He only added to our project by asking pertinent questions and adding insights drawn from his long experience within the Watchtower. He started attending meetings in the mid-1940s and was baptized in 1948. He served in various capacities and 'knew stuff.' I will miss him.
Posts by vienne
-
23Old Goat
by vienne insome of you may remember old goat who used to post here.
he died last night in his sleep.
he was 92 years old.
-
-
vienne
-
23
Old Goat
by vienne insome of you may remember old goat who used to post here.
he died last night in his sleep.
he was 92 years old.
-
-
vienne
Some of you may remember Old Goat who used to post here. He died last night in his sleep. He was 92 years old. And he was my friend. Until he was unable, we used to meet at a Starbucks and chat. He was a retired professor of history, tall but underweight. A gentleman.
-
4
My intro essay revisited
by vienne inhi everyone [even the person who always marks my posts thumbs down - snicker] i've added to and revised my introductory essay for separate identity volume two.
please read it and give me your thoughts.. thanks,.
rachael.
-
-
vienne
Hi everyone [even the person who always marks my posts thumbs down - snicker] I've added to and revised my introductory essay for Separate Identity volume two. Please read it and give me your thoughts.
Thanks,
Rachael
-
19
The Society is Blocking Research On their Web Site
by new boy init seems, you can not research many of the older publications on society's web site anymore.
for the obvious reasons, that they don't want people to go back and read about all the false prophecies, changing guide lines (new light that became old light that became new light once again) and the just plain stupid stuff they have said over the years.
i not quit sure what publications they have blocked.
-
-
vienne
Zeb, do you have the actual reference for that? Was it a WT letter? Which date? Can you post it?
-
57
WT Study October 2018....spinning ''layoffs'' into ''reassigning'' ex-Bethelites ''to the field''
by RULES & REGULATIONS inwt study october 2018. maintain inner peace despite changing circumstances.
lloyd and alexandra learn that they have been reassigned to the field, they at first felt sad.
after all, they had been serving at bethel for over 25 years.
-
-
vienne
sending someone who's been there for 25 years and is now aged into a world with which they have lost contact is a disreputable act no matter how you phrase it.
-
12
Printed vs Produced
by Rattigan350 inin the january 1, 2015 watchtower it says printing each issue 52,946,000 in 228 languages semimonthly.
in that 2016 #1 issue watchtower it says produced each issue 58,987,000 in 254 languages monthly.
what is the difference between printed and produced?.
-
-
vienne
no difference at all, as far as I can see ...
-
11
Partial rough draft
by vienne ini've posted a partial rough draft of my introductory essay for separate identity, volume 2. it is a work in progress and will change.
it has upset some watchtower adherents who read our history blog.
read it please and tell me if i've been unfair to the watchtower.
-
-
vienne
Phiz,
Thanks for your kind words. They’re really appreciated.
Slim,
Those are the ‘facts’ usually presented, but that’s not what the record shows. Here is what Russell and his contemporaries tell us:
Russell was familiar with preaching on prophecies before he met Jonas Wendell, a “Second Adventist” preacher in 1869. Henry Moore, the pastor of the Plymouth Congregational Church, the church Russell joined as a lad, was a student of the prophecies and preached on them. He left behind at least one printed sermon. Others within Russell’s early acquaintance in the Calvinist community also promoted prophetic speculation. Calvinists in Pittsburgh republished Archibald Mason’s speculations and date setting and remained interested long after Mason’s predictions failed. So Wendell’s preaching was not totally surprising to him. Wendell’s initial sermons were summarized in the Pittsburgh newspapers. And on that basis Russell would not be surprised by their content.
But what did Russell actually hear from Wendell in 1869? A careful reading of what Russell wrote on the matter suggests that he was most impressed with Wendell’s comments on predestination and hell-fire doctrine. Russell does not mention prophetic content, except in one later reference. But we know what Wendell preached in 1869. Though Wendell started preaching about 1873 early the next year, in 1869 he was pointing to that year as the probably end ‘to all things mundane.’ He tells us this in a World’s Crisis article. The 1869 speculation derived from Aaron Kinne, a Congregationalist clergyman who wrote in the 1830s. W. C. Thruman resurrected it, claiming originality for the ‘research,’ but reading his “Sealed Book Opened,” it becomes evident that he borrowed from Kinne. Thurman, a Brethren clergyman, became the darling of Second Adventists, particularly Advent Christians, and many of them adopted the 1869 speculation. What Russell first heard from Wendell was the last gasp of this belief. Then the next year he heard Wendell’s proofs that 1873 was the end of the age when the world would be consumed in fire.
