Posts by kepler

23

1904 and Russell taken to task for 606 BCE...calling you brainiacs!

by Aussie Oz in

while cruising through the oct 1 1904 watctower i found this interesting challenge to russells 606 date.

his response in part is also pasted from the wt, but goes on to a very lengthy argument that seems to avoid all the known facts.

not being very good at understaning the issue at all, i wonder what those here more scholarly than i might make of his full reply.

kepler

Just put together some analysis for a related topic...

Russell, Barbour and ... Albert Barnes - 606, 607, 588, 587 before 1914

10

Russell, Barbour and ... Albert Barnes - 606, 607, 588, 587 before 1914

by kepler in

jw
friends

in the midst of several reading or contributing to several on-going and resurrected topics about calculating one historical event based on a rube-goldberg based prophesying formula, i had mentioned a couple of historical leads i thought had some bearing on how this whole process had got under way.

explaining where such ideas come from could be just as fruitless as following the ideas to the follies to which they lead.

but nonetheless, perhaps by sharing some more elements of 19th century americana, there might be some insight after all.. theologian albert barnes (17981870) graduated from hamilton college, clinton, new york, in 1820, and from princeton theological seminary in 1823. barnes was ordained as a presbyterian minister by the presbytery of elizabethtown, new jersey, in 1825, and was the pastor of the presbyterian church in morristown, new jersey (18251830), and of the first presbyterian church of philadelphia (18301867).. .

kepler

In the midst of several reading or contributing to several on-going and resurrected topics about calculating one historical event based on a Rube-Goldberg based prophesying formula, I had mentioned a couple of historical leads I thought had some bearing on how this whole process had got under way. Explaining where such ideas come from could be just as fruitless as following the ideas to the follies to which they lead. But nonetheless, perhaps by sharing some more elements of 19th century Americana, there might be some insight after all.

Theologian Albert Barnes (1798–1870) graduated from Hamilton College, Clinton, New York, in 1820, and from Princeton Theological Seminary in 1823. Barnes was ordained as a Presbyterian minister by the presbytery of Elizabethtown, New Jersey, in 1825, and was the pastor of the Presbyterian Church in Morristown, New Jersey (1825–1830), and of the First Presbyterian Church of Philadelphia (1830–1867).

He held a prominent place in the New School branch of the Presbyterians during the Old School-New School Controversy, to which he adhered on the division of the denomination in 1837. In 1836, he had been tried (but not convicted) for heresy, mostly due to the views he expressed in Notes on Romans of the imputation of the sin of Adam, original sin and the atonement; the bitterness stirred up by this trial contributed towards widening the breach between the conservative and the progressive elements in the church. He was an eloquent preacher, but his reputation rests chiefly on his expository works, which are said to have had a larger circulation both in Europe and America than any others of their class. Of the well-known Notes on the New Testament, it is said that more than a million volumes had been issued by 1870. The Notes on Job, the Psalms, Isaiah and Daniel were also popularly distributed. The popularity of these works rested on how Barnes simplified Biblical criticism so that new developments in the field were made accessible to the general public.

What is significant here is that prior to Russell's publishing career, Albert Barnes had been a national figure for his sermons and a series of books that eventually interpreted or provided commentary on nearly every line of scripture, about 10,000 pages in all. Unlike Russell or Barbour, Barnes had knowledge of Biblical languages, which he provided in the text - and access to some of the best libraries in the country (e.g., Princeton). Much of Barbour's digging around was in Australia - literally mining. And Russell, though he seems to be a good grammarian, probably would not feel very encumbered by his organization's current day attitude toward higher education. In court appearances in Canada prior to the war, it was demonstrated he was absolutely ignorant of either Greek or Hebrew.

Thus, it was said that a 17-volume set of commentaries on nearly every verse of the Bible prepared over several decades; and that the work is filled with cross references to other verses and exegetical texts, u sed by ministers across the country to prepare sermons and originating with Dr. Barnes’ lectures to his Bible study classes. The books were purchased and read by maybe millions of American churchgoers

So, my point here is that although Barnes was not responsible for any of the conclusions drawn and might not even been aware of either Barbour or Russell, his series of books probably were a source for the two Millerite's speculations. Moreover, once the Watchtower Society was institutional, Barnes' Bible Notes, full encyclopedic editions, was a fixture supporting the writing department. It was in one of Ray Franz's two books where he noted that either his uncle Fred or predecessor Knorr ordered the books to be kept off desks and in the drawers or covered shelves.

