Posts by kepler

70

New Governing Body Member: Hugo Riemer - More WT Revisionist History

by 00DAD in

as part of the wt's recent push to get the r&f "to study and recount the history of the earthly part of jehovahs organization" there is a curious article in the from our archives featurette of the august 15th, 2012 watchtower.

it offers a highly sanitized version of early jw history.

but what is particularly strange is this revisionist history re-categorizing of an early bible student/jw, one hugo riemer.

kepler

I'm sure many are already aware, but I'll state it anyway.

In books "Crisis of Conscience" and "In Search of Christian Freedom", Ray Franz devotes chapters to the Governing Body and the Faithful and Discreet Slave, respectively in chapters 3 and 5. It would be difficult to summarize the two chapters point by point; and if I did, we would find that Franz's views and presentations on this subject would muddy the case further. For Ray Franz joins the governing body in 1971, right at the time that it expands beyond the board of directors. In introducing the matter in CoC, he states that "Jesus Christ... governs the 'faithful and discreet slave' class, ... now said to be composed of a remnant of 144,000 persons anointed as heirs of Christ's heavenly kingdom. But from among such class there is a small number of men who act as a Governing Body, and perform all administrative functions for the global congregation, not only for the present number of about 'anointed' out of whom these men are drawn, but also for the approximately 6.1 million other associated who are not considered to be among the heavenly heirs."

Much of this chapter really regards what the Governing Body has to say about sexual relations. But when Ray Franz points out that Nathan Knorr as president has administrative control, he adds that VP Fred Franz in a 15 December '71 Watchtower provides a more ambitious role for the GB. This came about only after January 1976.

In the book "In Search ofChristian Freedom", a fter quoting Matthew 24:45-47, Ray Franz began:

“In their calls for loyalty and submission , no other portion of Scripture is so frequently appealed to by the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses as that found in the verse quoted above.

“Their claims of organizational authority rest not only upon their interpretation of this parabolic statement of Jesus Christ, but more especially upon the way they make use of that interpretation. It is employed primarily to support the way they make use of that interpretation. It is employed primarily to support the claims of a centralized administrative authority, exercising extensive control over all members of the Christian congregation (understood by Witnesses as applying only to themselves).”

Franz notes that Rutherford early in his career supported the claims that Russell was the Wise and Faithful Servant because he was consolidating his own position as his successor. But then there was the matter of the FDS throughout history - and Ray Franz and the current new light seem to be on the same page.

"First we note that the WTS's teaching is that the "slave class" has had a continuous, uninterrupted existence (Italics from the text) from its beginning in 33 AD until the present time, the Watchtower of January 15, 1975, pages 46 and 47, emphasized this..."

Then Watchtower 15 July 1943 is cited for existence of an FDS from AD 1878 to 1918.

Ray Franz is sceptical.

"The Watchtower makes occasional references to groups in the Middle Ages, such as the Waldenses, the Lollards, and similar groups, with at least the implication that they have been among the genuine Christians of their time - which would make them part of the 'faithful and discrete slave class'. The fact that these religious fellowships often believed such doctrines as the trinity,the immortality of the soul, and similar doctrines is glossed over..."

What follows is a disassembly of the FDS concept through history.

So what is the FDS going to say now? That they read about this in the same source? Or that the only guy on the GB that had the current new liight was kicked out decades ago like the Lollards or Waldensers?

70

New Governing Body Member: Hugo Riemer - More WT Revisionist History

by 00DAD in

as part of the wt's recent push to get the r&f "to study and recount the history of the earthly part of jehovahs organization" there is a curious article in the from our archives featurette of the august 15th, 2012 watchtower.

it offers a highly sanitized version of early jw history.

but what is particularly strange is this revisionist history re-categorizing of an early bible student/jw, one hugo riemer.

kepler

King Solomon,

Not to split hairs on this forever,I'll just leave the Olin Moyle business as is.

But my intent is to call attention to issues, not to give the org alibis. If Ray Franz was not DF-ed for anything related to his conduct on the GB (i.e., explicit charges), then I would presume he was just as much the FDS as anyone else who was serving during that period - according to this idea. Since the concept has been corraled into the board members following 1919 - for the framers, here's an inconvenient consequence: Ray Franz was the FDS. CT Russell was not.

