JW Insider

I can tell already that the point I was making is going to be mostly lost. But it doesn't matter that much because my point really was unnecessarily negative, and now wasn't the right time to bring it up. But thanks for catching on to the basic point. I'll use your comments as an excuse to go ahead and explain my reaction to the CNN article. There were about half-a-dozen points that crossed my mind. This news story was not included to create a topic for a specific set of religious beliefs. It's in a general news section. In my response, therefore, I didn't mention the other verses specifically because I thought they could be viewed negatively, but because they might have just as well been seen as more appropriate, and sometimes even more important to the circumstances. There was obviously nothing wrong with the other verses I pointed out, and a good, appropriate sermon could have been made on those verses, too. Every part of the open Bible could have been used to bring comfort in the storm, or a reminder of Jehovah's might. The verse chosen was perhaps the easiest one to work with. The story also reminded me of the joke that goes something like: "A man went and said 'I'll open the bible to a random verse and use it to guide my life. He opened it and it said "and Judas went and hung himself" he opened it again and it said "go ye and do likewise." ' " It reminds me that the exact same type of story gains traction when steel beams fall, and create the shape of a cross as they did in famous photos taken from the World Trade Center disaster. It also reminded me of the fact that sometimes there are deadly storms or airplane crashes, and many other man-made or natural disasters where many people die, and often one person, perhaps an infant, or photogenic child, will survive. The news often picks up on these stories and highlights the angle (through comments and interviews) that there must have been something special about that particular survivor, and God must have something in mind for them. Perhaps these stories work very positively for 99% of listeners, but another 1% are made to wonder if there is a certain hypocrisy in focusing on the "value" of the life of the survivor that, in effect, dismisses the "value" of those whose lives were horribly and violently ripped away. For some sincere believers, it even creates a false dichotomy about Satan being allowed to do a lot of bad, while God was able to intervene to do some good. It's a faith-strengthener for some, but a problem for others, because it's built on a false premise: Jesus apparently dealt with the problem that disasters were often surrounded by superstitious beliefs even when the disaster was actually random: (Luke 13:4) . . .Or those 18 on whom the tower in Si·loʹam fell, killing them—do you think that they had greater guilt than all other men who live in Jerusalem? Superstitious beliefs affected the view of every form of human suffering: (John 9:1-3) . . .As he was passing along, he saw a man who had been blind from birth. 2 And his disciples asked him: “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, so that he was born blind?” 3 Jesus answered: “Neither this man sinned nor his parents, . . . Superstition is commonly utilized to explain coincidence, and if the subject is positive and upbuilding, we accept it as true and spiritual instead of superstition. The problem is that if the same superstition were used to explain negative coincidences, then the same type of thinking would be seen as "magical" or even "demonic." The existence of a very positive coincidence without superstition is actually difficult for us because we want to make sense of the world and believe that Jehovah is directly involved in all the good things of our material life, and this might require that we blame Satan for all the bad things of our material life. There is a depth of wisdom in Ecclesiastes that surpasses superstition, even though it does not discount the idea that Jehovah is still in full control of the universe: (Ecclesiastes 9:11, 12) . . .I returned to see under the sun that the swift do not have the race, nor the mighty ones the battle, nor do the wise also have the food, nor do the understanding ones also have the riches, nor do even those having knowledge have the favor; because time and unforeseen occurrence befall them all. 12 For man also does not know his time. Just like fishes that are being taken in an evil net, and like birds that are being taken in a trap, so the sons of men themselves are being ensnared at a calamitous time, when it falls upon them suddenly. Many religions with holy or sacred writings often have members who treat the writings with a kind of superstitious "bibliolatry" where the sacred books like the Quran or Bible, for example, are treated like a kind of Ouija board. The person closes their eyes and opens the book to some random point, lets their finger drop to a verse, then they open their eyes and try to make sense of the verse, usually out of context. It's the basis for the joke in point #2, above. This doesn't mean that it will lead to anything bad (as in the joke above), but it might also mean that we are depending on a kind of magical rather than rational thought process, which is related to idolatry. (Romans 12:1, 2) . . .present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, a sacred service with your power of reason. 2 And stop being molded by this system of things, but be transformed by making your mind over, so that you may prove to yourselves the good and acceptable and perfect will of God. P.S. *** w81 1/1 p. 22 par. 19 “Engaging in the Holy Work of the Good News” *** “I asked the householder what motivated her to study the Bible with Jehovah’s Witnesses. She said that often she would open the Bible at random, point her finger at a verse and read it. But she seldom could understand what she read. “One day she was very depressed over serious family problems. Again she opened her Bible and picked out a verse. She could not understand it, and in her depression and disappointment began to cry. She prayed to God to send her someone to help her understand his Word. Just as she said that, the doorbell rang. Answering it she found a Witness, who began, ‘Would you like to understand the Bible?’ The householder pulled her inside and quickly a regular study was begun.”

It was also opened to the chapter that contains: (Psalm 50:3, 4) . . .Our God will come and cannot remain silent. Before him is a consuming fire, And a great storm rages all around him. 4 He summons the heavens above and the earth, So as to judge his people: These other verses were also on the page: (Psalm 45:5) 5 Your arrows are sharp, making peoples fall before you. . . (Psalm 48:7) . . .With an east wind you wreck the ships of Tarʹshish. (Psalm 49:10-14) . . .He sees that even wise people die; The stupid and the unreasoning perish together, And they must leave their wealth to others. 11 Their inner wish is that their houses will last forever, Their tents to generation after generation. They have named their estates after themselves. 12 But man, although honored, will not remain; He is no better than the beasts that perish. 13 This is the way of the stupid ones And of those who follow them, who take pleasure in their empty words. (Selah) 14 They are assigned like sheep to the Grave. Death will shepherd them; The upright will rule over them in the morning. Every trace of them will fade away; The Grave rather than a palace will be their home. Just sayin'

Wow. Beautiful. Loved it.

Obama has sent at least 20 billion to Israel, and agreed that the US would continue to send 38 billion over the next ten years. That's 3.8 billion a year. That's in spite of Israel's continued theft of property from the Palestinians to build houses. Actually, Israel's continued bulldozing of Palestinian housing and their theft of Palestinian land is calculated to make sure that the money keeps flowing. That's because if a peace process progresses, or a two-state solution is ever implemented, then the US would not be as likely to send so many billions every year. And why only 4 million for climate change solutions? 3.8 billion a year seems more appropriate.

I'm guessing that the reference is to the relatively shorter period that the Watchtower has applied to the fulfillment.

