocating a second probation. Russell borrowed ideas and phrases from Storrs’ Bible Examiner articles to make the same points. Neither they nor Storrs were the first to reject probationism on these or similar grounds. In 1704 Thomas Staynoe, an English clergyman, wrote:
“We do conclude, That to qualifie these People for the farther Mercies of the Saviour, over and beyond the Resurrection, (which I shall in this Place adventure to call his general and unconditional Purchase) we may suppose,
1. That the Saviour shall be then tendered to them: For, not having heard of him in this Life, they had no possibility, either of receiving or rejecting him here, as the rest of Mankind had.
2. That after they are, upon their Resurrection, made acquainted with the Saviour, they shall be put upon the same Probation, whether they will receive him upon the Conditions of the Gospel; as those were, who had heard of him, and the Gospel-Conditions, in this Life.
3. That if, upon such their Probation, they do receive him; they shall then be in the same happy Condition, in which Life, and who do therefore enjoy the Happiness of the first Resurrection."
The Russells and their associates adopted Storrs’ views in toto. This was true not only of Storrs’ belief that the Probation doctrine was a human contrivance, but with his approach to theology. Millennialist sects in general believed in a “progressive” revelation; that is, they believed, that led by Holy Spirit, scriptural understanding increased over time. Storrs and others among the main-line churches believed this before their introduction to Millerism. Making this point¸ Storrs wrote:
“We have but just emerged from the dark ages of the church; and it would not be at all strange if we should find some “Babylonish garments” still worn by us for truth; or to speak without a figure, we have no reason to suppose that the Reformers, as they are called, divested themselves of all the superstitions and false interpretations that had been put upon the Bible, when ignorant men were kept in awe by the supposed sanctity of the priests.
The Reformers may have done well, considering their circumstances, and the prejudices of their education; but must we sit down and quietly follow exactly in their steps, without employing the understanding and Bible God has given us, to see if there are not things “new,” as well as “old” in God’s blessed word? Our Saviour saith: “Every scribe which is instructed unto the Kingdom of God, bringeth forth out of his treasures, things new and old.” Must we, then, confine ourselves to the old track; and must every thing that is new be rejected? …
There are many points of doctrine that a few years ago passed for truth, that are now rejected. That this is the case in science, generally, no one will doubt. How long is it since men were satisfied that the world is round and revolves on its axis? …
If it is a fact, in science generally, that false theories have been held for ages, may it not be so in religion? Since my recollection, the theory has been held, and promulgated for Bible truth, that there were “infants in hell not a span long” – and that “God made some men on purpose to show His power in their eternal torments in hell fire.” Yes, and that He “decreed all their sins which led to that result,” and sent “the gospel to some people on purpose,” i. e. with the design “to increase their damnation!” And it is within my remembrance, that a man was not considered
orthodox who did not hold these views. But, I doubt if any man now can be found who holds such sentiments; or, if he does, will be willing to avow them."
Polemicists ridicule this approach, suggesting that it is used to account for every doctrinal whim. Storrs (and Russell, at least in his earliest years) believed each Christian was obligated to “prove all things.” The mere claim of progressive truth was insufficient to grant it acceptance. This prompted many debates, and it refined on the bed of fiery debate the doctrines presented as “Truth.” Progressive truth doctrine, though it opens one up to many conflicting claims, prompted a serious, continuing Bible study. - Separate Identity, vol. 1, pages 156-158.
By the time Russell met him, Storrs did not consider himself an Adventist, dating his departure from Adventism to Literalism to 1843/4. What Storrs adopted and Russell after him, was a common thread among Protestant writers from the 16th Century, though a non-Calvinist, minority view.
-
32
A bit of history ... for you history buffs
by RR ini wasn't sure where to post this.
not sure why i'm posting this.
it's only going to add fuel to the fire.
-
-
vienne
E. G. White borrowed extensively. One of those she plagiarized was Horace Lorenzo Hastings. "Borrowing" was more common among Adventists of various sorts than among other groups. I do not know why.
One of Russell's first tracts was a rewrite and paraphrase of one by Henry Smith-Warleigh, Anglican rector of Ashchurch, Gloucestershire. Mom and B dissect this in detail in Separate Identity vol 2.