70

New Governing Body Member: Hugo Riemer - More WT Revisionist History

by 00DAD in

as part of the wt's recent push to get the r&f "to study and recount the history of the earthly part of jehovahs organization" there is a curious article in the from our archives featurette of the august 15th, 2012 watchtower.

it offers a highly sanitized version of early jw history.

but what is particularly strange is this revisionist history re-categorizing of an early bible student/jw, one hugo riemer.

kepler

00DAD:

Point taken. Right on! Hope 3rd parties get it too.

70

New Governing Body Member: Hugo Riemer - More WT Revisionist History

by 00DAD in

as part of the wt's recent push to get the r&f "to study and recount the history of the earthly part of jehovahs organization" there is a curious article in the from our archives featurette of the august 15th, 2012 watchtower.

it offers a highly sanitized version of early jw history.

but what is particularly strange is this revisionist history re-categorizing of an early bible student/jw, one hugo riemer.

kepler

King Solomon said:

However, the "collective" element of the GB DOES allow them to dismiss the actions of an individual apostate member of the GB (eg Ray Franz) as actions of an individual MEMBER of the GROUP, and thus does not effect the status or performance of the whole body, as long as they cut them off (think of a salamander regenerating a limb that was amputated).

------

There are still problems.

In the case of Olin Moyle, the dismissal was the result of a private letter sent by Moyle the legal counsel to his client Rutherford, objecting to his conduct and the atmosphere of drunkeness that he promoted at Bethel. The Faith and Discrete Slave, yet to be renamed so, conducted a very public banishment of Moyle. But other than writing a letter to Rutherford, what exactly had he done? Rutherford was not objecting to his conduct of official duties such as writing appeals to the Supreme Court.

In the case of Ray Franz, disfellowship never became an EXPLICIT matter of doctrine or his conduct while he was on the Governing Board. He resigned. But he was subsequently disfellowshipped for associating with someone who disassociated himself due to providing Ray Franz shelter in a rented trailer home. No GB or FDS misconduct was identified in that process (sic). In fact, I made inquiries on another topic devoted to exactly that question: Why specifically was he disfellowshipped? No formal doctrinal accusations were made.

So, in the case, at least, of Ray Franz, as far as I can tell, they are stuck with him. Just like the United States is stuck with the fact that Aaron Burr was once a vice president or Jefferson Davis was once the Secretary of War.

As a consequence, in either case no actions these two individuals had taken in the course of their service can be discredited now - since they were never discredited in the first place. I presume the propaganda ministry as sophisticated as it is can manufacture an elaborate incrementally revealed lore about these two individuals, but I see no reason why anyone should accept the fallacies of their arguments a priori.

With Ray Franz having written of the matters subsequently, since he was part of the GB, and therefore, by current argument the FDS, his accounts of GB and FDS have to be taken at face value until current members specifically deny any of the details. The only way they could do that is to be presented with what Ray Franz stated in the first place. Should they deny what Ray Franz says, however, they should be very careful indeed, lest they be detected in the course of duty of engaging in outright lies.

51

Truly I say to you, Amen I say to you, Inferences from a Gospel manner of speech

by kepler in

in another topic changes in the nwt, one of the correspondents posted that.

concerning the comma in luke 23:43, http://www.dtl.org/alt/comments/today.htmhas some interesting comments.. .

to summarize what was stated at this website, the translator selected a translation for luke 23:43. .

kepler

[Luke] 23:43 et dixit illi Iesus amen dico tibi hodie mecum eris in paradiso.

Acts 20:26, . . . quapropter contestor vos hodierna die quia mundus sum a sanguine omnium

How do these verses read when translated from the Latin into English? (If you don't mind me asking)

(If your Latin is rusty, mine is non-existent)

Bobcat,

The first one is easier than the second. Very literal:

"and he said that Jesus Amen I say to you today with me you will be in paradise."

