Posts by Leolaia

278

Jwfacts-- More Lies But This Time About The Great Crowd

by Recovery in

jwfacts has an article that explains why the great crowd must be in heaven.

i am also aware that many of these are the same arguments that stemmed from the 'awakenings at bethel' so my statements are not simply attacks of jwfact's character (since these arguments are probably not original) but rather his copy and paste of what others have said instead of verifying it as 'fact' for himself.. so here are jwfacts arguments:.

1. he shows that russell and rutherford (at some point) believed that the great crowd were in heaven.. 2. each term that describes the great crowd of revelation 7 is else used to described the anointed by the wt.

Leolaia

I did spend more than 30 minutes on that post FWIW. (I love searching in the Logos Platform ... ([field bible, content] <af-morph+he ~ Vq?v?????>) ANDEQUALS ([field bible, content] <lbs-morph+el ~ VP?I????>) .... that gives you all the examples of where the present indicative in the LXX corresponds to a perfect participle in the Hebrew....1,268 hits)

198

Rutherford's smear campaign (a must read)

by Leolaia in

there has been some interest recently about the moyle case, and how it may have set a precident in what became the society's disfellowshipping policy.

in july 1939, the chief legal counsel of the watchtower bible & tract society, olin r. moyle, resigned from his position in a protest over conditions at bethel and rutherford's mistreatment of workers.

he did not want to continue living under those conditions and he felt he could effect positive change for his brothers by taking such a stand.

Leolaia

Details of the shunning the Moyles experienced were related in the 1943 trial:

#36
HARVEY FINK
Q. Did you notice any effect that the articles I referred to, September 1st and October 15th ... had on any of the members out there? ....A. The articles that appeared influenced the minds of the readers against Mr. Moyle on the grounds that they considered the Watch Tower to contain a message from God, and as such, it wasn't open to question. Q. And did they then become unfriendly to Mr. Moyle? A. Yes, they did. Q. And did you notice any change of attitude in those companies that you visited? A. Yes, quite a considerable change....Q. Can you give any details as to how these articles affected people in their attitude toward Mr. Moyle? A. The articles prejudiced the readers against Mr. Moyle. Q. Can you state at any meetings you attended, can you give any details as to what effect it had? A. Yes. As time progressed, when Mr. Moyle and Mrs. Moyle sat in a meeting, those that attended finally wouldn't even sit next to them. They permitted two or three chairs both front and back to remain vacant, whereas they sat at a distance from them. Q. Where did you find that taking place? A. At the general meetings. Q. In what city? A. In Milwaukee...Q. How long did that continue to your knowledge? A. That continued until Mr. Moyle no longer came to meetings. Q. Do you know about when that was that he ceased going there? A. Oh, it was a month or so after Mr. Howlett was there. I am not too sure of that, however, the exact elapse of time....Q. Did you ever participate in the resolution that was passed condemning the action of Mr. Moyle and also pledging full loyalty to the Society's side of the controversy? After Mr. Moyle read his statement? A. I voted yes to the resolution that contained an expression of loyalty to the Society, but I did not participate in that if it contained anything about condemning Mr. Moyle. No, I never condemned him....Yes, the resolution of the Milwaukee company as I read it was a resolution assuring the Society of the class' loyalty to it as the Central Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, nothing more that I recall....Q. Did you agree with this statement by Mr. Rutherford in his letter about "An entrapment by Moyle"? A. No, I didn't. Q. In other words, you have never changed your opinion about Moyle as you expressed here today, and have in your testimony? A. No, I haven't....Q. How long did Mr. Moyle occupy the same office with you? A. Until his leaving for Johnson's Creek....Q. Did Mr. Moyle pay rent to you? A. No, I gave him space in our office without charge. Q. Did he work for you during the time that he was officing with you? A. He helped us once in a while on matters for the rent that we did not charge him for. Q. Did you pay him any salary or anything like that? A. No. For a while I paid Mr. Moyle a small sum of money for being in the office and see to it that someone was there all the time.