You understood it perfectly. Most of the time, we don't catch such things because we rarely read the original source material. We don't usually give these items a second thought, or if we do, we at least give the benefit of the doubt to the writer. This reminds me of several times when I witnessed the "editing" process at Bethel. Artists are sometimes given articles to read that have not gone completely through the editing and proofreading process, but I'm not talking about any of those times -- although they were often interesting, too. So often the focus was on things like: "Don't say it that way, it makes us look [some negative attribute]." For now I'll use an older example that fits the subject of the topic. *** w68 5/15 p. 314 Happiness Results from Making the Most of One’s Talents *** For years Anton had been in the insurance business. While such issues as buying war bonds caused strained relations with his business associates, it was the slogan “Millions Now Living Will Never Die,” which the Bible Students were then preaching, that caused him to sever his connections with the insurance business and enter the real estate field. There his natural abilities enabled him to become highly successful, buying, selling, building, financing and managing houses, hotels, apartment and office buildings. On reading the highlighted line, you might never think that Anton [Koerber's] so-called "business associates" were fellow Bible Students. While it's true that "life insurance" became a surreal topic of discussion among many of the Bible Students, I'm told that the real argument was whether or not Rutherford had compromised the Watch Tower's neutrality by effectively encouraging the brothers to purchase War Bonds (Liberty Bonds/Loans; Victory Bonds) during WWI. The same issue of buying "US War Bonds" was the primary specific issue in Brother Klein's experience here: *** w84 10/1 p. 22 ‘Jehovah Has Dealt Rewardingly With Me’ *** Shortly after my baptism in 1918, my loyalty to fellow Bible Students was put to the test. World War I was raging, and even though the most prominent brothers had been unjustly imprisoned over the war issue, the need for Christian neutrality was not fully appreciated by those then taking the lead. A few who saw the issue clearly took offense and separated themselves from the Bible Students, calling themselves Standfasters. They warned me that if I stayed with the Bible Students I would lose out on being of the “little flock” of Jesus’ anointed followers. (Luke 12:32) Mother, though not yet dedicated, helped me to make the right decision. I could not see myself leaving those from whom I had learned so much, and I therefore decided to take my chances with my Bible Student brothers. It really was a test of loyalty. The wording above definitely implies that Rutherford was out of the picture at the time, and not involved in the wording of the decision, but notes and documentation discovered at Bethel around the time of the article show that Rutherford was in on it. I once told my experience of sitting next to Bert Schroeder as he started to rewrite an experience that an older brother was telling about life at Bethel in past decades on "Family Night" (mostly a Bethel talent show). It's not so relevant to the topic here. From what I was told, that article about Anton Koerber, already mentioned above, was very controversial in several places, and I think, in re-reading it, that you can just about start to pick up on some of the "behind-the-scenes" issues, even if no one had mentioned it. *** w68 5/15 p. 315 Happiness Results from Making the Most of One’s Talents *** He worked out contracts with radio stations and radio networks for broadcasting the Kingdom good news. He also proved of assistance in acquiring property in Brooklyn, New York, in South Lansing, New York, for the Kingdom Farm and Gilead School there, and in Toronto, Canada, for the Bethel home and factory there. . . . He had a share, back in 1925, in fighting for licenses for radio stations owned by the Watch Tower Society. For some twenty-five years and more he appeared before presidents, cabinet members and members of Congress to serve them with the many resolutions adopted by Jehovah’s witnesses at their various assemblies, always keeping in mind the fact that he was Jehovah’s representative on behalf of his brothers. . . . In 1935, he was sent to Germany to try to get the printing presses at the Watch Tower Society’s Magdeburg branch, which had been seized by Hitler, transferred to Russia, with the hope of opening a branch in Russia. . . . Shortly thereafter Anton returned to his real estate activity, after which he again became active as a full-time pioneer minister. Then in 1952 he was able to arrange his affairs so as to be able to travel as a circuit minister for the Watch Tower Society. . . . That Anton had the right view of secular work was apparent in a number of ways. One of these was the generosity he showed toward those who had served God’s kingdom full time over many years at such places as the Brooklyn Bethel. . . . His very positive personality at times caused misunderstandings with his brothers, resulting in his being on the sidelines, as it were, for a time. . . . It might be hard to imagine how a "very positive personality" was responsible for misunderstandings that resulted in him being 'sidelined' as it were. My source, a respected brother in Writing, says that one of the reasons for the "controversy" behind this article was that Anton Koerber was actually a multi-millionaire whose generosity was very selective to specific brothers of his choosing. And he supposedly "bought" his assignments as a regional overseer and circuit overseer. When he didn't get his choices he threatened to take his "skills" to one of the other Bible Student sects. This could be false, of course. But the respected brother who told me was only someone who "seconded" the story as I had already been told from a less respected source.

I just listened to it. It's all about hearsay evidence. Hardly any verifiable facts at all. Sounds like the person showing her the house had just made use of some unsubstantiated rumors just to make the property more "interesting" for some kind of "shock value" effect. I think it's very odd that the Staten Island property doesn't have any grave markers, but it really was used as a cemetery according to a notice in the Watchtower. And it doesn't mean anything that Rutherford's grave is unmarked if there really are other persons in unmarked graves there, too. The quote from Franz is the first I heard of it, so I'm guessing it must have been mostly shared in apostate or exJW circles. (You probably know that Franz was the kind of person to sometimes blurt out little-known historical facts, but surely this one would have gotten a lot more quick traction because it's the kind of sensational gossip that spreads.) Yet, I knew two old-timers at Bethel who admitted a real hate for Rutherford, and who told some of the stories that they thought were true, but may or may not have been. I saw one of these persons every day a breakfast and the subject came up only about once a month, but he was the kind who would have shared something negative like this, if he thought there was any chance it was true. I just did some more reading about it, and realize it's a strange circumstance, but that's not evidence. Strange circumstances give rise to false rumors, but they don't make the rumors any more likely to be true.

OK. I understand that point, and as I said in several of my last posts, there is plenty of wrong info in Measen's work, and it is not corrected by other authors that make use of him. Yes. I would agree that Maesen (and other authors) included some bad assumptions about what the Bible Students were actually teaching. Maesen even admitted some of the weaknesses of the argument as I pointed out earlier. But these authors we have seen so far get a lot of things wrong, either due to how anxious these authors are to prove their assumptions, or from a serious lack of understanding of Bible Student teachings (or both). I mentioned earlier that I already understand your position on this a bit better. You agree that there is commonality, but you have noted some cases where these similarities are much more divergent than the author claims. So I completely understand, with that explanation, why you say it's wrong to call this "influence." Personally, I would still use the word "influence" only because so many of the remaining points of similarity are not so easy to dismiss or counter, and even though some of these assumptions made by these authors still contain mistakes, they are much less serious than the errors you (and I) have already pointed out. Also, I have already agreed in the very first post that the points of commonality were a misuse of the Watchtower's intent for these same doctrines. It's just that I believe someone can also be "influenced" by some teaching, and then distort it so greatly, so that you might not even recognize where the "influence" came from. I can think of other cases where you might call this same type of process "influence" but I don't want to get too far off topic. This is a little off topic, but you asked a few questions earlier in this "thread" that I skipped. I can at least try to answer direct questions. I didn't copy that (Horowitz) book while at Bethel. That was from a university library where I maintain alumni access. Also, Horowitz doesn't accept "this gossip" in that book, which is about Russell's particular form of Zionism, based on Russell's speeches and writings. I copied the book because I didn't have time to read it, and because I didn't want to check it out to take home (because I don't live that close to Massachusetts). Also, I get a very cheap rate on photocopies there. You also asked why I read the COJ book. Initially, I read the manuscript with the idea that I would find the time to do some research and counter the very weak or specious arguments I expected to find. The person who first allowed me to see a small copied portion of it thought the person should be disfellowshipped just for writing it. The person (in Writing) who gave my wedding talk and let me see the whole thing believed that someday someone should be able to respond to it, but by then I already knew I wasn't at all equipped to help, and he didn't show it to me with the idea that I would ever get such an assignment, anyway. It was way out of my league at the time, but I have since obtained and read many if not most of the reference sources to check whether it was accurate, and I also obtained and ran several different software programs to double-check the dates for calculations of eclipses and planetary positions from astronomical diaries quoted. You also asked for what purpose I defend people like "Barbara Anderson." I don't defend people (unless I know enough about them). I defend ideas that appear to be based on evidence. But I'm very skeptical of anything anyone says unless it matches evidence, and even then I know that new and additional evidence can always come along someday and change what I think to be true. I know of a few things that Anderson has said that I don't believe at all based on contrary evidence. I also know of a few things she has said that I thought wouldn't be true, but turned out to have more evidence than what I previously believed. So far I've been impressed with her ability to do research and I therefore understand why the Watch Tower Society trusted her with so much research. But this doesn't mean I automatically trust anything she says in the future. I automatically assume bias, as I do with anyone, and I recognize biases in my own thinking, too. I really don't care where Rutherford is buried. That's probably why I don't remember reading anything on Anderson's site about that particular fact. I think I recall a request to the city of San Diego to bury him at Beth Sarim, but I thought the request was denied. I assume that the Watch Tower Society has the correct information on that subject. I wouldn't expect them to be that concerned about it anyway. Even if the WTS or someone else has said something incorrect about it, it's not a Biblical or doctrinal issue, anyway. It has nothing to do with the effects of our publications or preaching work. It's just more trivia.

