I'm not convinced Lloyd's date was a woman:
Posts by vienne
-
11530It's been a long 9 years Lloyd Evans / John Cedars
by Newly Enlightened inoriginal reddit post (removed).
-
-
-
22
Jehovah's Witnesses - Where is Your Money Going?
by Sea Breeze inafter discouraging and in many instances prohibiting jw's from getting an education, like in computer graphics, film-making and design, the wt is employing these kinds of professionals and throwing vast sums of money at their new film-making adventures doubtless from all the properties they confiscated, sold that the local members paid for.
kim and mikey talk about this primarily starting at 13:15https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqafxmsjirk&ab_channel=kimmikey .
-
-
vienne
As I see this, it's a non-scandal. Are we jealous of Watch Tower money? It's not ours, even if in the past we contributed. My grandmother converted late in life from Catholicism to Witness belief and contributed on a regular basis. It was her money, not mine. After she donated it, it was the Watchtower Society's money. Not mine. How they spend it, assuming it is moral and legal, it's none of my business.
This is just an excuse to make a video. This does not differ much from Evan's need to make regular videos. [I am not suggesting that Kim is anything like Evans. So don't yell at me over that.]
I also do not see Watchtower facilities as a cause for 'scandal.' Do we expect their staff to live in caves, eat gruel, and meditate on their navel? Certainly there are better things to notice in the Watchtower system.
-
28
Would you still be angry with Lloyd Evans ?
by BettyHumpter inif instead of thailand, he had gone to a place where its legal and (supposedly) has some sort of oversight to prevent exploitation?
like nevada in the u.s or amsterdam in europe?
would the being unfaithful part still be a deal breaker as far as supporting his channel?
-
-
vienne
He doesn't make me angry. Takes more than his Tomfoolery to do that. I am, however, revolted. He cheated on his wife. Aside from the harm that does to her and their children, it tells us something about his ethics. He is untrustworthy. Aside from that, he's just boring, off point and rather stupid.
His lack of morals shows that he isn't really an x-JW seeking to expose cultic wrongdoing. He left/was thrown out because of moral issues that have only gotten worse. Prostitution of any short is questionable.
-
68
Where it all went wrong for the WT - JF Rutherford
by LoveUniHateExams ini was thinking a bit about this the other day.
ct russell, from what i remember about him, kinda seemed like a genuine, nice(ish) guy, although he had a few eccentric but harmless ideas.. during the russell era jws (actually bible students) could still celebrate christmas, worship in other churches if there was no kingdom hall available, and accept blood transfusions.. then after russell died, along came rutherford - a major league a-hole, for sure.. rutherford had plenty of eccentric ideas but at least some of them weren't/aren't harmless.
some have been long forgotten about - jesus depicted without a beard, the plan to rename the names of the week because names such as thursday (thor's day) is pagan, the articles about the 'dangers' of aluminium, etc.. one key contribution of rutherford which does a lot of harm is no blood transfusions, even in life-threatening situations.. another is shunning, something which never occurred under russell, or at least was much milder.. rutherford has a lot to answer for, i reckon ....
-
-
vienne
Disi,
Thanks for the kind words.
-
68
Where it all went wrong for the WT - JF Rutherford
by LoveUniHateExams ini was thinking a bit about this the other day.
ct russell, from what i remember about him, kinda seemed like a genuine, nice(ish) guy, although he had a few eccentric but harmless ideas.. during the russell era jws (actually bible students) could still celebrate christmas, worship in other churches if there was no kingdom hall available, and accept blood transfusions.. then after russell died, along came rutherford - a major league a-hole, for sure.. rutherford had plenty of eccentric ideas but at least some of them weren't/aren't harmless.
some have been long forgotten about - jesus depicted without a beard, the plan to rename the names of the week because names such as thursday (thor's day) is pagan, the articles about the 'dangers' of aluminium, etc.. one key contribution of rutherford which does a lot of harm is no blood transfusions, even in life-threatening situations.. another is shunning, something which never occurred under russell, or at least was much milder.. rutherford has a lot to answer for, i reckon ....
-
-
vienne
Smile,
You are passing off fakery as 'truth.' You do this to legitimize your disaffection from the Watchtower. You do not need to do that. We're free agents. We can choose our associations without excuse.
Mischaracterizing me or others who press for historical accuracy does not change the fact that you're wrong. That you use character defamation to excuse your personal choices. I'm not a Russellite. And most certainly not a Witness. I'm pursuing my master's degree in history.
You want me to run away? From the likes of you and others who use unethical behavior to cover behavior defects? Not very likely.
Russell was no more a false prophet than the Established Church writers who delved into prophetic numbers to predict the end of the age. There's a long list of those. Or of the Presbyterian and Church of Scotland writers who did the same. Or the Lutherans or Evangelicals or Congregationalists.
You don't like what Russell taught? Fine. If you boiled down his six volumes into what is absolutely Scriptural, I think we'd end up with a single volume, perhaps quite thin. However, grasping hold of falsehood and misrepresentation to support a life choice is a mental defect. None of us here need find excuses for the course we follow. No one is responsible for our choices but ourselves.