#37
KATHERINE FINK
Q. I direct your attention to the article of October 15th entitled "Information". Do you recall any happening with respect to that article as far as Mr. and Mrs. Moyle were concerned? A. I do. The attitude of the whole Milwaukee — (Mr. Covington: I move to strike it out because it is not responsive and calls for a conclusion.)...Q. Was your mother a member of Jehovah's Witnesses? A. She was. Q. What is her name? A. Mrs. Newman. Q. How long has she been a member? A. Since about 1914. Q. What attitude did your mother take after this article of October 15th, as far as Mr. and Mrs. Moyle were concerned? A. My mother took the attitude just as the rest did. She thought they were people not to be associated with. Q. Were they then, the Moyles, residing with your mother? A. They were. Q. What did your mother do, if anything, about their residing there? A. When she became suspicious of them — Q. Did they continue to reside there? A. For a while they did. Q. And then what happened? A. Then when the grapevine began to work, then my mother was influenced to sell her place. Q. And do you know whether it came about through these articles? A. I believe it hurried it. Q. How long after October 15th did they vacate from your mother's home? A. I don't remember if it was a month or so after that. Q. Was there some incident with a family named Prudhomme? A. There was....Q. Were these Prudhommes, this Prudhomme family, members of Jehovah's Witnesses? A. They were....Q. And in the Milwaukee company? A. Yes, sir. Q. And what attitude did they display towards Mr. Moyle? After this article "Information" of October 15th?.... A. The Prudhommes offered Moyle a beautiful dinette set to use as long as they wished and when all these articles kept on coming out and the Prudhommes began to shun the Moyles, then the Moyles decided that perhaps they would want their dinette set back and returned it....The Prudhommes were very friendly towards the Moyles and offered a beautiful dinette set for the Moyles to use because they had no dinette set and then after a while their attitude changed. Q. And did that continue permanently after the articles came out? A. It has. Q. And has there been any lessening of that attitude or change in attitude on the part of the people that have shunned Mr. Moyle? A. Definitely not, it has grown worse....Q. Did you join in the resolution, too, by the Milwaukee company, pledging the loyalty after Mr. Moyle read his statement? A. Yes, sir. Q. And did you believe it? A. Yes, sir. Q. Were you in favor of it when you voted? A. Yes, sir....We felt that the Society was the channel of Almighty God at that time and we thought that the resolution stated whether we warranted to be faithful to the channel of God.

#38
JOSEPH T. JACOBS
Q. Do you recall reading the article in the "Watch Tower" of October 15, 1939, entitled "Information"? A. I do. Q. And did you in respect to that article have occasion to talk to any of Jehovah's Witnesses? A. I believe I did. Q. And can you give us any details of when and where and with whom you did that? A. Well, with several of the committee that had to do with the giving out of territory in Milwaukee. Q. What was the statement that was made? A. I didn't comment much about the article at all. I believe I refrained from saying anything, as far as I can recollect. But the others of Jehovah's Witnesses commented about it and said it must have been the unmistakable truth, because of the fact that the board of directors put their approval upon that letter. Q. And did you attend meetings regularly at Milwaukee? A. Every Sunday. Q. And did you notice anything at those meetings as far as the attitude towards Mr. Moyle was concerned? A. I did. Q. And what did you notice? A. The attitude toward Mr. Moyle was generally a shunning of him and looking upon him with, I would say, contempt....Q. How did the people in the meeting act toward Mr. Moyle? A. They shunned Mr. Moyle. He was by himself most of the time.

30

Daring Aussie Skydiver to Attempt Record-Breaking Supersonic Freefall Monday, Oct 08,2012

by Scott77 in

http://www.space.com/17752-extreme-skydive-from-120-000-feet-animated.html.

Leolaia

Jesus Christ!

278

Jwfacts-- More Lies But This Time About The Great Crowd

by Recovery in

jwfacts has an article that explains why the great crowd must be in heaven.

i am also aware that many of these are the same arguments that stemmed from the 'awakenings at bethel' so my statements are not simply attacks of jwfact's character (since these arguments are probably not original) but rather his copy and paste of what others have said instead of verifying it as 'fact' for himself.. so here are jwfacts arguments:.