No. The listing IS INDEED mentioned with a means to search the index for the listing. It's on page 256 of Africana Studies. If you are using a Google Books source, then you probably won't see page 256. Instead it will say: "Some pages are omitted from this book preview." But if you scroll up to page 251, you will see that this entire "Chapter 14" is just a copy of the same Maesen source I quoted earlier. The full copy of the book has the entire "Reference" section. Also, there is a trick to seeing the text of some pages in the Google Books preview, even if the visual, formatted image of the page is omitted. You may already know this trick, but if you know that certain exact text exists on a page, or if you search for the exact text that ends the previous page, you can often get a few words of the context that are actually on the omitted page. If you take the time, you can sometimes re-create an entire omitted page if you tediously repeat searches on any additional exact text that you discover on the omitted page.

Just to be accurate here, James L Conyers, Jr. was not the author of this. He was the editor of a collection of essays on a more general subject of various faiths in Africa. He happened to include the author, Maesen, in his collection. That's why the page numbering is different from its original "Journal" publication.

@AllenSmith This was not a "scheme," as you called it. It's actually a PROPER way to document research. What you might not have known is that when you write a thesis or similar academic paper, you usually create a "Reference" section for all the sources that were quoted or utilized for their ideas. This way you can simply reference them with just the author's name, year and page as a kind of shorthand in the text of your work. (So you don't have to use up so much space repeating the titles each time you refer to the same work.) In this case, Maesen, on page 324-325 (of the "Journal" edition quoted earlier), included just such a section, where those books were identified correctly: Rutherford, Joseph F. 1921 The harp of God. Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1926 Deliverance. Ibid. 1927 Creation. Ibid. 1928a Reconciliation. Ibid. 1928b Government. Ibid. 1929 Life. Ibid. 1930 Light II. Ibid. 1932 Preservation. Ibid. 1933 Preparation. Ibid. 1934 Jehovah. Ibid. 1936 Riches. Ibid.

Paul was talking about the "Old Testament" Moses, the Prophets, the Writings, etc. These would be the books that the Scribes and Pharisees considered inspired. As far as the "New Testament" is concerned, there may not have even been any writings that were considered inspired -- yet. There may have been no canonical gospels for several more years, and Paul's letters were being collected, but may not have been considered inspired yet, either. 2 Peter is the one place where Paul's letters are then considered to be Scripture. (2 Peter 3:15, 16) . . .just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote you according to the wisdom given him, 16 speaking about these things as he does in all his letters. However, some things in them are hard to understand, and these things the ignorant and unstable are twisting, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. . . Curiously, 2 Peter was not considered inspired in most of the early collections of "NT" letters. Doubts were expressed about whether 2 Peter should be canonical through the 4th century, but I believe that the information presented here http://www.bible-researcher.com/warfield2peter.pdf gives us excellent reasons to accept that the book dates to the apostolic age. Also Origen who was an amazingly good reseaecher and scholar for his time, looked into the question and gave us trustworthy reasoning as to why it should be canonical. We look at accepted Scripture today, and just accept it matter-of-factly, but there was a time when various books were argued over for decades before being considered acceptable (including Revelation and 2 Peter). There are some Christian-based churches that still accept additional books in their New Testament churches, as they have done for nearly 1,800 years in some cases. But it is sobering to remember that "Christian forgery" was extremely common, just as "Jewish forgery" was common especially after the canon was considered closed. Sometimes the only way you could get your "wisdom" or your "prophecies" to be looked at was to write it as if it had come from a well-known apostle or well-known associate of an apostle.