The second one is tougher ( for me, at any rate), more idiomatic:

"Wherefore to call witness you today [this] day I am clean by blood of all..."

A rendering in English NJB:

"And so on this very day I swear that my conscience is clear..."

Though "conscience" and "blood" seem like an idiomatic transformation, there is also that double "today, this day" construction that was characteristic of the Greek oath as well. "Conscience", I suspect, is an evolved word of a millenium or so later. While the verb is of passive infinitive form, the pronoun "vos" is probably accusative. My situational awareness with inflected languages since high school has been mostly with Russian - and I don't think I ever had enough data from Latin homework decades back. Passive "deponent" verbs, yes; but acusative pronouns attached - does not compute.

32

The 1954 Douglas Walsh Transcript--PDF!

by Atlantis in

the douglas walsh trial 1954. the watchtower under oath.

exposing the watchtower dictatorship over jehovah's witnesses.

most of the researchers here need no introduction as to the "exposing" testimony recorded within this 762 page court transcript.

kepler

"Has anyone had any luck with showing people this?"

I got a hold of it several years ago and QUOTED from it. The significance of that is that I had to transcribe it into e-mail letters. The PDF is a 97 megabyte package which is a series of screen shots, not characters.

Whether the people who have quoted excerpts above did so from the same transcription process or succeeded in obtaining a genuine copyable text would be a significant point. A text document of this size should probably be only 2-3 megabytes.

But what material I have used, I have obtained no acknowledgment of anyone even having read it. Whatever it takes for people to snap out of a tightly bound trap, the individuals that were once close to me haven't reached that point - if they ever will.

51

Truly I say to you, Amen I say to you, Inferences from a Gospel manner of speech

by kepler in

in another topic changes in the nwt, one of the correspondents posted that.

concerning the comma in luke 23:43, http://www.dtl.org/alt/comments/today.htmhas some interesting comments.. .

to summarize what was stated at this website, the translator selected a translation for luke 23:43. .

kepler

OK, we have an entry for the Coptic; unknown compiler, grammar or syntax ...?

Here's one for Latin: compiler Jerome, in contact with contemporary Greeks; text, Vulgate.

23:43 et dixit illi Iesus amen dico tibi hodie mecum eris in paradiso.

My high school latin is rusty, but I understand the vocabulary and grammar perfectly. I presume someone will argue that the Vulgate was corrupted and as a result the original text MUST have been something to the contrary. But the example from Acts 20:26, in this case

quapropter contestor vos hodierna die quia mundus sum a sanguine omnium

presumed to the contrary, makes it look like "case closed" to me.

8

FDS Nu Lite is most fun I've had on JWN

by mind blown in

until the official wts study article is out, all we can do is speculate away, kinda like a good mind bending game.

however, they are going to have a lot of explaining to do....... i was wondering what prompted this change, but after reading this on wiki.... (highlighted is mine) the entire article is damning, making them out to be liars.

i gather they recieved enough letters from the annointed regarding the wts claims perhaps.....?

kepler

Reading the Wikipedia article on Faithful and Discreet Slave...

Don't just read it. Copy it and archive it. Then send copies to anyone who you think should know about this. Make hard copies.

When it comes to certain elements of knowledge, Wikipedia is even more flexible than the old Soviet Encyclopedia. Officials don't have to cut out or blacken with ink the articles they no longer like. The article drops in the electronic memory hole and the paragraphs or nearby items close ranks about the absess. If there is any truth to the last few days of discussion, the "experts" will be busy updating the old interpretation.

51

Truly I say to you, Amen I say to you, Inferences from a Gospel manner of speech

by kepler in

in another topic changes in the nwt, one of the correspondents posted that.

concerning the comma in luke 23:43, http://www.dtl.org/alt/comments/today.htmhas some interesting comments.. .

to summarize what was stated at this website, the translator selected a translation for luke 23:43. .

kepler

Slimboyfat,

Your post caught me on line while I was looking at other developments. As a result started looking at some of the sources to which you refer.

Admittedly, for me this is a difficult one to confirm or deny. I have not been looking at Coptic or have any near term plans to get acquainted with it. But all the same, I don't think Layton Bentley's (or Bentley Layton's ?)sample translation makes a compelling case.

