vienne

Joined

• started 100 topics
• posted 1,379 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by vienne

• 
  8

  Renting to a Witness of the opposite sex...

  by James Robinson in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i need a question answered.

  i know of a situation where a single sister took in a single brother as a renter, so she could be his caregiver, as he was very along in years.. long story short, they were forced to get married.

  i believe it was labeled under "appearance of evil" by the elders.. my question is: what do the elders base this on?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  vienne

  In that situation, they base it on stupidity.
• 
  20

  The WT brings up the theme of fleeing

  by Kosonen in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/watchtower-study-january-2022/those-seeking-jehovah-will-lack-nothing-good/.

  this article explains what a modern time application to fleeing might involve in the prophecy jesus told about the last days.. that is a timely reminder.

  i think it will become soon possible to flee to australia from the mark of the beast.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  vienne

  Amazing, isn't it? That someone with mental health issues can generate so many comments.
• 
  22

  Request----Federal Post Office Inspector!

  by Atlantis in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  atlantis:.

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  vienne

  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.
• 
  10

  Letter to the pioneers

  by DAWUD in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  hey!.

  is it true that the pioneers used to get letter each year?

  does anyone have any?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i wasn't sure where to post this.

  not sure why i'm posting this.

  it's only going to add fuel to the fire.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i wasn't sure where to post this.

  not sure why i'm posting this.

  it's only going to add fuel to the fire.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i wasn't sure where to post this.

  not sure why i'm posting this.

  it's only going to add fuel to the fire.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i wasn't sure where to post this.

  not sure why i'm posting this.

  it's only going to add fuel to the fire.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i wasn't sure where to post this.

  not sure why i'm posting this.

  it's only going to add fuel to the fire.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i wasn't sure where to post this.

  not sure why i'm posting this.

  it's only going to add fuel to the fire.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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?