For anyone else still interested at all in this question, or this subject, I should mention that there are easily about 100 pages of resources and material on the subject that has not been touched upon yet. I doubt that we will get through very much of it, but I thought that the explanation in The Centennial Review appeared quite accurate and speaks of similarities without attempting to prove causation. Naturally, it's long and I can't quote all much of it. These will be excerpts from 21 pages, with some portions highlighted. There are certain problems with his overview of WT and JW teachings, but at least shows a good awareness of most of the historical changes. The things he gets wrong includes the exact relationship he implies between Russell and Second Adventism, and I think this is worthy of more discussion under a separate topic. (I didn't mention it before, but I think that AllenSmith was right in a prior post where he credits B W Schulz with the most accurate history on that topic, although I wouldn't mind hearing where Allen differs from Schulz' view.) THE BLACK MUSLIMS: AN AMERICAN MILLENNIALISTIC RESPONSE TO RACISM AND CULTURAL DERACINATION Author(s): Perry E. Gianakos Source: The Centennial Review, Vol. 23, No. 4 (FALL 1979), pp. 430-451 Black Muslims have ties to two earlier American black nationalist groups and share some of the ideas of each: the Marcus Garvey movement of the late 1920's and the Moorish-American Science Temple movement of Noble Drew Ali (the former Timothy Drew of North Carolina).5 The Islamic elements in the Black Muslim belief system probably derive originally from the Drew movement, but they were reenforced by W. D. Fard, the "Arab peddler" whom some Muslims believe to have been Allah. Appearing mysteriously in Detroit in 1930, Fard assumed leadership of the Moorish movement upon the death of its founder the year before, claiming at the time to be the "reincarnation of Noble Drew Ali." The movement soon split into factions, one of which led by Elijah Muhammad (the former Elijah Poole of Georgia) remained faithful to Prophet Fard (Master Wallace Fard Muhammad). It is this faction — "The Nation of Islam" — to which C. Eric Lincoln gave the name "The Black Muslims." According to E. U. Essien-Udom, how ever, in the early sixties Malcolm X and other Black Muslims denied any connection with the Moorish movement and asserted Fard's uniqueness (pp. 35-36). Fard's origin, though, remains a mystery, as does his disappearance in June, 1933.6 The influence of at least two other American religious movements — both millennial in character — can be detected in the Black Muslim eschatology: the Jehovah's Witnesses and, to a lesser extent, in their economic activities, the Mormons. The millennial element, of course, also links the movement to traditional Christian groups and ultimately to Judaism. Similar ities to the Ras Tafarian movement of Jamaica, now established in northeastern United States, derive solely from common links to the Garvey movement.7 ... Answers to the question of specifically when the millennium will begin have been offered by various groups over the years. Most of these predicted dates have been derived from abstruse and highly individualistic juggling of Biblical numbers — a latter day adaptation of the Hebrew Kabbala. As one would conclude, as long as the beliefs remained vital, these dates were subject to constant revision. In the United States, probably the most famous of these predictions, because so many people acted on it, even going so far as to purchase "ascension robes," was that of William Miller in 1832, who predicted that the Advent would take place in 1843. During the Civil War period, other millennialists believed that the Advent would take place in 1866, and that the war then raging was but the prelude. E. L. Tuveson, for example, has discovered this note of expectancy in Julia Ward Howe's "Battle Hymn of the Republic," composed during the period.14 More recently, the Jehovah's Witnesses — founded in 1872 in Pittsburgh around a nucleus of former Millerites — have offered a series of date, all of which, of course, have had to be revised. Charles Taze Russell, the founder of the group, made his first prediction in 1878. which he later pushed forward to 1914. His successor in the movement, Judge J. R. Rutherford, first set the date at 1925, and subsequent calculations of the Watchtower Society moved the date up to 1975.15 The Reverend Billy Graham has wisely refrained from announcing a date, but, in citing the chaos of the present era as an unmistakable sign, for the past five or six years he has been preaching an imminent second coming. The Black Muslims, themselves, originally took the Jehovah's Witnesses' date — 1914 — but explained that a "grace" period had been granted to allow American Blacks to heed the message of Muhammad. The "final" date was to be 1970. It is presently expected that the event will take place some time before the year 2000, though whether this, too, is to be modified or abandoned under the new leadership is not clear.16 ... One must preface an examination of millennialism in the Black Muslim "social myth" by looking first at the celebrated break between Elijah Muhammad and Malcolm X, supposedly over Malcolm's remarks on the assassination of President Kennedy. Though unstated at the time, the break resulted from a conflict over different millennialistic assumptions, assumptions which mirror perfectly the disparities that exist between those followers of the Edwardsean, activist or northern, millennialistic version and the southern, or passive, version currently publicized by the Reverend Billy Graham: in short, between post-millennialism and premillennialism. Such a change or shift (from pre- to post-millennialism), which was implicit in Malcolm's evolving position, as we shall see, would have required an abandonment of much of the Black Muslim "social myth," a step which Elijah Muhammad was not disposed to take. The Kennedy remark became a convenient excuse for Muhammad to rid himself of a charismatic personality who threatened to destroy the "social myth" which had been so successful.21 The most obvious indication that the Black Muslim movement is premillennialist is its original belief in separatism and its long-standing injunction against political activity on the part of its members, including voting. Since the government is corrupt, it would be sinful for any righteous Muslim to participate.22 ... man is by nature evil and his civilization doomed to destruction, there is, of course, no reason to integrate with it nor attempt to "reform" what is obviously "unreformable": hence separation with expectancy. Until that "final" day, however, Black Muslims expect the system to treat them justly, and Muslim leaders enjoin their members to obey all just authority. Since they must, they submit, although, as in the celebrated draft refusal case of Muhammad Ali and others, they do not submit in all things. In their attitude toward government the Black Muslims resemble the Jehovah's Witnesses, who regard all government — not just the American or Caucasian ones — as imperfect. All governments, in fact, are "obstacles" standing in the way of the establishment of Jehovah's Kingdom, the only perfect government. (Both Elijah Muhammad and Judge Rutherford, leader of the Jehovah's Witnesses, were sent to jail for obstructing American war efforts. Rutherford in 1914 and Muhammad in 1942).25 ... Because the Fard movement in Detroit in 1930 appears to have modeled itself in many respects on the example set by the Jehovah's Witnesses, one may be easily tempted to conclude that it was responding to a set of conditions similar to those which precipitated the founding of the Jehovah's Witnesses. Black Muslim resemblances to the Jehovah's Witnesses, however, are traceable to a congruence of aims rather than to a similarity of originating conditions. Because in the beginning days of the movement Fard had no copies of the Koran to give to his followers — most of whom were illiterate — he had urged them to listen to the radio sermons of Judge Rutherford of the Jehovah's Witnesses. These sermons were consistently and sufficiently anti-religious establishment to serve Fard's aim, namely to alienate his followers from their traditional "white" Christian beliefs. Fard was shrewd enough, however, to warn his followers not to take the white man's worlds literally. They were, he warned, "symbolic," requiring "translation" by him in the Temple service. But one suspects that there was little in Rutherford's broadcasts requiring "translation," for his diatribes against established Christian religions were so extreme that he was banned from a number of radio stations. Rutherford's performance thus emboldened Fard to do the same: Christianity was the Negro's "graveyard," he declared, "the slave holder's religion."33 Fard recognized that in order for his followers to accept a new identity the old one had to be destroyed: they were to become, in the parlance of the present day, "born-again Muslims." But Detroit in 1930 was not the same as Pittsburgh in 1872, though both situations gave rise to despair, the originating emotion of millennial movements; nor were the Southern rural blacks who made up the bulk of Fard's followers in Detroit the same as those white, laboring-class Second Adventists in Pittsburg some sixty years earlier. Fard's followers faced a different and an even more despairing situation, compounded now as it was by the additional cruel factor of racism. For while many southern rural blacks had migrated to the Detroit area during the period of the first World War, so had many southern whites, most of whom brought their racism with them. The Ku Klux Klan had become very strong in Michigan during the post-war period, and fully half of the state's membership of 70,000 resided in Detroit. During the twenties they almost captured the mayor's office. Several council members, in fact, were known to be Klan members. A particularly ugly racial confrontation had taken place in 1925 over the "Henry Sweet affair," but Clarence Darrow's brilliant courtroom victory in that case served, for the moment at least, to prevent the racial situation from deteriorating further.34 The tense racist environment remained, however, and undoubtedly facilitated the founding of the first Black Muslim community. ... Under the leadership of Wallace D. Muhammad and his successors, the future of the Black Muslims promises to be different in some respects. The "white devil" belief is being abandoned, which means that the "Yakub" myth will be discarded and that whites are now eligible to join the organization.44 The belated recognition that Malcolm X was "ahead of his time" suggests that we shall see the Black Muslims become politically involved. In terms of millennial belief, such a shift means an abandonment of the premillennial pattern and an endorsement of the post-millennial position, since a more activist program was what Malcolm X was urging at the time of his break with [Elijah] Muhammad. --- end of quotation --- That was long, but it indicates a second level of complexity to the question. Much of the supposed influence, as Allen has pointed out, is not even related to doctrinal influence. In this I fully agree that there was something very important that Fard and Elijah Muhammad thought they saw in Rutherford's philosophy and social positioning and practice that they considered useful in their method of "peddling" a new religion. Also there was a more general reason to point to the doctrinal teachings of Rutherford due to their anti-establishment and anti-Catholic emphasis. We can leave to the side for the moment any questions about just how they happened to pick up on the idea that 1914 was the time when the lease of the world's rulers ran out, or the 6,000 years since Adam leading to a 1,000 year millennium to follow, or that they as a chosen people would survive Armageddon into a new world. But that doesn't mean we covered all of the similarities yet. For example, even though Babylon the Great is considered to be America herself, the NOI taught that Babylon had fallen just shortly after 1914, in the sense that she was now doomed, and that her complete fall would be accomplished by the time of the final battle of Armageddon. At the time the Watchtower taught that Armageddon had already begun but the judgment was cut short for more to be chosen to survive. So even some ideas that seem different to us today, were actually a closer match at the time. But admittedly, causation of influence is a complex subject. What make it more complicated is that there has been change in doctrine in both religions, JWs and NOI. Over time, the NOI may, in some ways find itself apparently more similar to JWs on some millennial doctrines, especially as they adopt a less racist and more inclusive philosophy. But it would be a mistake to think that changes they make now are evidence of influence back in the 20's and 30's. So, as I've pointed out before, no one can just look at any of these similarities one by one, outside the historical context of the full doctrine of NOI, and believe they are always seeing causation by influence. Some of the similarities will derive from coincidence, just by virtue of being another millennial religion that pulled a few ideas from the Bible (such as the 144,000, etc.). The Nazi philosophy was a millennial philosophy, too, we must remember, but they were definitely not influenced in any way by the Watch Tower.

Allen, You have made a lot of good points. In fact, there are no points made in any of the evidence you quoted from that I disagree with. I still agree with every one of your sources. I think the problem is that we have come at this issue with a different understanding of what it means to be "influenced." I notice that you keep going back to questions about whether Rutherford had a positive influence on the NOI, and you have spent a lot of time showing that the NOI is very different from the Watch Tower Society and perhaps not even worthy of any influence by the Watchtower. I still agree on those points too. I'm guessing that you have thought about this idea of "influence" and are thinking of the perspective that if there is nothing of any socially redeeming value in the NOI, then there must be no evidence that it was influenced by something good. I understand your perspective. I think you have also wanted to make the point that if I am claiming that there was some level of influence on the NOI from the teachings of Rutherford, that this somehow reflects badly on Rutherford or the Watch Tower Society. I didn't understand this, but I'm thinking that it must be based on the corollary of the idea just stated. It must have sounded like I was saying that if something that is so "totally bad" (like the NOI) was influenced by the Watch Tower Society, then it's like saying that the WTS influenced something to be "bad." I don't believe the WTS produced any kind of bad or negative influence -- AND I don't think that what I am calling influence produced anything positive in the NOI. The only possible, potential advantage I mentioned was that any familiarity with Rutherford's teachings might have made the transition just a little easier if anyone would have later decided to convert from NOI to JW. In fact, my reason for bringing up this idea in the first place was to support something you had said earlier about the variety of beliefs within the supposed "umbrella" of the Bible Students. In fact, I have always agreed with you on this point: that there was no actual "umbrella" that defined all groups of Bible Students. You mentioned the Bangalore Bible Students, and I thought you might also be aware of some of their differences, and that there were dozens of Bible Student groups that would draw crowds and congregations after themselves in many countries around the world. There were several who had associated with Bible students, and then made themselves "prophets" or claimed to be the fulfillment of some prophetic Bible character as a modern-day "antitype." Some used a small part of the original Bible Student message that they had picked up from Russell and then created something quite strange and almost unrecognizable from it. In fact, you can still go back to the topic where this came up and see that I was supporting something you, Allen, had recently presented. http://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/28202-what-does-it-mean-with-the-april-2017-study-edition-of-the-wt-are-all-who-wereare-baptized-still-bound-to-this-vow/ The following is an exact quote from that topic, although below I highlighted the sentence where I had mentioned you. The idea that the NOI had been "influenced" was just mentioned as an extreme example of how some of the Watch Tower Society's teachings have been misused. Apparently you might have agreed with the idea had I worded it a little differently. Perhaps you have a better idea how to word it in a way that supports the point you had made in previous posts.