During the last year, I met a trucker and retired railroad engineer who lives on a boat by the bay. He was setting up a website with ancient history chronologies where he relied greatly on Barnes. As a result of discussions from time to time, he decided to give me a preview look. I have to say that he is the ONLY other instance I have ever encountered beside the Jehovah’s Witnesses who claimed that Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed in 607 BC. Chuck Based based this assertion on a Barnes citation. I tracked down Barnes to find out why or how he came up with that and here is what it says.

Daniel 1:1

In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem - This event occurred, according to Jahn ("History of the Hebrew Commonwealth"), in the year 607 b.c., and in the 368th year after the revolt of the ten tribes. According to Usher, it was in the 369th year of the revolt, and 606 b.c. The computation of Usher is the one generally received, but the difference of a year in the reckoning is not material. Compare Michaelis, Anmerkung, zu 2 Kon. xxiv. 1. Jehoiakim was a son of Josiah, a prince who was distinguished for his piety, Kings2 22:2; Chronicles2 35:1-7. After the death of Josiah, the people raised to the throne of Judah Jehoahaz, the youngest son of Josiah, probably because he appeared better qualified to reign than his elder brother, Kg2 23:30; Ch2 36:1. He was a wicked prince, and after he had been on the throne three months, he was removed by Pharaoh-Nechoh, king of Egypt, who returned to Jerusalem from the conquest of Phoenicia, and placed his elder brother, Eliakim, to whom he gave the name of Jehoiakim, on the throne, Kg2 23:34; Ch2 36:4.

-----

He speaks of Nebuchadnazzar but nothing of king Zedekiah. But now look at what he says for

2 Kings 25:8 the verse being

On the seventh day of the fifth month in the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, Nebuzaradan commander of the imperial guard, an official of the king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem.

The nineteenth year of king Nebuchadnezzar - 586 B.C., if we count from the real date of his accession (604 B.C.); but 587 B.C., if, with the Jews, we regard him as beginning to reign when he was sent by his father to recover Syria and gained the battle of Carchemish (in 605 B.C.).

On that day (verse 9 NJB)“He burned down the Temple of Yahweh, the royal palaces and all the houses in Jerusalem.”

-------------------

I thought that that was pretty much the end of the story until I discovered that the encyclopedic Barnes set was published over several decades, some of it post-humously. The New Testament notes came out all together in 1884-85. But beside the dates, it is interesting to contemplate which books of the Bible were given "priority" and the greatest amounts of commentary.

From the 21st century, one assumes that the whole 10,000 page opus suddenly appeared. But it didn't.

Title: Barnes' Notes on the Old and New Testaments (26 vols.)

Authors: Albert Barnes and James Murphy Pages: 10,715

Title Publisher Date Pages

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------

Genesis Eates and Lauriate 1873 540

Exodus to Ruth John Murray 1879 480

I Samuel to Esther John Murray 1879 510

Job, Volume 1 Blackie & Son 1847 384

Job, Volume 2 Blackie & Son 1847 339

Psalms, Volume 1 Blackie & Son 1870–1872 480

Psalms, Volume 2 Blackie & Son 1870–1872 450

Psalms, Volume 3 Blackie & Son 1870–1872 410

Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon,

Jeremiah, & Ezekiel John Murray 1879 423

Isaiah, Volume 1 Blackie & Son 1851 513

Isaiah, Volume 2 Blackie & Son 1851 446

Daniel, Volume 1 Blackie & Son 1853 336

Daniel, Volume 2 Blackie & Son 1853 310

Minor Prophets, Vol. 1: Hosea to Jonah Funk & Wagnalls 1885 427

Minor Prophets, Vol. 2: Micah to Malachi Funk & Wagnalls 1885 504

Matthew and Mark Blackie & Son 1884–1885 416

Luke and John Blackie & Son 1884–1885 415

Acts Blackie & Son 1884–1885 400

Romans Blackie & Son 1884–1885 344

I Corinthians Blackie & Son 1884–1885 350

II Corinthians and Galatians Blackie & Son 1884–1885 400

Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians Blackie & Son 1884–1885 288

I Thessalonians to Philemon Blackie & Son 1884–1885 316

Hebrews Blackie & Son 1884–1885 328

James to Jude Blackie & Son 1884–1885 406

Revelation Blackie & Son 1884–1885 496

My own prejudice in these matters is that if Christianity is Chrstrianity, then a hierarchy of study would start with the Gospels and Epistles and then work its way toward examining more minor books. The Old Testament, as I learned late in life, has a hierarchy provided by Jewish scholarship of Law, Prophets and Writings, but I can see that it has long been largely ignored in my part of the world. While Roman Catholics are likely to read the same scriptures over and over again as part of the year's liturgy, Protestants (which I have spent some as being raised as as well) tend to treat all writing in the OT as equal in standing.