1. he shows that russell and rutherford (at some point) believed that the great crowd were in heaven.. 2. each term that describes the great crowd of revelation 7 is else used to described the anointed by the wt.

Leolaia

Here is a problem with the interpretation that the great crowd are in heaven, as opposed to the earth....Notice the repetitious use of the modal verb "will". If we interpret the great crowd as already having entered heaven and thus already received the gift of immortality upon such entry, then we have a problem. They are already in God's temple and in the midst of the throne and yet the scripture says God will spread his tent over them. They are immortal and are not affected by a physical realm, yet the scripture says "they will hunger or thirst or be beat down by the sun's scorching heat no more." The Lamb will shepherd them and he will guide them to the fountains of waters of life. Now ask yourself: How can the anointed, immortal anointed ones who are not subject to the physical realm and its effects experience these things in a FUTURE SENSE. How can those who are immortal be guided to the fountains of waters of life? How will they 'no longer hunger or thirst or experience the heat from the sun' anymore when they have HEAVENLY, SPIRITUAL, IMMORTAL BODIES? How WILL God wipe out every tear from their eyes when we take all of these things into account?

Recovery....The phrases "before the throne" and "in the temple" throughout Revelation have consistent heavenly reference (that is, prior to the "new heavens and new earth" after the millennium). One could also cite 3:12: "He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple (en tò naò) of my God, and he will not go out from it (exelthè exò) anymore; and I will write on him the name of My God". Here clearly "in the temple" means "inside" because the one who is granted temple service "will not go out from it". The language in ch. 7 describe the multitude in heaven as clearly as anything else that is part of the heavenly temple.

Tense is a pretty weak basis to dismiss this evidence. And your argument seems to be based on a particular understanding of the verb's tense which seems to be based more on English ("will" is a modal in English, whereas mood in Greek has nothing to do with future vs. present but whether the verb is indicative or not). So let me first mention that your point is not really valid from the view of Greek grammar. It presumes that the situation discussed in the v. 15-17 pertains solely to the future with the tense precluding any assumption that those situations have already commenced. The verbs in v. 15-17 (with the possible exception of poimainei ) are in the future indicative. This tense has a range of uses. One of these is the progressive future which "affirms that an action will be in progress in future time" (E. D. W. Burton, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of New Testament Greek, 1898, §60). Another is a cohorative use of the future indicative that is used for commands and which has a sort of timeless reference; this use is generally limited to OT quotations as it reflects Hebrew usage (cf. Matthew 4:10, Luke 4:4, etc.).

A good example of the future indicative used to indicate an action already commenced can be found in Philippians 1:16: "In this I rejoice (khairò, present indicative), indeed, I will [continue to] rejoice (kharèsomai, future indicative)". Paul's rejoicing is not something that starts in the future; it has already commenced and will continue in the future. Earlier in the same chapter Paul wrote that "the one who began (ho enarxamous, aorist participle) a good work in you will perfect (epitelesei, future indicative) it until the day of Christ Jesus" (v. 6); again the activity is not initiated in the future but rather continues into the future. Similarly, Jesus says in the Fourth Gospel: " I have made you known (egnòrisa, aorist indicative) to them, and will [continue to] make you known ( gnòris ò, future indicative) " (John 17:26). Here is an example from Revelation: " The kingdom of the world has become (egeneto, aorist indicative) the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ; and he will reign (basileusei, future indicative) forever and ever". The Lord's rule has already commenced (hence the aorist), so the future indicates that it will continue into the future eternally (e.g. "...he will [continue to] reign forever and ever"). So Greek does allow the future indicative to be used the way it is used in 7:15-17 to indicate actions in progress in the future whether they commence in the future or not.