I noticed you still can't handle the core of the question, about their doctrinal similarities. You've touched on "hell/hellfire" but that's only a start. All your many ad hominem "red herrings" about how I'm 'supposed to be a genius' and supposedly have 'insight' for having worked at Bethel might really be seen as outright dishonesty on your part. I usually ignore these diversions, as they have nothing to do with the question, but I'll respond here: You claim to have two PhD's in Theology. I admit that I expressed my doubts when you first made this claim, and I'm sorry for doing that, but I never claimed that you didn't have them. On the other hand, I have never claimed that any of my experiences at Bethel made me intelligent, or that I was chosen for any of my assignments due to intelligence or insight. I readily admit to being a fool on most subjects, and I readily admit to having been studious on a narrow set of subjects. My regular daily assignments at Bethel revolved around the Art Department, and because of my nerdy personality, I was also allowed to do extra research. (Every artist does some level of research when given an assignment.) I'm sure that the only real reason I was also assigned to work on a series of research assignments for Brother Schroeder, is that he knew my father from KM school, and my father is also fairly well known as an Electrical Engineer, specializing in audio/sound, and he has helped the Society on various projects for decades. So, from literally my first day at Bethel, Brother Schroeder and Charlotte "took me in" as a kind of adopted son in hopes that Judah would have a friend of the same age, and he even asked me if I could get Judah interested in studying NT Greek. I was, and still am, just an amateur at NT Greek. But he knew about it, and he thought that this hobby should be "nourished," so several of his assignments were based on NT Greek. He might have thought at first that he was just giving me a good excuse to spend more time in the libraries, which I loved. But naturally, as a young kid, just turning 20, I also tried to impress him by putting more work into the assignments than he expected, and so I continued to get regular research assignments from him for several more years, even for a few years after I got married and left Bethel. I know for sure that none of my assignments were based on genius, because I know for sure that I am no such thing. Actually, my questions, you might recall, were just reminders that these were points you skipped, and evidently had no answer for. They even tended to show that your line of reasoning could be flawed, because they can imply that you knew I might be right. I notice that you still haven't addressed them. For now, I will assume that the reason you didn't try to answer the question about why they left is because you realize the point is either not important to your claim, was completely irrelevant, or perhaps even counters your claim. I never cared and still don't. Although Malcolm X's reasoning is widely known from his autobiography, I never knew what Muhammad Ali's relation to the NOI was, exactly. If you think you can tie something from their biographies to the point of the question, feel free. As for me, I'll stick to the point. Here is something that is not a diversion, but gets to the actual point of discussion. It's from one of the major works of Elijah Muhammad: "Message to the Blackman in America." I've added some highlights, but these are exact quotes, many of which are very much aligned with the pre-1930 Bible Student doctrines, not necessarily current doctrines. Sometimes it's clear from context that these doctrines have been re-interpreted, but there are some places where the context brings in even more details that match the wording of the Watch Tower publications of the time period. You should also note that Judge Rutherford was referred to "for his interpretation of the Bible," not his legal maneuverings, or methods. Note that the beliefs are never exactly like the Watchtower; we are only talking about "influence." Page 191: They hated Judge Rutherford for his interpretation of the Bible which condemned the church and its father, the Pope of Rome. Page 11: He (devil), the god of evil, was made to rule the nations of earth for 6,000 years, and naturally he would not teach obedience to a God other than himself. So, a knowledge of the true God of Righteousness was not represented by the devils. The true God was not to be made manifest to the people until the god of evil (devil) has finished or lived out his time, which was allowed to deceive the nations (read These. 2:9-10, Rev. 20:3[,]8-10). Page 88: We are now living in the early morning of that seventh thousand years. The world of evil was given 6,000 years to reign over the righteous. Now, since their time expired in 1914, as all religious scientists agree, we are in the seven-thousandth year since the creation of Adam, Page 18: He spoke with authority, not as one who is under authority but as one independent. He said the world's time was out in 1914, but people could get an extension of time, depending upon their treatment of the righteous. Page 20: They will fail and be brought to disgrace as Pharaoh's magicians and he himself were by Allah (God), for you have not known Him, or His religion, as Israel had not known God by His name Jehovah (Exod. 6:3). . . . They felt that they should not believe Moses' representation of God by any other name than God Almighty, regardless of Moses' stress upon Jehovah as being the God of their Fathers. Page 72: This mighty One, is known under many names. He has no equal. There never was one like Him. He is referred to in the Bible as God Almighty, and in some places as Jehovah, the God of Gods, and the Lord of Lords. Page 21: Armageddon has started, and after it there will be no Christian religion or churches. Page 56: When should we expect Allah (God) to make all things NEW? After the destruction of the wicked, their king and world. Just when should the end of the old world be? The exact day is known only to Allah, but many think that they know the year. But we all know that 1914 was the end of the 6,000 years that was given to the old world of the devils to rule. Page 57: Seventh, it is the only religion that has the divine power to unite us and save us from the destruction of the War of Armageddon, which is now. It is also the only religion in which the believer is really divinely protected. It is the only religion that will survive the Great Holy war, or the final war between Allah (God) and the devil. Page 12: Because of the false teaching of our enemies (the devils), God has made Himself known; (for I teach not the coming of God but the presence of God, in person.) This kind of teaching hurts the false teachings of the devils, for they knew that God would come in person after you. They, (the devils) also are aware that God is present among us, but those of you who are asleep they desire to keep asleep. Page 37: . . . another new people must be made to be the ruling voice of tomorrow out of this old world that is now living her last days. Page 109: The rising of opposition against divine truth, revealed in the last days (years), also has been told by the prophets of old, and we have it in writing that this opposition against the truth is not to be feared by you who believe and have understanding. The truth will be attacked by the disbeliever and hypocrite in the last days. Page 54: . . . could easily be frightened and worked up into emotion by the preacher, yelling and spitting out foam all over the pulpit, preaching hellfire after death and the dying of Jesus on the cross. He would paint an imaginary picture in the minds of the listeners -- of meeting some dead relative up in the heavens (sky) after death or mourn them into grief and sorrow. My people are leaving and rejecting such nonsense as they advance more and more educationally. Page 170: It is the Pope of Rome today whom the church accepts as its intercessor between and Christians and God. And all Catholics, such as priests and cardinals profess to have the power to pray the soul out of purgatory. Page 158: condition, they are classified with the devil, to be destroyed in hellfire -- the final end to both. Page 88: The early morning is the first part of the seventh thousand years [note: Millennial Dawn] and the year under the name Millennium (which the Christians say means the 1,000 years Christ will reign on the earth). This is the 1,000 years which it will take to restore peace and honor, after the removal of peace breakers. This time also includes the birth of a new nation from the mentally dead. . . . For in that 1,000 years of Millennium, the disbelievers will cease to be. And to those who live in that time it shall be binding upon them to serve and obey One God: My own suspicion is that Rutherford's new campaign about the "Birth of a Nation" as the final piece of the failed 1925 Millions campaign would have caught the attention of several African-Americans and other blacks all over the world. Rutherford, a master advertiser, had re-used the name of the recent, infamous, racist movie (Birth of a Nation) that promoted the KKK as saviors of the South. (Rutherford claims that he published this article [in the March 1, 1925 Watchtower] even though the majority of the Governing Body "strenuously objected" adding that "by the Lord's grace it was published and that really marked the beginning of the end of the editorial committee, indicating that the Lord himself is running his organization." - See June 15, 1938 Watchtower, page 185.) Of course there are many ideas that we could associate with the Watch Tower's teachings, which are not necessarily from the Watch Tower publications. Many of the individual points above could easily be countered with contradictory material or shown to be taken somewhat out of context. If we decided to take them apart piecemeal, one by one, it would be easy to make some headway against the idea of influence by the Watch Tower's teachings. But they still need to also be taken altogether, as a "composite" item of evidence. I gladly accept the definition you gave. I think this is exactly what we are talking about. We are not talking about acceptance of the Watch Tower's views, or promotion of those views. We are talking about producing effects on another person's opinions, etc.