But in addition to all that, when one considers what Barnes volumes were available to Barbour and Russell when they set out on their determinations of when Christ would return, the volume addressing when Jerusalem was destroyed and the temple was ruined was yet to be published. Russell and Barbour could read all they liked about Daniel, Isaiah and Solomon. And if they thought Barnes was supportive of their claims for Jerusalem's destruction, they would likely have cited his notes on Daniel 1:1.

His later publication of II Kings commentaries would have had to be taken as "New Light". But already it had arrived too late.

4

Who are Anointed according to the Bible?

by The Searcher in

acording to the bible, who are "anointed" in god's eyes?.

the term 'anointed' occurs in the greek scriptures.

in all but one of the verses, they refer to jesus.

kepler

Regarding who are "annointed" according to the Bible...

In Isaiah Chapter 45, the text reads,

"Thus says the LORD to Cyrus His anointed, Whom I have taken by the right hand, To subdue nations before him.."

Whether Isaiah himself wrote that, I highly doubt. Isaiah as a document is more easily explained as being written by at least three authors before and during late captivity (Plus some editors). If you disagree, then perhaps you would like to picture what kind of best-seller the full text of Isaiah would have been in a Neo-Babylonian court.

But as far as I can tell, Daniel was unaware of it. And everyone else in the OT unaware of Daniel.

Another individual, according to JW logic, that would seem to have a seat among the anointed would be the thief on the cross who asked Christ to remember him in his kingdom. Whether he arrived that day or later with the supposed nearly 144,000 guests, I'll let pass.

But considering how many details entered above are submitted as "obvious facts", then why not move on to such issues as who will provide the catering service and the arranging of anointed name tags in the banquet halls.

57

Is the Soul Immortal...Biblically Speaking?

by Vanderhoven7 in

jw
friends

i wonder if someone would care to produce a list (full quotes) of all the proof texts in scripture they are aware of that establish that the human soul is innately immortal?.

just the scriptures...without comment please...so everyone will see just how clear the bible alone (sola scriptura) is on this issue.

vander.

kepler

King Solomon,

If it's quibbling to you, then leave it to others. As for myself, I'm going to dig in.

Gen 1 is a different vision of God and creation than chapter 2 and 3. More akin to the notion of God who speaks in Exodus from burning bushes or within the clouds of Mt. Sinai. This God creates out of nothing. That's the one that text says man and woman is made in the image of - not a guy with a garden.

Your perspective about punctuation is much the same, I suspect, as that of the director of that translation Frederick Franz . It looks like someone waited for about 1900 and some years to locate it. Otherwise, had the comma been invented and located a few centuries before, there wouldn't have been any Christianity. There wouldn't have been any people to knock on the doors of and tell them they had gotten it all wrong.

Of course, in behalf of the argument the idea that Christ was telling the thief that he had something important to say on THAT DAY, much like a flyer to a memorial meeting, maybe he could have elaborated on all those future plans:

-that Christianity for nearly the next 1900 years wouldn't amount to a hill of beans,

[that he would discuss the 144,000 with John Patmos in a dream,

- and that his next return to the Earth would be invisible, though re-scheduled several times and he would spread out his definition of "generation" into a discussion of who knows how many centuries...

But this is not spelled out Biblically either.

He said that something more direct that had more meaning than anything that anyone with a Watchtower in his hand had ever delivered to a door or prison cell.

For me this issue is pivotal.

57

Is the Soul Immortal...Biblically Speaking?

by Vanderhoven7 in

jw
friends

i wonder if someone would care to produce a list (full quotes) of all the proof texts in scripture they are aware of that establish that the human soul is innately immortal?.

just the scriptures...without comment please...so everyone will see just how clear the bible alone (sola scriptura) is on this issue.

vander.

kepler

Luke 23:42-43

Then he [the other thief] said,"Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom."

He replied, "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise."