-
32
A bit of history ... for you history buffs
by RR ini wasn't sure where to post this.
not sure why i'm posting this.
it's only going to add fuel to the fire.
-
-
vienne
Joen,
Aren't the two doctrines you mention what Russell meant when he wrote "though Adventism helped me to no single truth, it did help me greatly in the unlearning of errors, and thus prepared me for the truth"?
At least Wendell put his mind at rest over hellfire. He may have rejected the trinity via another route; there were non-Trinitarian Congregationalist churches. [Russell wasn't Arian. His approach, especially in regard to Holy Sprit, differed from Arianism.]
But I have some questions about other Russellite doctrines. Russell was accused of Second-Probationism. That's not exactly what he taught, but close enough. Adventists rejected anything resembling Second Probation. So, from where did Russell derive his belief? Not from Adventism in this case.
-
32
A bit of history ... for you history buffs
by RR ini wasn't sure where to post this.
not sure why i'm posting this.
it's only going to add fuel to the fire.
-
-
vienne
Russell wrote in the May 1890 issue of Zion's Watch Tower:
"Though his Scripture exposition was not entirely clear, and though it was very far from what we now rejoice in, it was sufficient, under God, to re-establish my wavering faith in the divine inspiration of the Bible, and to show that the records of the apostles and prophets are indissolubly linked. What I heard sent me to my Bible to study with more zeal and care than ever before, and I shall ever thank the Lord for that leading; for though Adventism helped me to no single truth, it did help me greatly in the unlearning of errors, and thus prepared me for the truth."
My question is: What errors did Adventism help him unlearn. And, if Adventism did not lead him to 'truth' from where did his doctrine come?
-
32
A bit of history ... for you history buffs
by RR ini wasn't sure where to post this.
not sure why i'm posting this.
it's only going to add fuel to the fire.
-
-
vienne
From Schulz and de Vienne, Separate Identity, vol. one:
When Wendell returned to Pittsburgh in 1872, he was fresh from distressing personal
controversy. An Associated Press dispatch from Erie, Pennsylvania, claimed that Wendell was arrested
in Erie and taken to Edinboro on “a charge of fornication with a girl of 16 named Terry.”99 As printed in
The Utica, New York, Daily Observer, the notice read: “Rev. Jonas Wendell, sixty years of age, has
been arrested and taken to Edinborough (sic), near Erie, Pa., on the charge of improper intimacy with a
girl named Ferry, [sic] aged sixteen years. Wendell secured the girl’s release from the House of Refuge
some time since, and had arranged to run away with her.”100 The Wheeling, West Virginia, Daily
Intelligencer added that their destination was Pittsburgh.101
The report was picked up by several smaller New York State newspapers and by The New York
Daily Tribune. It was the Tribune with its larger circulation that came to Wendell’s notice. On June 2,
1871, he wrote to the Tribune’s editor from Erie, where he still was rather than in jail in Edinboro,
saying: “I have just had my attention called to an article which appeared in The Tribune of May 29,
headed, ‘A Clergyman in Difficulty.’ I pronounce the charge therein made false, and without any
foundation in truth.” An editorial comment on Wendell’s note blamed the Associated Press, which was
prone to manufacturing the news rather than reporting it.102 Wendell’s denial does not say the arrest did
not occur, merely that he was innocent of the charge. Obviously if he has been found culpable, he would
not have been in a position to write to The Tribune.
The report was published by papers as far away as California. The Daily Alta California ran a
report in its May 29, 1871, issue: “Eire, Pa., May 28th - The Rev. Jonas Wendell has been arrested and
brought to Edinboro, in this county, where he resides, on the charge of fornication. He is an Adventist
minister, and about sixty years of age. The alleged partner of his crime is a young girl about sixteen
years of age, named Terrey. [sic] Wendell secured her release from the House of Refuge some time
since. At the time of his arrest he had made arrangements to run away with her to Pittston. The
examination will be held at Edinboro to-morrow evening.”
An Internet-based history site suggests that the girl was taken from the Pittsburgh House of
Refuge. There is no basis for this claim. There were many Houses of Refuge. Most of the residents were
runaways and juvenile offenders. Often enough inmates were orphans who lived on the streets.