The most important thing to recognize here is that usage of the future indicative in the passage under discussion is due to intertextual allusion. The Greek in Revelation is filled with solecisms reflecting underlying Semitic interference, and some of that is due to OT allusion (in fact Revelation has the highest density of OT intertextuality in the NT). Verses 15-17 here combine clauses and phrases taken directly from Psalm 23:1-2, Isaiah 9:10, 25:8, 49:10, Ezekiel 34:23, 37:27 where the future verb tenses in the Greek of v. 16-17 correspond to the imperfect verb in the original Hebrew . So the use of the future indicative occurs here because it appeared in the author's source material (via the LXX which often follows Hebrew tenses, cf. Psalm 103:6 LXX [104:6 MT] where the Greek uses the future to render the Hebrew imperfect even though the reference is to the past in the Hebrew, not the future), where from the perspective of the prophet it strictly referred to the future. For the author the situation has already commenced since the matyred dead were gathered into the heavenly temple (in both ch. 6 and 7), so they were already in the divine presence and experiencing a heavenly existence. But since the usage of the future indicative was pretty loose, referring both to situations that commence in the future and situations that persist into the future, the tenses in the OT source texts were not altered. The first example of the future indicative suggests a situation persisting into the future: "They are ( eisin, present indicative ) before the throne of God and serve ( latreuousin, present indicative ) him day and night in his temple, and he who sits on the throne will shelter ( skènòsei, future indicative ) them with his presence". Here the sense of skènòsei may easily be "will [continue to] shelter". Next the situations in v. 16 apply well to the heavenly temple as it is described in Revelation. It is true that it is only after the millennium when the New Jerusalem comes down to the "new earth" when the river of the water of life and the trees of life are described, but it was the general belief that the paradise of Eden was in heaven (cf. 2 Corinthians 12:2, Greek Life of Adam and Eve 37:5, 40:1, Testament of Abraham 20:10-14, 2 Enoch 8:1-3; cf. Revelation 2:7), and New Jerusalem was conceived as a heavenly city elsewhere (Galatians 4:25-26, Hebrews 11:16, 12:22), and in 22:1 the river of the water of life is described as "flowing from the throne of God and the Lamb", so the martyred dead before the throne had access to the living waters. More to the point, hunger and thirst are experiences of the fleshly body, so regardless of whether one has been resurrected or not, one does not experience hunger or thirst after leaving the body at death. Also "the city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light" (21:23), and this surely was already the case with the heavenly temple where God was enthroned. And the shepherding done by the Lamb in v. 17 occurs whenever he is with his flock; the multitude gathered into the temple would implicitly be shephered by the Lamb. So I do not agree that all these would strictly apply to the situation after New Jerusalem comes down to the "new earth". There were matryrs already gathered into the temple (ch. 6), so they would experience heavenly life prior to their resurrection.

BTW, as an aside, the MS tradition of v. 17 has poimanei (future indicative) in the majority tradition but poimainei (present indicative) in a minority of texts. Although the latter is the lectio difficilior, the majority reading is preferred in critical editions because the lectio difficilior is usually not preferred if it produces difficult syntax. But as mentioned before, Revelation was written in rather bad Greek and the grammatical problems in the book (due to Semitic interference to a great extent) are extensive and most agree that at least many of these grammatical problems were corrected in later MSS. The issue here, the shift back and forth between tenses, is quite common in Revelation. Examples of shifting between the present and future can be found in 1:7, 25, 2:22-23, 3:9, 17:12-14 (cf. Hosea 4:10, 9:3 LXX, Zechariah 2:13 LXX). When this shifting occurs in Greek the present indicative usually renders a Hebrew perfect participle. Some examples include present indicative katheudeis = perfect participle šokeb in Genesis 28:13 LXX, present indicative likma = perfect participle zoreh in Ruth 3:2 LXX, present indicative katoikeis = perfect participle yošeb in Ezekiel 12:2 LXX, present indicative poiei = perfect participle `abed in Daniel 4:35-Th, etc. When we examine the intertext for Revelation 7:17, the present indicative poimainei corresponds to the perfect participle ro`eh in Ezekiel 34:23 ; this correspondence with the Hebrew might support the originality of poimainei ( poimanei reflecting contextual smoothing for sake of consistency and/or influence from the LXX rendering ).

Finally, I would point out that it is a bit of a false dilemma to oppose the belief in resurrection with the belief in post-mortem heavenly existence as an incorporeal soul. This post-mortem existence is clearly described in ch. 6.