If Paul had a corporeal view of resurrection, then Luke must have had one which was not. The NWT finessed the translation of this to be in accordance with doctrines derived from Daniel and when Jesus would next stop in at earth.

We know what plans he had for that day. If Jesus would be physically dead at its end and he told the thief that he would be in his kingdom - Paradise, but not Eden... Need I draw this out any further?

76

Anthony Morris III... Did he really serve in Vietnam? Something doesn't quite add up...

by Calebs Airplane in

born in 1950, he apparently became a regular pioneer in 1971.. but wait.... let's just say that he enlisted (or was drafted) in 1968 at age 18.... depending on the branch of service, he would have to complete anywhere from 2 to 4 years of service.

yes, duty in hot combat zones was usually limited to 6-months at a time but you still had to serve a total of 2 to 4 years depending on the branch of service.

assuming he only served 2 years, he would have been 20 years old and discharged by 1970.... how did he get witnessed to, complete a book study, become an unbaptized publisher, get baptized and then become a regular pioneer in less than year???.

kepler

A continuation.

The summation of the supreme court's ruling on the Joseph Parisi case is lengthy. And I am not a lawyer or even a legal issues reporter. I'm not sure I can spell enough legal terms to go ahead with this. Suffice it to say that the principal issue was "habeas corpus" or "you have the body" - and that phrase is why I fear to tread in the realm of interpretation.

In American history Lincoln's annullment of "habeas corpus" is one of the most famous cases - and holding of war on terror suspects in the present day is another. The contradictory nature of the expression though, is that the annullment means that the authorities could hold a suspect without holding a "writ" to hold for trial. All of the permutations? See a lawyer.

The case of Joseph Parisi had three points that could tie it to the case or experience of Anthony Morris.

1. Joseph Parisi was an army enlistee/draftee who declared himself a conscientious objector while serving

2. His case grew out of Vietnam war era service (1968-1970) and subsequent court hearings ( early 1970s)

3. The matter was settled in terms of application "habeas corpus" guidelines.

It should not be surprising that many such cases can be found on line. There is a filing system, but I haven't cracked the code. XXX F.2d XXX such as the Parisi files indicated above.

Using the search criteria of conscientious objector, habeas corpus and vietnam, it was possible to locate at least a dozen such cases such as the the Joseph Parisi case. But none of these included the name of Anthony Morris or fit his description or the 1984 account in Awake any better.

57

Is the Soul Immortal...Biblically Speaking?

by Vanderhoven7 in

jw
friends

i wonder if someone would care to produce a list (full quotes) of all the proof texts in scripture they are aware of that establish that the human soul is innately immortal?.

just the scriptures...without comment please...so everyone will see just how clear the bible alone (sola scriptura) is on this issue.

vander.

kepler

Since North and South America are not mentioned in the Bible, one could just as well argue that they do not exist either. At least in the 15th century. And that was some of the immediate reaction to the discovery of New Spain. No ancient writers had anything to say about this.

A case for an immortal soul can be posited starting with Genesis chapter one. If an invisible God fashions man and woman in the image of himself (Gen 1:27), then a definition of what the soul is would depend on whether we define God as a universal wind or breath or something even more fundamental.

II Maccabees chapter 7 is a recounting of the martyrdom of a mother and her seven sons during the 2nd century BC rebellion against Greek ruler Antiochus V. Unlike I Maccabees, the text was orignially written in Greek (vs. Hebrew then translated into the extant Greek). Included in the New Jerusalem Bible as one of the Deutero-canonical OTbooks, it was probably written around 124 BC.

According to the introduction:

"It gives the first clear teaching on bodily resurrection (7:9), creation out of nothing ( 7:28); prayer for the dead and intercession of the saints (15:14).

In chapter 7:9, the second of seven brothers addresses the King (Antiochus V Epiphanes) before execution: "Cruel brute , you may discharge us from this present life, but the King of the world will raise rais us up, since we die for his laws, to live again for ever." Each of the successive brothers in their last words upholds their faith in a resurrection to new life. The mother (7:22-23) (in their ancestal tongue) :

"I do not know how you appeared iin my womb; it was not I who endowed you with breath and life, I had not the shaping of your every part. And hence the Creator of the world who made everyone and ordained the origin of all things will in his mercy give you back breath and life, since for the sake of his laws you have no concern for yourselves."