OK. You apparently believe that what you've said here provides a serious response to the question. You believe that NOI leaders and founders chose to endorse Rutherford because they liked that he was fighting the establishment in their eyes. You apparently believe that because they claim no influence from Christianity, that they must be telling the truth. You believe that "Malcolm X found out later, as did Muhammad Ali." They found out WHAT later? That the NOI had been too much influenced by Christianity? Did he find out that they had been influenced by Rutherford? Or that they had not been influenced enough by Christianity or Rutherford? You probably didn't mean that, but you don't say what they found out. Why do you think "Ali" dropped the Nation of Islam? You don't say. Why not? What you hadn't noticed, first of all, that the choice of Rutherford even at the level of someone they liked for their particular perception of the way he was fighting the establishment is already an admission of influence. The only way it would not be is if they chose him at random, or decided to endorse him because they thought they could influence him. We know that this wasn't the reason. Otherwise "influence" is already admitted in anyone's non-random choice and endorsement of teachers, writers and speakers. The more time one spends listening, reading, and learning from someone, then the greater the potential influence. And any later denials of such influence is not very meaningful if teachings have already been endorsed and adopted. I noticed that you have not yet attempted to answer questions about why Armageddon, 144,000, and 1914 were adopted into the teachings of the NOI. I don't really expect you to, unless you are willing to discuss specifics. So far you have quoted a lot of specifics, some of which support exactly what I have been saying, and none of which have given anyone any reason to question the claim that teachings promoted by Rutherford had an influence on the NOI. This is your typical red herring. But I can't see why anyone would get fooled by it, because it claims no fault with the Watchtower. If you feel that it reflects badly on the Watchtower anytime Rutherford's teachings might have influenced a group whose teachings you generally find distasteful, then you are hanging onto an illogical premise. I wonder if you can even explain why you think this claim reflects as a "fault" with the Watchtower. We could have a similar discussion about a dozen other groups influenced by the Bible Students. I wonder what your criteria would be for deciding whether or not a certain level of influence counts as influence. Based on your comments, so far, I have to suspect that your criteria has more to do with the reputation of the group, or your personal "perceptions" about the one who presented the facts. In spite of these defects in your presentation so far, I will attempt to take you seriously and address a few more of the claims you made so far: So your claim here is that Fard started using any kind of scam to have people listen to his message, and the Watchtower views were considered by him to be, for him, a kind of scam to get people to listen. So you agree he wanted people to listen to the Watchtower views, but that this type of scam, you think, would not have any influence on those listening. Perhaps you can explain that claim. It sounds naive. You do give a reason, but it seems to be your own reason that you present without evidence, and not the reason that you can give any evidence for. You say he chose the Watchtower because he saw a similarity in legal challenges. He very well may have. I wouldn't doubt that this was noticed, although remember that we are talking about a period PRIOR to 1933. The number of court cases and arrests were picking up since the late 1920's but we weren't really winning many of the court cases until late 1933 and beyond. So this might very well be one of the reasons that NOI leaders took notice, but it doesn't at all prove that they were not also influenced. You merely make a claim "Did Fard promote the Watchtower teachings? NO" You say it was only about observing how Bible Students dealt with people in their interactions to gain "social understanding." And you say that he suggested reading Rutherford's books to better understand his philosophy, not his faith. Again, I'm quite sure that this was one of the ideas behind their interest in Rutherford. It's pretty clear they didn't want to BECOME Bible Students. But again this does not mean that they would not be influenced. Even if Fard or Malcolm X told NOI members that they should study the Watchtower's operations, style, social methods, legal arguments, and philosophy, this does not provide any evidence that they were not influenced, nor that the members themselves would be able to avoid influence from such observations. If what you say is true, you would certainly expect to find those very important warnings like: "Study them, but don't be influenced by their teachings." You don't find that however, and it turns out there is a very good reason. The reason is that there is plenty of evidence that what attracted NOI leaders was the teachings themselves. I already gave you an overview of that in Maesan's article, for which you only commented on "hell" instead of the more Watchtower-specific doctrines such as 1914. You are probably aware that William Maesen's article that I quoted from was just a shorter version of papers presented in 1969. "This is a revised and shorter version of papers read at the fall meeting of the Michigan Sociological Association at Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, 21 November 1969; and at the annual meeting of the Illinois Sociological Association at Loyola University, North Campus, 30 October 1970." In it he quotes from authors who had made this deduction prior to him. I mention that because of what you said about Google book authors seeming dependent on him. In fact, there are prior resources that are more specific, that I haven't even touched on yet. But I will give you an opportunity to offer your own hypothesis for doctrinal similarities first.

In Any idea if these figures are accurate. I had heard that it was over 50%, but never fully believed it was over 75%.