Revelation 6:9-11: "When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar (i.e. in the heavenly temple) the souls of those who had been slain (psukhas tòn esphagmenòn) because of the word of God and the testimony they had maintained. They called out in a loud voice, 'How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?' Then each of them was given a white robe, and they were told to wait a little longer, until the number of their fellow servants and brothers who were to be killed as they had been was completed".

That these souls were waiting for vengeance means that they were in the intermediate state between martyrdom and resurrection; the full number is then gathered in heaven as "an innumerable great crowd" (7:9-10, 19:1-2), who have perished in the "great tribulation" (cf. 13:7, 15-17), and their deaths are then avenged in 19:11-21, 20:1-3 when all those who persecuted the Christians perish and are imprisoned. Their resurrection is related later in ch. 20: "I saw the souls of those who were beheaded (psukhas tòn pepelekismenòn) for the witness of Jesus and for the word of God ... and they came to life (ezèsan) and reigned with Christ for a thousand years" (20:4). In both cases, the word used to refer to a dead person in their intermediate state between death and resurrection was "soul" (psukhè).

This is consistent with Jewish beliefs about resurrection. As for the Essenes, Hippolytus states that "the idea of the resurrection (anastaseòs) has strength among them for they acknowledge both that the flesh will rise again (tèn sarka anastèsesthai), and that it will be immortal, in the same manner as the soul is already immortal (èdè athanatos estin hè psukhè). And they maintain that the soul, when seperated in the present life, departs into one place, which is well ventilated and full of light where, they say, it rests until judgment" (Adversus Haereses 9.26-27). As for the Pharisees, "these likewise acknowledge that there is a resurrection of flesh (sarkos anastasin), and that the soul is immortal (psukhòn athanaton), and that there will be a judgment and conflagration, and that the righteous will be imperishable (aphthartous), but that the wicked will be punished forever in unquenchable fire" (9.28). But in the case of the Sadducees, "they deny that there is a resurrection, not only of flesh but they also suppose that the soul does not endure (psukhèn mè diamenein). It is only life, and it is on account of this that man has been created. However, the idea of the resurrection is fulfilled in this: in dying and leaving behind children upon the earth. But after death one expects to suffer nothing, either bad or good. For there will be a dissolution both of soul and body (lusin kai psukhés kai sòmatos), and man passes into non-existence, similarly also with the material of the animal kingdom" (9.29). Josephus also referred to a heavenly intermediate state in describing resurrection: "Those who exit from life in accordance with the law of nature and repay the obligation received from God, when the one who has given it chooses to receive it, theirs is eternal fame, their houses and families secured, their souls remain pure and obedient, having been allotted by God the holiest region of heaven, from which at the revolution of the ages they return again to inhabit undefiled bodies. But as for those whose hands have raged against themselves, darker Hades receives their souls and God, their father, visits upon their posterity the outrageous pride of their fathers" (Bellum Judaicum 3.374-376). We may compare with this the Holyadot Scroll from Qumran which praises God by saying that "from Sheol of Abaddon you have lifted me up to an eternal height ...And I know that there is hope for someone you fashioned out of dust for an everlasting community. The depraved spirit you have purified from great offense so that he can take a place with the host of the holy ones, and can enter in communion with the assembly of the sons of heaven" (1QH 11:19-22).