In Mark, chapter 12, as is evidently being discussed elsewhere, Jesus gives some further detail to the nature of resurrection when Sadducees posed a tricky question about marital status:

12:24 "Surely the resaon why you are wrong is that you neither understand the scriptures or the power of God. For when they rise from the dead, men and women do not marry; no, they are like the angels in heaven." Yet... "He is God, not of the dead but of the living..."

The matter of distinguishing "spirit" and "life breath" is not only difficult within the Bible, but in other ancient texts as well. For example, the Iliad.

The New World Translation makes mush of this line which differs significantly in the Septuagint and the Hebrew, Isaiah 38:10-11, the beginning of the canticle of Hezekiah. In sickness...

"I thought: In the noon of my life I am to depart at the gates of of Sheol I shall be held for the rest of my days.

I thought: I shall never se Yahweh again in the land of the living, I shall never see again a single one of those who live on the earth."

is Hezekiah saying that he will see the lord in the land of the dead or after life? Or is his reflection later in the poem of death's finality a closer reflection of his belief?

One could argue that Maccabees are not part of the canon of the Bible, but then one also has to look at the conundrums that that argument imposes as well. Those that constructed the canon appeared to believe in an immortal soul. If the Bible by itself does not address the matter sufficiently, then why would we not be forced to look farther afield for clarification?

Jude also introduces extraneous information about the after life when refers to the book of Enoch very similar to Zoroastrian texts about a final judgment. Is it Greeks or Persians that give us our notion of something more fundamental than the breath of life or the electric impulses of a brain.

I have little trouble distinguishing breath from spirit, but as I sit here typing, it is more difficult to imagine how my consciousness got into my head. If it is as simple as residency in a brain, then perhaps "I" could be easily transferred to the computer - if not this year then maybe next. But I can't fathom how I got into this body in the first place or what its criteria are for my release when it falls apart.

This is a serious packaging problem. If I cannot explain how I got in and how I will transfer out - or where I will go, then I am really out of my depth.

Had we received more post cards from the other side, we could all be more emphatic, but to me this seems an open question.

322

WT Nov. 1, 2011 (public) - When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed - Part 2

by AnnOMaly in

out now.. yes, yes, yessssss!

on p. 26-27 they talk about how the lunar positions on vat 4956 fit 588/7 bce!!!.

"clearly, much of the astronomical data in vat 4956 fits the year 588 b.c.e.

kepler

Londo, Kurt, Ann,...

It's nice to see we've got a few scattered astronomy and astrodynamics enthusiasts here. And in accordance with the intent of keeping this thread going, I'll add a little recollection here too. My apologies in advance for some missing details. This is not with full notes.

Not being a JW, but having JW issues turning the last few years into a nightmare, about 2 years ago my attention was directed to the 1914 date as something stemming out of a 2500 year old previous destruction of Jerusalem. That's all I knew other than noticing a discrepancy between secular histories and the literature I was supposed to study ("What the Bible Really Teaches") with a lot more obvious problems. I had read the Ray Franz book, "Crisis of Conscious" and had acquired a lot of information about matters as viewed from the inside of the organization, but being on the outside, I found his discussion about the 587/607 controversy less explicit. As I recall, he said early in the book that he spent twenty or thirty pages in "Reasoning from Scriptures" presenting an argument against findings of Assyrianologists and admitted that he had not convinced himself. There were too many thousands of Neo-Babylonian cuneiform tablets to counter.

Subsequently I did read one of the editions of Olaf Jonsson's book on "The Gentile Times Reconsidered". The reason I bring up "editions" is that at the time I was looking for it on Amazon, the price of used copies fluctuated crazily: sometimes $15.00, sometime $150. I was wondering if someone was buying crates full and then dumping them in an incinerator. Do you suppose?

Jonsson had several lines of argument which included astronomical records. After a while it dawned on me ( summer of 2010) that I had already available some software to examine this problem: The ephemeris program Alcyone that I had purchased earlier as a check for planet, moon and asteroid positions. I seldom use if for observing, but from time to time it was of help in looking at planetary or satellite positions for space mission studies. In one case, it solved a problem of why one return from lunar polar orbit was on target and the other was not: the relative position of the sun as a perturbing body...

Anyway, rather than attempting to reconstruct planetary positions as described above, I concentrated on the four reported lunar eclipses that would seem to bracket the "secular" date for destruction of Jerusalem in the second siege.