So, you spew nonsense. I'll continue to note it.
Assume some personal responsibility and do your due diligence. Verify before you spew. If you look to Internet nonsense to recover from the Watchtower, you will fail. Stand on your own two feet. Accept your choices for what they are. Acknowledge that you made them. A dead man did not deceive you. If you were deceived by anyone it is your own fault. Start with that, and you may 'recover.'
-
68
Where it all went wrong for the WT - JF Rutherford
by LoveUniHateExams ini was thinking a bit about this the other day.
ct russell, from what i remember about him, kinda seemed like a genuine, nice(ish) guy, although he had a few eccentric but harmless ideas.. during the russell era jws (actually bible students) could still celebrate christmas, worship in other churches if there was no kingdom hall available, and accept blood transfusions.. then after russell died, along came rutherford - a major league a-hole, for sure.. rutherford had plenty of eccentric ideas but at least some of them weren't/aren't harmless.
some have been long forgotten about - jesus depicted without a beard, the plan to rename the names of the week because names such as thursday (thor's day) is pagan, the articles about the 'dangers' of aluminium, etc.. one key contribution of rutherford which does a lot of harm is no blood transfusions, even in life-threatening situations.. another is shunning, something which never occurred under russell, or at least was much milder.. rutherford has a lot to answer for, i reckon ....
-
-
vienne
Smiles,
Obviosly you have not read the king v. john jacob Ross transcript. The section to which you refer is available at truthhistory.blogspot.com. You will benifit by reading it.
Suggesting historcal accuracy is not elevating Russell to godhood. It is suggesting that the secondary sources upon which you rely open you to ridicule.
I do not see Russell as a saint ,but yorur characterization of him is not sustained by the original documents.
-
68
Where it all went wrong for the WT - JF Rutherford
by LoveUniHateExams ini was thinking a bit about this the other day.
ct russell, from what i remember about him, kinda seemed like a genuine, nice(ish) guy, although he had a few eccentric but harmless ideas.. during the russell era jws (actually bible students) could still celebrate christmas, worship in other churches if there was no kingdom hall available, and accept blood transfusions.. then after russell died, along came rutherford - a major league a-hole, for sure.. rutherford had plenty of eccentric ideas but at least some of them weren't/aren't harmless.
some have been long forgotten about - jesus depicted without a beard, the plan to rename the names of the week because names such as thursday (thor's day) is pagan, the articles about the 'dangers' of aluminium, etc.. one key contribution of rutherford which does a lot of harm is no blood transfusions, even in life-threatening situations.. another is shunning, something which never occurred under russell, or at least was much milder.. rutherford has a lot to answer for, i reckon ....
-
-
vienne
Smiles,
As I wrote earlier, he was ordained by election in the EXACT same way a multitude of protestant clergy were. And most of them had no college education. In fact Eaton, the clergyman Russell debated in 1903, though he called himself Dr. Eaton, never finished college, and what he attended in 1874 would be seen as no more than a second rate Bible school today. Eaton's doctorate was an honorary degree.
Do you know at all how many protestant clergy made 'predictions' or promulgated a long abandoned eschatology? Among these are clergy whose works are still printed and seen as classics.
On the matter of Russell's ordination, Separate Identity, vol 2, says:
In a footnote [Chapter 1; note 3] he [Rogerson] wrote: “The title ‘Pastor’ was purely honorary as far as Russell was concerned, he never graduated from any theological school.” [Comma fault is his.] This is a commonly made claim, and indeed Russell was not educated in any theological school.
In the United States it was common for ordination to be by congregation election. Many ‘Pastors’ especially among Methodists and Baptists were marginally educated, called to preach by licensure and election rather than by graduation from a religious college, some of which met no real academic standard. While this was changing, especially among Methodists, this practice persisted into the 20th Century. Distinguishing between Russell’s election as pastor by Bible Student congregations and a country Baptist’s ordination by the same means is stupid. Someone suggested to us that ‘ordination’ implied a ceremony, and since he knew of no ceremony in Russell’s case he was not ‘ordained’ in any sense. I suggest that formal election as pastor is a ceremony.
In 1913 a survey of Indiana churches done by the Presbyterian Board of Home Missions found that “thirty seven per cent of the ministers have had no more than a common school [i.e.: a seventh grade] education.” 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.[end quote]
We can add that the Mennonites did not establish a theological seminary until 1912, and with the exception of two men, none of their clergy had graduated from college, and most of them had no more than a “grade school education” which was “about normal.”51 Criticizing Russell for what was common among several denominations is pure hypocrisy. Bible Students saw Russell as ordained. Prentis Gerdon Gloystein [January 6, 1887 – April 19, 1956], writing to The Twin Falls, Idaho, Times, described Russell as the “duly elected-ordained pastor” of several Bible Student congregations including the largest of these. Gloystein wrote as one “intimately acquainted with Pastor Russell, having lived for a number of years in his home town ... besides being an associate worker with him at his present headquarters in Brooklyn, N. Y.” [end quotation from SI v 2]
The claim that Russell wasn't properly ordained made by his opponents means no more than that they did not seem him as part of their club. The vast majority of Protestant clergy in the late 19th Century were not college educated. Ultimately, this is a side issue meant to distract one from a discussion of his basic doctrines: Trinity, hell-fire, second probation and such.