To recap, we had looked at 70 or 80 cases of "truly I say to you", etc. throughout the Greek NT. Then you added another example from Acts 20:26 where "today" and "day" were used together in a construction that would convey exactly what it is supposed would be conveyed to the "good thief" - if the case were a sworn testimony as it was in the case Paul in Acts. To be clear, the Acts version of the statement had simeron and imera, the good thief version had only simeron.

Looking up the nature of the Coptic under discussion, it is described as " a reference tool for students of the classical dialect of Sahidic which was used in literary texts between the 4th and 8th centuries". In an 5 page review of the grammar,

Layton, Bentley A Coptic Grammar - Review of ... www.bookreviews.org/pdf/4325_4307.pdf

The second edition of Bentley Layton's Coptic Grammar is highly recommended for students of Egyptology, Coptology, early Christian history, and textual ...

- even though the book is praised as being of great help to students, there are also provided a string of "caveat emptors". So far as I can tell, about practically everything the author has devised.

In the review the closest thing I can find to a summary of this view is the following:

Setting aside broader problems associated with the parts-of-speech model and the

ordination of clauses, Layton’s categories seem to work rather well; at the very least,

most of them are a “useful fiction” that, even if they do not map the territory of Sahidic

Coptic properly, indicate what the territory is and that it should be mapped. Indeed,

Coptic Grammar offers in one volume most all of the recent advances in Coptology, so

that the reader is presented with a linguistic theory whose whole is, perhaps, more

significant than its parts.

The recent interest in Coptic has been as a result of finding the Nag Hamadi manuscripts and some first cut translations thereof of so-called Gnostic Gospels. Sometime ago I ran into one enthusiast of the subject wondering what would happen if the one or two renown experts got run over by buses on the way to work. Would we still be reliant on their findings of what these texts supposedly said or could novices pick up from there? "Picking up from there?" Your citation illustrates what he was talking about.

In short, it is hard for me to understand how Coptic texts that are not well understood will give us insight into Greek texts that have been around continuously. Greeks themselves seem never to have had an underlying suspicion about what Luke 23:43 said. The description of the Coptic in question is later than extant Greek manuscripts. Whether Coptics of this school viewed those words the same way as the WTBTS does - or that is simply a conclusion of Bentley based on his developing grammatical principles - that would be another investigation, perhaps that has been discussed some already.

But you will also have to tell us about the intensive study that the translation department in Brooklyn has been doing on decyphering Coptic manuscripts - and drawing conclusions from them. That should be interesting too.

100

2012 annual meeting notes

by lostinthought in

jw
friends

sorry for the wait guys.... .

part one.

moorse had the opening comments talked about historic annual meetings.. .

kepler

R_O,

Some further reflection on your Russell-pyramid question amid a jog in the fall air.

I don't know. Perhaps these musings are too whimsical; perhaps not. But looking from the outside in, 144,000 "shares" sold over a period of millenia sounds like a pyramid scheme in itself. Someone earlier noted that twenty centuries requires 72 elect a year. And I believe there are considerable obligations BC as well as AD. For example, if Gideon had 300 men that he selected from a larger group of applicants, shouldn't they have an opportunity to be eternal astronauts too?

There have always been problems with this number. If they stand in a square, how many elect would be on a side? To the closest integer elect?

By tribes? Three back, four wide?

And then nobody's counting at the quartermaster's.

Now another thing. Why this parable? Do all the parables have validation in church offices?

Aside from the fact that right now there are more than five, why not, as the NWT says, "5 discreet virgins"? They were bridesmaids actually since there was only one bridegroom. How a foolish virgin maintains virgin status very long, if that's how they are defined as characters, that also presents a conundrum, but never mind. In the narrative they were also just as hypothetical and the next metaphor in Matthew's narrative.

If the trinity is supposedly manufactured out of whole cloth ( and I suggest reading Genesis Chapter 18, the apparition at Mamre by Abraham before you decide), then what about the faithful and discreet slave as a church office?