15 September 591 BC

08 February 579 BC

02 March 567 BC

05 September 563 BC

My criteria for identification were simultaneous:

1. )that solar and lunar celestial longitudes (right ascension) would be 180 degrees or 12 hours apart

2. ) that solar and lunar celestial latitude ( declination) were of the same magnitude and opposite in sign.

When I first attempted these searches in 2010, I had a problem somewhat akin to the Society's. In this case, the software treated BCE dates with a zero year and counted backward from there. So I had to load the 15 September date in above as "-591". I had some results in January and February 2011. I don't know if the table will be visible in this entry, but here is what I am looking at from one of my Alcyone runs.

At -590 (591BC), September 15, at Baghdad universal time + 3hours, 6:00 local

RA Declination

Solar position: 11h 05m 44sec 5deg 53 min 47 sec

Lunar position: 23h 01m 57.9sec -6deg 05 min 06 sec

Since the moon and sun are about half a degree wide, I'd say the closest match was at about 07:20. The other three observation dates had similarfeatures and tolerances.

Whether visible above the horizon in Baghdad or Babylon, the LBAT 1419, 1420 and 1421 tablet data appears to provide good predictions for lunar eclipses. If you were to reset those four dates by 20 years and x days, I see no way that a duplicate set of eclipses could be generated.

Subsequently, I took the time to build a spreadsheet with the astronomical events, kings' reigns over several kingdoms and many of the other items enumerated by Jonsson and other writers about ancient Iraq.

There are other matters I have debated with members of the forum, true. But as far as the 587/607 issue is concerned - I look forward to seeing a widely available app for phones...

Later, looking for where the 607 BC story got started, I traced it back to the Studies of the Scriptures volumes by C. T. Russell with the 606 date. He might have got the idea from reading one entry in Barnes Bible notes about the first chapter of Daniel, but Barnes states unequivocably elsewhere ( commentary on 2 Kings 25:8) that Jerusalem fell in the 580s. Russell subsequently worked with astronomer Piazzi Smith to concoct the pyramid "proof" based on passageways for an 1870s Return and then refining it in the next century, perhaps with a file for 1914 in later publications of the work.

And, of course, despite pyramids being "satanic" according to Russell, and a discrepancy of a year zero in the chronology, and the event being invisible... it all worked.

A post script. My efforts have not meant an iota of difference to anyone I know who got their ancient history via the Watchtower.

76

Anthony Morris III... Did he really serve in Vietnam? Something doesn't quite add up...

by Calebs Airplane in

born in 1950, he apparently became a regular pioneer in 1971.. but wait.... let's just say that he enlisted (or was drafted) in 1968 at age 18.... depending on the branch of service, he would have to complete anywhere from 2 to 4 years of service.

yes, duty in hot combat zones was usually limited to 6-months at a time but you still had to serve a total of 2 to 4 years depending on the branch of service.

assuming he only served 2 years, he would have been 20 years old and discharged by 1970.... how did he get witnessed to, complete a book study, become an unbaptized publisher, get baptized and then become a regular pioneer in less than year???.

kepler

The first footnote mentioned above :

Joseph Parisi was drafted on August 22, 1968. According to the inservice conscientious objector application he filed with the Army on May 22, 1969 (pursuant to Army Regulation (AR) 635-20), Parisi had doubts at the time of his induction about his feelings toward military service. However, his beliefs did not coalesce into conscientious objection until he was well down the road of basic training and initial duty assignment (psychological social work and counseling). His application, which was made prior to issuance of any order for redeployment to a combat station, also stated that his Army experiences to that point led him to the firm conviction that participation in any form of military activity conflicted irreconcilably with his Christian beliefs

The initial interviews mandated by AR 635-20 uniformly terminated in Parisi's favor; the base Chaplain, the base psychiatrist, and the special hearing officer (as well as Parisi's immediate supervisor) all attested to the sincerity and religious nature of Parisi's conscientious objection to military service. According to the record, the Commander of the Army hospital at Parisi's base as well as the Commanding General of his training center also recommended approval of the application, although they did not interview Parisi personally. However, Parisi's immediate commanding officer, Captain Hubman, recommended disapproval, with the notation, "Consider application contrary to paragraph 3b(3) AR 635-20." This paragraph provides that conscientious objector applications will not be favorably considered when:

"(3) Based on essentially political, sociological, or philosophical views, or on a merely personal moral code."