Paul clearly conceives of an intermediate state between death and resurrection. He used a clothing metaphor to refer to the body, referring to one's fleshly body as "our earthly tabernacle dwelling" (2 Corinthians 5:1), in which "we are in this tabernacle" (v. 4); cf. also "I am in this tabernacle" in 2 Peter 1:13. This word "tabernacle" (skènè) to refer to the body was common in Greek philosophy, particularly Pythagoreanism and Platonism. Paul also says in 2 Corinthians 5:4 that "when we are in this tabernacle we groan out of being burdened (baroumenoi)"; similarly compare Plato, Phaedo 81C where the physical body is said to be baru "heavy", embrithes "burdensome", and geòdes "earthly". When one is alive, one is "at home in the body" (2 Corinthians 5:6), "living in flesh" (Philippians 1:22), or "remaining in flesh" (v. 23). Death is construed as a departure from this tabernacle of the body, or something akin to the removing of clothes, e.g. "shortly I must put off (apothesis) my tabernacle" (2 Peter 1:14). Paul refers to death as what makes one "be away from the body" (2 Corinthians 5:8), or "depart (analusai) and be with Christ" (Philippians 1:22-23), and even in a vision one can be "outside of the body (ektos tou sòmatos)" (2 Corinthians 12:2). These statements closely resemble those in Greek philosophy and early Jewish literature. Pseudo-Hippocrates (De Septimanis, 52.22) wrote that at death "the soul leaves the tabernacle of the body (apoleipousa hè psukhè to tou sòmatos skènos)" and similar statements can be found in Timaeus Locrus 104D and Pseudo-Plato, Axiochus 366A. Another appearance of the expression in Jewish literature can be found in 4 Baruch 6:6 (first century AD) which refers to one's "fleshly dwelling" (to sarkikò oikò) as a "tabernacle" (to skènòmati) and when one dies God will "take you out of your tent (arei se ek tou skènòmatos sou)". Philo of Alexandria (De Somniis 1.122) also used oikos "dwelling, home" (the word Paul uses in 2 Corinthians 5) to refer to the body, saying that "the body is an abode bound up by nature with the soul (ton sumphua tès psukhès oikon to sòma)". Paul however avoids using the word "soul" (psukhè) to refer to the person who departs the body at death; this usage however is found in the two passages in Revelation mentioned earlier. Now Paul did not believe in natural immortality without resurrection, and so he refers to resurrection as a reclothing of a person with new clothing or tabernacle or house. He refers to resurrection as "putting on incorruption" or "putting on immortality" (1 Corinthians 15:53-54), as "being clothed such that life would swallow up mortality" (2 Corinthians 5:4), as being "clothed with our heavenly dwelling" (v. 2). But in between the two, there is an intermediate state, the state of being "naked" (gumnoi) or "unclothed" (ekdusasthai), as he states in 2 Corinthians 5:2-4). Plato similarly used the word gumnos to refer to the nature of the soul's existence after death (Cratylus 403, Gorgias 523). Now for those who are changed at the moment of the general resurrection, there is no intermediate state; one is changed instantly (1 Corinthians 15:52-53). But if one dies prior to the resurrection, then one has to await resurrection and therefore experience a state between death and resurrection. Paul described this as a departure from the body into Christ's presence in heaven: "I desire to depart and be with Christ which is better by far but it is more necessary for you that I remain in the flesh" (Philippians 1:22-23), "As long as we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord ... I prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord" (2 Corinthians 5:6-8). This embodies the same idea expressed by Philo of Alexandria who wrote that "it is not possible for one who is dwelling in the body (katoikounta en sòmati), in a race that is mortal, to be united with God (theò suggenesthai), but only he whom God delivers from that prisonhouse" (Legum Allegoriarum 3.42).

Of course, it should not be assumed that the conceptualization of the afterlife by the author of Revelation was identical to that of Paul.....there is a lot of variation in early sources. One is reminded of the experience of Enoch: "And Gabriel carried me up, like a leaf carried by the wind. He moved me along and put me in front of the face of the Lord...And the Lord said to the angel Michael: Go and extract Enoch from his earthly clothing. And anoint him with my delightful oil, and put him into the clothes of my glory. And so Michael did, just as the Lord had said to him. He anointed and clothed me, and I looked at myself and I had become like one of the glorious ones, and there was no observable difference" (2 Enoch 21:5, 22:8-10).

198

Rutherford's smear campaign (a must read)

by Leolaia in

there has been some interest recently about the moyle case, and how it may have set a precident in what became the society's disfellowshipping policy.

in july 1939, the chief legal counsel of the watchtower bible & tract society, olin r. moyle, resigned from his position in a protest over conditions at bethel and rutherford's mistreatment of workers.

he did not want to continue living under those conditions and he felt he could effect positive change for his brothers by taking such a stand.

Leolaia

Olin R. Moyle then wrote to a friend about his recent experiences.