We do not know how Russell received this. But there is enough evidence to suggest a reaction. By 1871 Russell was reading widely in prophetic literature. He was introduced to Storrs, Blaine, Dunn, Smith-Warleigh and a host of other Age-to-Come non-Adventist writers and to Seiss and to Richard Shimeall, a Presbyterian writer. From them he came to restitution doctrine, the belief that Christ came to restore paradise to the earth, not burn it up. And he came to believe in a two-stage, initially invisible parousia. This meant that speculation about world burning was, in his view, false doctrine. He writes about regretting the predictions of Wendell and Thurman and others. Who were the others? He does not say, but someone predicted the end for every year from 1869 to 2000. Among those who were or became his associates and acquaintances some pointed to 1874, 1875, 1876, 1877, 1879 and 1881. Some of these predictions were on questionable basis, even from Russell’s later viewpoints. Some were based on a faked Mother Shipton prophecy and one on a supposed measurement from the great pyramid, and one on a predicted conjunction of planets. Though much is made of Russell’s beliefs regarding the pyramid, he wrote that it was a poor basis for establishing Bible chronology, that it should only be used to support what can be derived from scripture. But that’s something said past the period we’re considering.
Did Russell oppose chronological speculation. It is often said that he did. What he wrote, however, is that because he believed in an initially invisible presence, the only way to know when it occurred was through Bible chronology. In this period his belief was: “It seemed, to say the least, a reasonable, very reasonable thing, to expect that the Lord would inform his people on the subject – especially as he had promised that the faithful should not be left in darkness with the world, and that though the day of the Lord would come upon all others as a thief in the night (stealthily, unawares), it should not be so to the watching, earnest saints.”
So it’s not a reliable chronology he rejected, but Adventist speculation that included world burning and seemed unreliable. He was looking for a reliable chronological framework. When he received Barbour’s Herald of the Morning in December 1875 (Not Jan 1876 as usually said) he thought he might have found one. He also saw that Barbour et. al. had adopted age to come belief, his belief system and thought they might have progressed beyond Adventism into ‘truth’ – enlightenment. He wrote to Barbour who wrote back that he and Paton had been Adventists but no longer were. That they had pursued other doctrine. The other doctrine was age to come, doctrine Russell had learned from Storrs, Stetson and a variety of others, some of whom he mentions directly and some we can surmise from available evidence. What made Barbour’s chronology different was that it was expressed not in Adventist terms that Russell would reject out of hand but in Age to Come/ Literalist / One Faith terms that matched Russell’s theology.
Did Adventism have an effect on Russell. He says it did, that it helped him to unlearn certain thing we can readily identify as Calvinist predestination and hell-fire. Did Russell believe he was adopting some form of Adventism by accepting Barbour’s redefinition of the events of 1873-1874? No. Instead he saw it as a step forward in his Age to Come belief in restored paradise. Should we see it as an Adventist influence? I think not. Russell did not adopt Adventist doctrine, and Barbour's chronology was not expressed in Second Adventist terms. The origin of the 1873-4 date was primarily in Anglican writings. Barbour even acknowledges this.
-
11
Partial rough draft
by vienne ini've posted a partial rough draft of my introductory essay for separate identity, volume 2. it is a work in progress and will change.
it has upset some watchtower adherents who read our history blog.
read it please and tell me if i've been unfair to the watchtower.
-
-
vienne
Chronological speculation is a long standing protestant hobby extending back at least to the 15th Century. It was not a peculiarity of Adventism. Even after the Adventist failure of the 1840s both Adventists and non-Adventist millennialists remained addicted to the practice.
You would find Froom's Prophetic Faith helpful. He profiles many expositors, none of whom were before Miller any sort of Adventist, but they were Millennarians.
-
11
Partial rough draft
by vienne ini've posted a partial rough draft of my introductory essay for separate identity, volume 2. it is a work in progress and will change.
it has upset some watchtower adherents who read our history blog.
read it please and tell me if i've been unfair to the watchtower.