Captain Hubman had not interviewed Parisi nor had he engaged in any conversations with Parisi about the latter's religious beliefs and convictions.

In November, 1969, the Department of the Army denied Parisi's application. That office noted two reasons for its decision: (1) that Parisi's professed beliefs became fixed prior to entering the service, and (2) that Parisi was not truly opposed to all war due to his religious beliefs, as demonstrated by his attempts thus far to support it.

Parisi then applied to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) for review of the denial of his discharge. Shortly thereafter, on November 28, 1969, he applied to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California for a writ of habeas corpus. He therein sought discharge from the Army as a conscientious objector.

In his habeas petition Parisi claimed that there was no basis in fact for the grounds cited by the Department of the Army in denying his application for a discharge. In addition, Parisi sought a preliminary injunction pending disposition of the proceeding to prevent respondents from: (1) requiring him to obey an order of August 8, 1969, to undergo training preparatory to being transferred to Viet Nam for duty; and (2) transferring him outside the jurisdiction of the District Court where the proceeding was commenced.

On the day the petition was filed, the District Court, after a hearing, entered an Order enjoining respondents from assigning Parisi to any duties which required materially greater participation in combat activity or training than was being required of him in this then present duties. This Order was to remain in effect pending decision by the ABCMR on Parisi's application to it for discharge as a conscientious objector.

The district court order recites that the court would retain jurisdiction of the case until the ABCMR made its decision. The Order also denied Parisi's application for a preliminary injunction against his transfer out of the Northern District of California. On December 4, 1969, Parisi took an interlocutory appeal (No. 25,133 in this court) from the Order denying his requested preliminary injunction.

About this time, Parisi received orders to process out of his then duty station at Ford Ord. California, and, following training, to report to the Overseas Replacement Station at Oakland, California, on December 31, 1969. This was later changed to the United States Army Personnel Center, Fort Lewis, Washington. Parisi then moved in this court for an order staying his deployment outside the Northern District of California pending disposition of his appeal.

Three other judges of our court denied the motion on December 10, 1969, "on condition that Respondents produce Appellant in this district if the appeal results in his favor." On December 29, 1969, the Circuit Justice denied a similar application for a stay.

Parisi reported, on December 31, 1969, as directed, to the United States Army Personnel Center, Fort Lewis, Washington. At that time he requested an opportunity to file a second application for discharge as a conscientious objector. As required by AR 635-20, he was given seven days to complete his application. However, on January 6, 1970, Parisi advised the authorities at the Personnel Center that he no longer wished to make out an application. Accordingly, he was booked for transportation overseas.

Parisi then refused to obey a military order to board a plane for Viet Nam. He was immediately charged with violating Article 90 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 890, and was confined to the Post Stockade, pending disposition of the charge against him.

On March 2, 1970, while Parisi's court-martial was pending, the ABCMR notified Parisi of its rejection of his application for relief from the Army's denial of his discharge request. Four days later the District Court, pursuant to Parisi's habeas petition, entered an Order requiring respondents (appellees in this appeal) to show cause why a writ should not be issued. The United States responded by moving in the District Court for a stay of the habeas proceedings pending exhaustion of Parisi's military judicial remedies.

At this point Parisi suggested to a panel of judges of our court that the first interlocutory appeal he had taken from his habeas proceeding (No. 25,133 in this court, above) should be dismissed as moot. As noted, the ABCMR had by this time denied him relief, and, since he was incarcerated at Fort Lewis, there was no remaining need for an injunction to keep him in this country. We entered the requested Order, dismissing the first appeal, on March 17, 1970.

On March 31, 1970, responding to the Government's motion that it abstain pending completion of Parisi's court-martial proceedings, the District Court entered an Order staying its consideration of Parisi's habeas petition until there was a trial and a final judgment in the military courts on the court-martial charges.

The District Court did not stay the court-martial proceedings pending our consideration of the interlocutory appeal, nor have we done so; consequently, in the interim between the date of the district court order, March 31, 1970, and the date of our acceptance of the appeal, April 24, 1970, Parisi was, on April 8, 1970, court-martialed and convicted of the charge against him. He is presently confined in the United States Army Disciplinary Barracks, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, serving a sentence of two years at hard labor, with dishonorable discharge. We have been advised that his appeal before the Court of Military Review is now pending.