#35
Olin R. Moyle to Mrs. Frances Hunter, 19 October 1939: "I heard some news this morning to the effect that in spite of the statement in the Watch Tower some of the Plainfield friends still believed that I could not be guilty of the things with which I am charged. You can't imagine what comfort that brought. I hope it is true. I never received such a battering in my life as I have this last month or so from the Society. All I did was to send to Brother Rutherford a letter protesting against some of the things he did, such as lambasting the brethren at Bethel, etc., and for that I have been charged with unfaithfulness; with being a Jesuit; a Judas; and an evil servant. I have imagined that everyone who read the statement in the October 15th Tower would believe I was guilty of writing false and malicious statements to the President of the Society. Of course reputation doesn't mean much, but nevertheless it's not pleasant to be accused of unfaithfulness, and I am more than overjoyed to hear that some of you friends believe that I am not as bad as painted.

I haven't any war or quarrel with Brother Rutherford or the Society. Sister Moyle and I are working with the Milwaukee Company in full harmony with the truth and the Lord's organization. We intend to do so as long as the Lord is using the organization. There is no question but what the Society is the Lord's organization and that He directs its activities. Nevertheless there are human creatures in charge who have their share of human frailties, and do things not in conformity with the principles of righteousness. To protest against unrighteous acts does not constitute unfaithfulness, and for that reason I do not consider that I have done anything unfaithful. You can tell any of my friends who inquire, that I am just as faithful to the Lord and His organization as ever, and doing what I can to serve Him and the truth. I understand the story has been circulated in the east that I have been busy circulating a false letter against the judge. That is not true. I have shown copies of my letter to him to a few friends -- less than a dozen -- and that is all. I don't think I would be doing anything wrong if I did circulate the letter, because I didn't tell him any lies in it, but it wouldn't be good policy and would be conducive towards division and dissension.

So Sister Moyle and I have been quiet in spite of what the Society has published. But you can't imagine how comforting it is to hear that some of you brethren still have faith in us and do not believe that I am a renegade evil servant".

198

Rutherford's smear campaign (a must read)

by Leolaia in

there has been some interest recently about the moyle case, and how it may have set a precident in what became the society's disfellowshipping policy.

in july 1939, the chief legal counsel of the watchtower bible & tract society, olin r. moyle, resigned from his position in a protest over conditions at bethel and rutherford's mistreatment of workers.

he did not want to continue living under those conditions and he felt he could effect positive change for his brothers by taking such a stand.

Leolaia

Then in the October 15th, 1939 issue of the Watchtower, the Society published its response to Moyle's letter to the world.

The same issue published the following resolution adopted by the Horicon company:

#34
Resolution adopted by the Horicon (Wisconsin) Company, published in the 15 October 1939 Watchtower: "We, the Horicon, Wisconsin, company, Zone Number 2, of Jehovah's witnesses, including the pioneer workers, declare that we are wholly devoted to Jehovah's Theocracy under Christ, that we absolutely refuse to consider the malicious letters which those of the 'evil servant' class have been circulating among the brethren, seeking self-justification and sympathy. We will not co-operate with that class who oppose Jehovah's Theocratic Government under Christ".

26

I was just interviewed by CNN Money

by Confession in

it's for their annual feature, "surprising six figure jobs.

" had the interview been longer, i'd have loved to mention the need to carve out a career, despite my religion and parents' lack of support for an education.. cnn money - "surprising six figure jobs".

here's my website, if you'd like to listen to my voice demos and read my blog.

Leolaia

Wow! That rocks! :)

198

Rutherford's smear campaign (a must read)

by Leolaia in

there has been some interest recently about the moyle case, and how it may have set a precident in what became the society's disfellowshipping policy.

in july 1939, the chief legal counsel of the watchtower bible & tract society, olin r. moyle, resigned from his position in a protest over conditions at bethel and rutherford's mistreatment of workers.

he did not want to continue living under those conditions and he felt he could effect positive change for his brothers by taking such a stand.

Leolaia

Following Howlett's visit and the adoption of the resolution, Harvey Fink apologized to Rutherford for his pastoral actions:

#32
Former zone servant Harvey H. Fink to J. F. Rutherford, 6 Oct. 1939: "I am sincerely thankful for your most recent letter of Oct. 3rd and the frankness with which you treat the matter under discussion. Permit me to state first of all that I alone am solely and exclusively responsible for having asked Bro. Moyle to make his statement to the Milwaukee Company relative to his faithfulness to the Society. At the time I honestly believed it to be the proper thing to do as I did not want the Society to get a black eye in this thing....