-
-
vienne
Among the Anglican and Church of Scotland clergy upon whose work Barbour based his chronology were these: [Paragraph taken from our bio. of N. Barbour]
John Fry in Observations on the Unfulfilled Prophecies pointed to 1873.[1] Fry ended the 1260 days in 1872/73, writing that “the arrival of the years 1844, 1872, and 1889 must be expected with feelings of the deepest interest by all who are looking for ‘this great day of the Lord.’” W. Snell Chauncy also pointed to 1873 in his 1839 publication Dissertations on Unaccomplished Prophecy.[2] In 1835 Thomas Brown suggested that the 1335 prophetic days might end in 1873, and he felt the way was opening up for “the full triumph of the Gospel kingdom and the final restoration and conversion of Israel.”[3] Matthew Habershon counted the 1290 days from 583 to 1873-74 C.E. (A.D.).[4] At least one advocate of 1873 was mentioned in The Literalist, printed by Orrin Rogers in Philadelphia between 1840 and 1842.[5] Closer to Barbour’s time, the anonymous British writer “S. A.” suggested in his Apocalyptic History that at least one prophetic period might end in 1873.[6] Though the basis for fixing on 1873 varied, there were a number who believed it a prophetically significant date.[7]
[1] Fry, John: Observations on the Unfulfilled Prophecies of Scripture: Which are yet to Have Their Accomplishment Before the Coming of the Lord in Glory or at the Establishment of His Everlasting Kingdom, Printed for James Duncan and T. Combe, London, 1835, page 380. This book is in the British Library.
[2] Published by James Nisbet & Co.; J. Johnstone, 1838, page 387. This book is in the British Library.
[3] Brown, Thomas: A Key to the Prophetical Books of the Old Testament, Published by the Author, London, 1858, page 103.
[4] Habershon, Matthew: A Dissertation on the Prophetic Scriptures Chiefly Those of a Chronological Character: Shewing Their Aspect on the Present Times, and on the Destinies of the Jewish Nation, James Nisbet and Co, 1834, page 452.
[5] The Literalist: Elements of Prophetical Interpretation, etc., Orin Rogers, 1840, page 333.
[6] S. A.: Apocalyptic History, S. W. Partridge and Company, Second Edition, London, 1871, page 21.
[7] Peters mentions a Balfour who looked to 1873. This seems to be a misprint for Barbour. — Peters, G. N. H.: The Theocratic Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ, Funk and Wagnalls, New York, Volume 3, 1884, page 99.
-
11
Partial rough draft
by vienne ini've posted a partial rough draft of my introductory essay for separate identity, volume 2. it is a work in progress and will change.
it has upset some watchtower adherents who read our history blog.
read it please and tell me if i've been unfair to the watchtower.
-
-
vienne
Giordano,
None of Russell's doctrine derives from Adventism. It derives from Age to Come belief, called literalism by many in that era. We examine this in great detail in chapter four of Separate Identity.
https://www.amazon.com/Separate-Identity-Organizational-Readers-1870-1887/dp/1304969401
Russell read Adventist literature, writing to some periodicals. This ended in 1872 or 1873. It is claimed that Barbour was an Adventist and such he was up to 1875. When Russell met him he had switched to Church of the Blessed Hope, a Literalist (non-Adventist) faith. Russell reports that Barbour and Paton had left the Adventists. Barbour names the faith to which he switched. Barbour did not teach Russell Adventism. They shared Age to Come belief as expressed in the religious newspaper The Restitution. Barbour and Russell are (Russell more than Barbour) both called "brother" by that non-Adventist periodical.
Some suggest that Russell's chronology is Adventist. It is not. In 1859 Barbour returned to a study of prophetic figures. He found a satisfying chronology in Elliott's Horae where a chart by Christoper Bowen is found. Neither Elliott nor Bowen were Adventists. They were Church of England Clergy. There are other books, some of which we know Barbour consulted, that present the 1873-4 date as a fixed predictive date. They are all written by Anglican or Church of Scotland clergy. You will find much of this in our Nelson Barbour: The Millennium's Forgotten Prophet. Barbour also derived the date 1914 from non-Adventist sources. None of the chronology believed by Russell and Barbour came from Adventism.
Russell mentions both Storrs and Stetson. George Storrs left Adventism amongst great controversy in 1844. Thereafter he promoted Literalist belief. Storrs when Russell met him was long removed from Adventism. Stetson adopted Literalist (non-Adventist) belief starting in 1864-5. He was banned from some Adventist congregations because he taught contrary doctrine. He was recognized by the Restitution, again not Adventist but antagonistic to Adventism, as an authorized preacher. He was not, when Russell met him, an Adventist, but was writing for The Restitution and for the British journal The Rainbow.
The claim of Adventist influence is greatly exaggerated. He did not adopt any doctrine that was uniquely Adventist. ALL of his doctrines can be found within the Age-to-Come/Literalist/Church of God movement of the late 19th century.