76

Anthony Morris III... Did he really serve in Vietnam? Something doesn't quite add up...

by Calebs Airplane in

born in 1950, he apparently became a regular pioneer in 1971.. but wait.... let's just say that he enlisted (or was drafted) in 1968 at age 18.... depending on the branch of service, he would have to complete anywhere from 2 to 4 years of service.

yes, duty in hot combat zones was usually limited to 6-months at a time but you still had to serve a total of 2 to 4 years depending on the branch of service.

assuming he only served 2 years, he would have been 20 years old and discharged by 1970.... how did he get witnessed to, complete a book study, become an unbaptized publisher, get baptized and then become a regular pioneer in less than year???.

kepler

I am attaching some supplementary material - incrementally.

I don't think I have sufficient time or research acumen to finish this job on my own, but I think it is important issue to study.

1. For those on this forum who are genuine conscientious objectors, and I have no doubt that there are many, the data provided by this case might be interesting to contemplate. The Joseph Parisi case remains a precedent setting case. It might have been that Joseph Parisi determined the outcome of the Anthony Morris case, or the Joseph Parisi case is the Anthony Morris case. While some of the details in the Parisi case do not mesh exactly with our "hearsay" record, it's amusing to think that someone of Italian descent ends up as "Anthony Morris III". But several monarchs and consorts named George or Albert spoke better German than English...

Some of the numbers below attached to extensive footnotes - particularly 1. The appeal attached below states the defense department argument headed toward the US Court of Appeals, naming attorneys involved.

To summarize, Parisi appealed to the chain of command not to deploy to VN war zone because of his CO convictions, but the appeal was still pending when he was ordered to depart. Not boarding the plane placed him in a judicial limbo. Beside dealing with Parisi, the judicial system had to work out a legal position for all the similar cases.

--------------------------------------------------------

435 F.2d 299

Joseph PARISI, Appellant, v. Major General Phillip B. DAVIDSON et al., Appellees.

No. 25773. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

December 3, 1970.

Richard L. Goff, San Francisco, Cal. (argued), Douglas M. Schwab, San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.

Steven Kazan (argued), Asst. U. S. Atty., James L. Browning, Jr., U. S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for appellees.

Before HAMLEY, ELY, and CARTER, Circuit Judges.

ELY, Circuit Judge:

1

This is an interlocutory appeal, under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), from an Order of the District Court, staying habeas corpus proceedings brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 until trial and final determination of court-martial charges then lodged against the appellant.

2

The complex history of the case is set out in detail in the margin.1 Briefly, Parisi is an army private who alleges that his application for discharge as a conscientious objector was denied by the army without a basis in fact for the denial. His petition was first presented to the District Court in November, 1969, but proceedings were stayed pending his administrative appeal to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records [ABCMR].2 A partial preliminary injunction also issued, prohibiting Parisi's assignment to any duties which required materially greater participation in combat activity or training than was being required of him in his then duties.

3

Before the ABCMR's decision, however, Parisi was ordered to Viet Nam, where he was to perform noncombatant duties similar to those which had been assigned to him and which he had been performing in this country. After unsuccessful attempts to win a stay of his redeployment order both from our court and from the Circuit Justice, Parisi chose, with all attendant risks, to disobey a military order to enplane for Viet Nam. Charges were then immediately filed against him, under U.C.M.J. art. 90, for failure to obey a lawful order.

4

Prior to the date set for court-martial, the ABCMR notified Parisi that it had ruled against his appeal. The District Court promptly ordered the Government to show cause why a writ should not then issue. In its return, the Government, requested the stay Order in question, on the grounds that to permit concurrent federal court proceedings would constitute an unwarranted interference with the military court system.

5

The question is not an easy one, but we have concluded that habeas proceedings were properly stayed pending the final conclusion of Parisi's military trial and his appeals therefrom.

6

The military, no less an agency of the federal government than the federal court system, has the equal responsibility to act consistently with the Constitution and laws of the United States.3 While civilian courts are available to correct, in a proper case, abuses by military authorities,4 they must be careful to avoid unwarranted interference with internal military matters.

7

"[J]udges are not given the task of running the Army. The responsibility for setting up channels through which such grievances can be considered and fairly settled rests upon the Congress and upon the President of the United States and his subordinates. The military constitutes a specialized community governed by a separate discipline from that of the civilian. Orderly government requires that the judiciary be as scrupulous not to interfere with legitimate Army matters as the Army must be scrupulous not to interfere in judicial matters."