The report was false. That's shown by Wendell being elsewhere when this was first published. Also, if anything similar happened, the girl involved was a Terry, a daughter of prominent Second Adventists [Advent Christian or Life and Advent Union] who hosted a large gathering in 1873. Mom's notes suggest that while Terry may have written to Wendell for assistance, it was Terry who picked up his daughter. The rest is fabrication.
Associating a false report about Wendell with Russell's character is false logic.
-
21
Watchtower Disparages the Bible
by Vanderhoven7 ini'm looking for wts quotations that contrast with ii timothy 3:15-16 whereby they downplay scripture.. here is one from way back..
"...people cannot see the divine plan in studying the bible by itself...if he then lays them [scripture studies] aside and ignores them and goes to the bible alone, though he has understood his bible for ten years, our experience shows that within two years he goes into darkness.
on the other hand, if he had merely read the scripture studies with their references, and had not read a page of the bible, as such, he would be in the light at the end of the two years, because he would have the light of the scriptures," (watchtower, sept. 15, 1910, p. 298).
-
-
vienne
From Schulz and de Vienne, Separate Identity, vol. 2:
We can forgive inexperienced students for accepting Rogerson’s work. He is supposed to know his subject matter. An experienced historian, unless his intellect is clouded by prejudice or by a quest for a preferred result, would look at the un-footnoted assertions found within his book with an adult skepticism. Accepting something because ‘everyone knows it’s true,’ is a major logic flaw – argumentum ad populum. A writer with some depth of research into Watch Tower history should be able to recognize typical research flaws. If one has coached students through thesis and dissertation writing, one knows the shortcuts some students take. An example in Rogerson’s case is presenting a lengthy quotation from Zion’s Watch Tower and footnoting it to the original issue. This quotation is found on page eleven:
Furthermore, not only do we find that people cannot see the divine plan in
studying the Bible by itself, but we see also that if anyone lays the ‘Scripture
Studies’ aside, even after he has used them, after he has become familiar with
them, after he has read them for ten years – if he lays them aside and ignores
them and goes to the Bible alone, though he has understood his Bible for ten
years, our experience shows that within two years he goes into darkness. On
the other hand, if he had merely read the 'Scripture Studies' and had not read a
page of the Bible as such, he would be in the light at the end of two years,
because he would have the light of the Scriptures.
Rogerson did not consult the Watch Tower article where one finds the original. He lifted this entire and without alteration from opposition literature. Judging by his bibliography he found this in Martin and Klann’s Jehovah of the Watch Tower. He leads us through his footnote not to the secondary source from which he drew this but to a specific page in Zion’s Watch Tower. Even his footnote is uncharacteristic, citing a specific page when he otherwise cited a date of publication without noting a page number. Even his footnote is borrowed. Ethically, he should have consulted the original article. Instead, he chose to pretend that he had. In context, the original says something different. Russell’s full message was that to have confidence in Studies of the Scriptures one must test it against scripture:
The six volumes of Scripture Studies are not intended to supplant the Bible.
There are various methods to be pursued in the study of the Bible and these
aids to Bible study are in such form that they, of themselves, contain the
important elements of the Bible as well as the comments or elucidations of
those that our Lord and the Apostles quoted from the Old Testament ... .
Our thought, therefore, is that these Scripture Studies are a great assistance, a
very valuable help, in the understanding of God’s Word. If these books are to
be of any value to us it must be because we see in them loyalty to the Word of
God, and as far as our judgment goes, see them to be in full harmony with the
Word and not antagonistic to it. Therefore, in reading them the first time, and
perhaps the second time, and before we would accept anything as being our
own personal faith and conviction, we should say, “I will not take it because
these studies say so; I wish to see what the Bible says.” And so we would ...
prove every point or disprove it, as the case may be. We would be satisfied
with nothing less than a thorough investigation of the Bible from this
standpoint.
Russell’s comments on his books do not differ in purpose or meaning from those of other Protestant writers but are part of a tradition that extends back to 17th Century British – primarily English – and American Colonial Era writers. David Hall demonstrates that the objective of lay writers and clergy was to “reduce the distance between what they said and what was contained in the great original;” i.e. the Bible. They believed they’d gotten it right, and their words were the Bible condensed or clarified. Hall takes us to a colonial-era writer who advised readers to “diligently read it over and over again, and when you have done, enter upon a serious consideration.” Russell trod this familiar path.