Opposing Witnesses by defaming Russell is a non starter. As historians probe more deeply into Watch Tower history a more realistic picture of him emerges and the long-standing falsehoods about him do not stand the test. Stick to what is true and provable.
An example of mythic nonsense is your comment about why Maria Russell married him. She was not a single woman living in Bethel. There was no Bethel. They both describe how they met and why they married. Those documents are available. Some are quoted at some length by more recently written histories. Separate Identity, for instance, is written by B. W. Schulz who is a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society, and R. M. de Vienne, PhD. Their work is seen as authoritative by other scholars. It makes those who rely on fable uncomfortable. And relying on fable puts us under a spotlight. Want to appear mentally ill as the Watchtower suggests 'apostates' are? Purvey fable.
You're repeated what you've found on the Internet without extensive fact checking. When we do that, our arguments turn to dust. Present facts that cannot be refuted.
-
68
Where it all went wrong for the WT - JF Rutherford
by LoveUniHateExams ini was thinking a bit about this the other day.
ct russell, from what i remember about him, kinda seemed like a genuine, nice(ish) guy, although he had a few eccentric but harmless ideas.. during the russell era jws (actually bible students) could still celebrate christmas, worship in other churches if there was no kingdom hall available, and accept blood transfusions.. then after russell died, along came rutherford - a major league a-hole, for sure.. rutherford had plenty of eccentric ideas but at least some of them weren't/aren't harmless.
some have been long forgotten about - jesus depicted without a beard, the plan to rename the names of the week because names such as thursday (thor's day) is pagan, the articles about the 'dangers' of aluminium, etc.. one key contribution of rutherford which does a lot of harm is no blood transfusions, even in life-threatening situations.. another is shunning, something which never occurred under russell, or at least was much milder.. rutherford has a lot to answer for, i reckon ....
-
-
vienne
Smiles, you write that only because you differ rheologically. An specific example?
-
68
Where it all went wrong for the WT - JF Rutherford
by LoveUniHateExams ini was thinking a bit about this the other day.
ct russell, from what i remember about him, kinda seemed like a genuine, nice(ish) guy, although he had a few eccentric but harmless ideas.. during the russell era jws (actually bible students) could still celebrate christmas, worship in other churches if there was no kingdom hall available, and accept blood transfusions.. then after russell died, along came rutherford - a major league a-hole, for sure.. rutherford had plenty of eccentric ideas but at least some of them weren't/aren't harmless.
some have been long forgotten about - jesus depicted without a beard, the plan to rename the names of the week because names such as thursday (thor's day) is pagan, the articles about the 'dangers' of aluminium, etc.. one key contribution of rutherford which does a lot of harm is no blood transfusions, even in life-threatening situations.. another is shunning, something which never occurred under russell, or at least was much milder.. rutherford has a lot to answer for, i reckon ....
-
-
vienne
No 1. Is demonstrably false on two levels. First, most of his religious training came from Age-to-Come believers and Methodists. It was considerable. Secondly, most clergy in the era were not university educated. You can find this in Separate Identity.
No 2. Is equally misleading. He was not a salesman in his father's store. He was owner, partner with his father in one store. He was the owner of several stores and businesses including major equipment sales, oil wells and patent holder of a lionotype case. He was an owner/manager. Not a salesman.
No. 3. Is stupid. He was elected pastor of several congregations, first in 1876 in Allegheny. He did not assume the title without having fulfilled the office. Ordination by election was common practice in the era, especially on the frontier and deep south.
No. 4. Russell was very cautious about claiming to be the Faithful Slave. He does seem to have believed it. And one of his associates said that he admitted to it in a private conversation.
No. 5. I've skimmed through the 1916 Convention Report and could not find that. Please cite the page.
No. 6. Complete Fraud? You refer to William T. Ellis' article in The Continent. I see you did not fact check. Ellis claimed that Russell did not, despite a newspaper sermon report saying he had, given a sermon in Hawaii. But Hawaiian newspapers report that he did. Ellis also complained that Russellites ignored the needy and unchurched. This is demonstrably false.
No. 7. The divorce from bed and board - not an absolute divorce - is best considered by reading the transcript. This abbreviated summary is misleading.
No. 8. Demonstrably wrong. What's your proof?
Besmirching someone's character is a substitute for rational argument. It is a major logic flaw, the refuge of those incapable of refuting teaching.
-
-
-
vienne
Citizens of the UK should be happy that they're a constitutional monarchy. If Charles had the power of medieval kings had, the joint kingdoms that make up the UK would descent into silliness and poverty. Unless Charles spent his time fornicating and drunk.