The basic idea that 'comes to our rescue' is that the Watch Tower Society was on a path that would soon lead them into more and better light. But I understand your point, and if Jesus were looking for those who were faithful in what is least, then he must have been looking at their future, not every "least thing" they were doing and saying at the time. The 1917 "Finished Mystery" was a book filled with falsehoods by today's standards. Some of it was perfectly ridiculous. The 1918 preaching and convention campaign was based on the false prophecy that millions of people then living would never die because they would survive until the fulfillment of the Biblical promises in 1925. Rutherford promoted the Great Pyramid for another decade. He admitted that he helped promote "creature worship," in other words, the "cult" that had formed around "Pastor Russell." We can look back on false doctrines and false prophecies now and justify them as mistakes based on the limits of what they could know at the time. But in reality, it was possible to know that Jesus had specifically said not to follow anyone who would say that the "time is at hand" with reference to his presence (parousia). Yet, Rutherford, in 1916 to 1933, continued campaigns to distribute a book by Russell with that very name: "The Time is at Hand." Yet these were all mistakes by humans who wanted to do the right thing. I think it's pretty obvious that the motivation was pure, at least for the vast majority of these Bible Students. That's why I'm happy to overlook those mistakes of the past. But I also have brought up some of these same points, which probably sounds like I'm not overlooking those mistakes of the past. But that's not what the problem is. The problem is that -- now, in the present -- we keep looking back on these times in our history and repeatedly claiming things about them that weren't true. Of course, these things that we currently claim are partially true, but this just makes the untrue parts more insidious in the way that they can mislead us. Are we really honest today, if we think we need to use some deceptions to try to clean up our reputation from the past? We sometimes, for example, make a big deal out of the fact that the churches of Christendom all praised the League of Nations as "the political expression of God's kingdom on earth." This supposedly showed why the prophecy in Revelation was fulfilled against them: (Revelation 17:8) 8 The wild beast that you saw was, but is not, and yet is about to ascend out of the abyss, and it is to go off into destruction. And when they see how the wild beast was, but is not, and yet will be present, those who dwell on the earth will wonder admiringly, but their names have not been written upon the scroll of life from the founding of the world. It turns out that it was not all these "churches of Christendom" that had praised the League as the "political expression of God's kingdom" and who found it something to "wonder" at, and "admire." Notice what the Watchtower said about it in the February 15, 1919 issue, page 51: “We cannot but admire the high principles embodied in the proposed League of Nations, formulated undoubtedly by those who have no knowledge of the great plan of God. This fact makes all the more wonderful the ideals which they express. For instance, it has been made plain by President Wilson and the advocates of his ideas that the proposed League of Nations is more than merely a league to enforce peace. They would not have us consider it to exclusively from the standpoint of politics or of military relations. It should be considered as fully from the economic and social points of view. The President’s idea seems to be that the League of Nations which he proposes would stand for world service rather than mere world regulation in the military sense, and that the very smallest of nations shall be participants in its every arrangement. In other words, his idea undoubtedly is that the league shall not be established merely for the purpose of promoting peace by threat or coercion; but that its purpose, when put into operation, will be to make all nations of earth one great family, working together for the common benefit in all the avenues of national life. Truly this is idealistic, and approximates in a small way that which God has foretold that he will bring about after this great time of trouble.” This is exactly what is meant by the phrase claiming that the League of Nations is a "political expression of the kingdom of God on earth." In addition the Watchtower expressed that we wondered admiringly at it. Rutherford changed his mind and began saying instead what many "evil slave" Bible Students, and many church leaders had already begun saying about it. But even as late as 1933, Brother Rutherford continued to be fooled into thinking that proposals by political leaders were an "expression of the kingdom of God on earth." Rutherford said the following in his letter to Adolph Hitler regarding the ideals of the Nazi party: The conference [WT convention] of five thousand delegates also noted - as is expressed in the declaration - that the Bible Researchers [Bible Students] of Germany are fighting for the very same high ethical goals and ideals which also the national government of the German Reich proclaimed respecting the relationship of humans to God, namely: honesty of the created being towards its creator. The conference came to the conclusion that there are no contradictions when it comes to the relationship between the Bible Researchers of Germany to the national government of the German Reich [German Nazi Party]. To the contrary, referring to the purely religious and unpolitical goals and efforts of the Bible Researchers, it can be said that these are in full agreement with the identical goals of the national government of the German Reich. Based upon the supposedly strong language of our literature, some of our books were banned. The conference of the five thousand delegates pointed to the fact that the contents of the books which were criticized, only refers to the situation and actions within the Anglo-American world power - especially England - which is responsible for the League of Nations and its contracts and burdens imposed upon Germany. What is written in our literature - no matter whether from a financial or political point of view - is only directed towards the suppressors of the German people and their country, but by no means refers to Germany itself, which is trying hard to fight against the imposed burdens. This idea of using a lack of honesty about our past is clear even in this 1933 letter to Hitler. Of course, Rutherford quickly understood that the deception was not going to work to stop the ban on our literature, and again, Rutherford changed course accordingly. These are just a couple of important examples, but it should be clear that what we say about not being neutral before 1919, but learning our lesson was not really true. The majority of Rutherford's books, speeches and booklets were politically charged for decades, and took sides on many issues, especially between labor and capital, for example. When the publications sided with another politician, they could be praised as if they were a Biblical prophet. For example, the 1924 Golden Age (now Awake!), on page 149, says: We understand now, why Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, who like Judge Rutherford is permeated with the real Biblical and prophetic spirit, ceases not in his discourse to defy the devil, and throw (morally) an inkwell into his face, as the deceased Luther did. We understand also why the Premier of the Labor Party turns his back on the League of Nations, of which formerly he was an apostle, and draws near to the Americans whose eyes are opened. Judge Rutherford cites, in addition to prophecies from Isaiah, Ezekiel and Amos, from Mr. MacDonald: "There is neither betterment nor peace in Europe. The governments are powerless. The year 1924 is worse than 1914." Again he [Rutherfod] quotes the prophet David Lloyd George: "A new chapter opens in the history of Europe, with a climax of horror such as the world has never witnessed." Of course, this was during a time when Rutherford was campaigning that 1925 was even more of a sure thing than 1914 was.

Some scholars read the two canonical letters to the Corinthians as compilations of several letters, with some duplication likely left out. I haven't read all their reasons, but when I come up with a question on my own based on a text-based issue, I often find that some scholars' explanation for that particular question makes as much sense as any other explanation. Psalm 14 and 53 shows that duplication has happened. (The Dead Sea Scrolls showed that many Jews had kept 151 songs as canonical, not 150.) Jude and 2 Peter contain identical passages. Paul does not appear to necessarily think of his own words as inspired in all passages when he says: (1 Corinthians 7:12) 12 But to the others I say, yes, I, not the Lord:. . . Jesus does not necessarily speak of Moses as inspired in all passages when he says: (Matthew 19:8) 8 He said to them: “Out of regard for your hard-heartedness, Moses made the concession to you of divorcing your wives, but that has not been the case from the beginning. Yet, the Jews were given the responsibility of collecting and validating which books were kept as canonical and which were not: (Romans 3:1, 2) . . .What, then, is the advantage of the Jew,. . . 2 A great deal in every way. First of all, that they were entrusted with the sacred pronouncements of God. And the Christians of the 2nd and 3rd centuries, in spite of "Babylonian captivity," were apparently given the responsibility of collecting and validating which books were kept as canonical and which were not for the Greek Scriptures. One of the last books by the apostle John gave them good advice: (1 John 4:1) . . .Beloved ones, do not believe every inspired statement, but test the inspired statements to see whether they originate with God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.

In Spain, I understand that it's considered a problem when any organization (religious or otherwise) attempts to handle criminal cases with their own private judicial system. It's like a parallel government. The "Church" caused Spain a lot of embarrassment trying such systems over the centuries.

Looks like it's time to add a necessary caveat again. For any readers who wonder whether this is a typical way in which JWs discuss information with each other, it isn't. Outsiders should not read too much into the way in which this particular topic has been discussed here. Most Witnesses are quite patient and reasonable, and do not so quickly lose control or lose confidence in their evidence such that they resort to the ad hominem. red herring, strawman, or any number of other logical fallacies. Please do not let this dialogue in any way shape your opinion of Jehovah's Witnesses in general. So with that said . . . You've done it again Allen. You have claimed that a point of fact was wrong, and then provided detailed evidence proving that you misunderstood. You provided evidence that shows that your claim is false. It has become even clearer with these recent posts that you are an opposer of true facts. I get the impression sometimes that you actually know that the evidence shows you are wrong, and that you just like to play the part of an opposer, which makes it odd that you so often use the word "thespian" as some kind of accusation against others. You made one partial statement that is true, and I will address it: This is absolutely true that they could have. Maesen even admits this along with admitting certain other weaknesses in his "Exploration" of the idea (that the NOI was influenced by Rutherford's teachings). I saw a couple more weaknesses based on Measen's misunderstanding of Watch Tower teachings. (For example, he thought that Rutherford was teaching that only 144,000 would survive Armageddon, which, if it were true, creates a closer match to the "official" NOI teaching. But of course it's not true.) The problem of course is that while official leadership of the NOI did borrow from a few different sources, they also singled out Rutherford as someone to read and listen to. Currently, of course, they deny Rutherford's influence, and you apparently believe them, which is fine. But there has been no attempt to explain why they once encouraged the buying of Rutherford's books, and they even encouraged people to buy radios to listen to Rutherford's lectures. So while they could have picked up a non-traditional view of "hell" from other sources we should still factor it in as we try to explain why they endorsed Rutherford. Rutherford was apparently the only white man the NOI ever endorsed as a kind of teaching source. That fact alone appears to entail some kind of influence. At least posit some reasonable explanation of that fact before going on to just say they could have got their idea about hell from other denominations. On that matter, too, please note the following: The Nation of Islam (NOI) teaching about "hell" is closer to Rutherford's than to the most common Christian sources, Jewish sources or even the Quran, which equates hell with Gehenna (Hebrew Gehennom; Arabic, Jahannam). The Pew survey you linked is not useful regarding the point made. That survey evidently asked about religions that believe in "hell" and apparently did not distinguish religions that believed in "hellfire." You will notice that it gives the impression that 98% of JWs believe in "hell" and 2% do not, while only 55% of Christianity in general believes in hell. This response is worthless because we already know that 100% of JWs believe in hell, and 0% believe in hellfire. Other denominations would more likely respond that they do not believe in hell only when what they really mean is that they do not believe in a literal hellfire. At any rate, this is not about any one reason, but about all the composite doctrinal reasons, combined with the official endorsement of Rutherford as a teacher. Perhaps they did get their idea about hell from another place. So now we should try to explain their interest in the meaning of: 1914 Armageddon The 144,000 The Millennium. New World on Earth The Mortal Soul Was there any other person who spoke of these 6 other items as much as Rutherford did, during the very time when they encouraged members to listen to Rutherford and read his books? The idea that the world's time was up in 1914 and that it was a time of judgment deferred so that more could be saved is curious in many ways on its own. How many religions do you know that were also teaching this besides the religion represented by Rutherford?