I have given the matter most serious and prayerful consideration and I am now thoroughly convinced that such action on my part, no matter how good the motive behind it, was uncalled for and very unwise. Consequently I am most willing to publically acknowledge such wrong on my part before the Milwaukee Company at our very next Tower and Service meeting. Last Sunday evening we unanimously passed a resolution here in Milwaukee which was mailed to you Tuesday, setting forth in unmistakable terms our position toward the Society and you as its president. I am happy to say that every last one of us heartily endorsed that resolution which should assure you that there has been no division caused by what has happened".

#33
J. F. Rutherford to former zone servant Harvey H. Fink, 9 Oct. 1939: "I am glad to see that you take my reprimand in the proper spirit. 'Whom the Lord loves he chastises' and I think we should always take things of this kind. I am glad that you see the matter now in the proper light....Moyle has made the greatest mistake he ever made. He came very near entrapping you. I hope you are fully escaped from that".

198

Rutherford's smear campaign (a must read)

by Leolaia in

there has been some interest recently about the moyle case, and how it may have set a precident in what became the society's disfellowshipping policy.

in july 1939, the chief legal counsel of the watchtower bible & tract society, olin r. moyle, resigned from his position in a protest over conditions at bethel and rutherford's mistreatment of workers.

he did not want to continue living under those conditions and he felt he could effect positive change for his brothers by taking such a stand.

Leolaia

Chris Alone....In an informal sense. The shunning begins in earnest.

198

Rutherford's smear campaign (a must read)

by Leolaia in

there has been some interest recently about the moyle case, and how it may have set a precident in what became the society's disfellowshipping policy.

in july 1939, the chief legal counsel of the watchtower bible & tract society, olin r. moyle, resigned from his position in a protest over conditions at bethel and rutherford's mistreatment of workers.

he did not want to continue living under those conditions and he felt he could effect positive change for his brothers by taking such a stand.

Leolaia

FWIW, I've had a sneaking suspicion that the WTBTS altered their translation in NWT to read "Faithful and DISCREET slave" (vs ALL the others, which use "faith and wise") as a result of the fall-out between Rutherford and Moyle, as if to insinuate that Moyle had betrayed his attorney/client confidentiality duty by being "indiscreet" about the Society's "private" matters (of course, Rutherford and Moyle were both lawyers; oh, the hubris of Rutherford to think that drinking at Bethel actually WAS the "master's business", LOL! In fact, Jesus' parable WARNED about the evil slave drinking with other servants, LOL!).

In the documents you presented, I found it very interesting to see Rutherford refer to Moyle's using "the very language of the evil servant class",

That raises an interesting point, King Solomon. Rutherford considered the Society, and himself by extension, as the "faithful and wise servant" in the parable in Matthew and Luke. This figure, in charge of pastoral duties like feeding the members of the household, was contrasted in the parable with the "evil servant". Rutherford regarded the "evil servant" as anyone who left the Society in order to oppose the work of the organization. Watchtower after Watchtower was filled with articles about the evil servant. As is well known, many Bible Students broke away from the Watchtower Society, first in the succession crisis of 1917, then in the spring of 1918 when the Society compromised its neutrality by supporting the US government, and then throughout the 1920s as Rutherford altered most of Russell's doctrines and warred against the elders in congregations throughout the US and Canada. And of course there was that little prophetic failure about 1925. So there were many Bible Students who broke away from the Society, and felt that the Society had apostasized from the truth and that it was Rutherford himself who was the "evil servant". And what Moyle described fit so well how the parable characterizes the "evil servant":

Matthew 24:48-51, KJV: "But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming, and shall begin to smite his fellowservants, and to eat and drink with the drunken, the lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of, and shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

I would guess that Rutherford probably knew that the parable fit him better than his adversaries, much less Moyle who was a meek quiet man and a teetotaler.