Most Witnesses obviously want to live peaceful Christian lives and conduct ourselves in a way that pleases Jehovah God and Jesus Christ. None of us really want the job of being responsible to take a specific position on all doctrinal matters and setting priorities for organizational direction in our overall global ministry. But we can be thankful that among Christians, there will always be a few that will take the lead in those heavy responsibilities. The very desire to take the lead in such matters seems like an assignment that only someone who is very brave or very foolhardy would take. It seems that, from a worldly perspective, only the most haughty among us would reach out for such an important job. Yet, we know some of these brothers very well from either personal acquaintance, or perhaps they were Circuit and District Overseers in our congregations. Perhaps we worked alongside some of them in a Branch Office. We get to know their personalities from presentations, speeches, and broadcasts. We see them interact with each other at some events. All in all, the majority of them seem to be good, God-fearing, humble men who want to do what is right, the same as the rest of us. We don't get the idea that any of them "schemed" to get to this position. We know that the guidelines for elders apply to them just as they apply to congregation elders. And it's my opinion, but I see a certain stability and faithfulness to worthy goals among all of them. Now it's easy to say good things about these men, and that's my point. When these men were mostly chosen only from a certain similar mold, there was not a large "pool" for these "gifts in men" to be chosen from. In the past, most had been chosen from a limited bureaucratic background. At the point when there were 17 GB members alive at the same time, most (but not all) had the ability to give a good talk, but at least half of them were seriously lacking in Biblical expertise, and at least half of them had very little experience even in the door-to-door field ministry for the last 40 years of their lives. We should not have been surprised that certain kinds of flaws showed up among these men so that several were dismissed, and a lot of politics and scheming was known to go on among those who remained. But the current group, especially after the death of Theodore Jaracz, have been chosen from a much wider pool of candidates. These men have made more progress in the last 20 years than in the previous 100 years. They are managing a much bigger, and smoother operation, with millions and millions more persons in their care. Doctrinal changes over the last 20 years have been steady and clearly beneficial overall. The quality of the publications and the website has improved greatly. It's reach is enormous. I've already stated my opinion that the GB are not the equivalent of the "faithful slave" from a Biblical standpoint. But that's not the point of discussion here. These men, the GB, who have taken the lead for doctrinal and prioritized the organizational and ministerial direction have taken on an important and necessary assignment. They admit that they aren't perfect. Of course, that statement is meaningless, because such a statement almost always is used with the intention of meaning "perfect, for all practical purposes." But they don't leave it at that. They admit that they have made serious errors in doctrine and leadership. they admit that the spiritual food they produce and distribute is not always perfect. So, with that said, I think one way of looking at the overall picture is to see these men in the position of keeping order. They take the lead at the "highest" level, not because they think that you must think that all these doctrines are perfect. They do it because it keeps order and harmony. They do it by taking a stand on certain doctrinal matters and setting organizational priorities. Sure, they may do some of this by majority vote, but ultimately they make choices. This is part of remaining organized in any organization and not falling into chaos. Going off in many directions is inefficient. Even trying a certain direction that proves untenable has a certain value if it's caught early enough, and there is humility to change. Taking a stand means that we will sometimes discover we took the wrong stand, but it also has an advantage in making our beliefs transparent. If a doctrinal stand is taken, our thinking is clearer on it, and contradictions show up more easily. It would be easy to be 100% accurate by taking a less dogmatic stand on many things. But this makes it harder to test whether we are thinking correctly and reasonably on some of our beliefs. I think that it could be like those logic puzzles, like they do for LSAT tests, where you get 5 to 10 clues, and have to figure out, for example, where everyone lives and what they do, what they drink, and the color of their house: Bill is a plumber who drinks whiskey and lives in the green house that is next to a corner house. John is not a carpenter, and he drinks soda and lives in either a red or blue house that is two houses from Sally's house. etc. etc. etc. Sometimes you get to a point where you just need to take a stand and say that John must be in a blue house, for example, even if you don't know for sure, so that you can properly test if it works. (Actually, Sudoku was probably a better example, come to think of it.) So, we can have doctrinal claims that are still in the middle of such testing. We took a stand, and it clarifies our position so that it can be more clearly tested. It can work for both trivial and important matters like: whether Moses wrote all of the first five books of the Bible himself, or whether Galatians was written prior to 1 Corinthians, or whether the "other sheep" are Gentiles or "spiritual Gentiles." If we (as an organization) take a stand, it should be faster to get to a point where we can take a consistent stand on all important matters of doctrine and teaching. This assumes that haughtiness and love of tradition don't get in the way of change. And that gets back to having the right kinds of personalities taking the lead.

That's true. They have both been re-published by various publishers through the years. At Bethel, in the 1970's when we quoted from it a lot more often, we only knew of one edition of Matthew Henry, although that same edition with same page numbering was also in a three-volume paperback version. For Albert Barnes, there was an 1850-something version that was on the shelf until 1977 and it disappeared, probably to someone's office. There were also a couple of old stand-alone volumes from an incomplete set, or from prior to the combined set. We also had two single-volume Barnes' Notes on the New Testament both from Kregel Publications: a 2nd printing 1963, and a 7th Printing from 1974. The page numbering was nearly the same. Also, Brother Schroeder had, in his office, a set of them which had been published in several separate volumes, along with some standalone OT commentaries by Barnes. They had completely different page numbering. It's not wrong to mention only the publishing date, which could be any of about 25 different dates for Barnes (less for Matthew Henry). But in WTS publications, we sometimes mentioned a date, but without a page number, and we sometimes mentioned a page number, but without any date. I was primarily commenting that the Watchtower readership would generally have no idea if these men were from modern times or hundreds of years ago. Since Insight, the Watchtower, as far as I know, has never put a date next to quotes from Matthew Henry, or Albert Barnes. Since the 1980's, except for two footnotes (without dates), all references to Matthew Henry do not refer specifically to a commentary or a book, but to Matthew Henry as a commentator, scholar, or British author: *** w05 1/1 p. 31 Questions From Readers *** Understandably, then, many draw the conclusion reached by Bible commentator Matthew Henry . . . *** w07 4/15 p. 14 Follow Paul’s Steps to Beroea *** They tested what they heard by using the most trustworthy touchstone. They carefully and diligently searched the Scriptures. Bible scholar Matthew Henry concluded: “Since Paul reasoned out of the scriptures . . . . *** w98 9/15 p. 14 par. 17 Times and Seasons in Jehovah’s Hands *** Some Bible scholars link this expectation to Daniel’s prophecy. In commenting on this verse, Matthew Henry wrote: “We are here told . . . *** w94 2/15 p. 11 “What Will Be the Sign of Your Presence?” *** British author Matthew Henry commented: “The destruction of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans was very terrible, but this exceeded it. Prior to Insight, references to him more often included the name of his work: "Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible" even if without a hint about the fact that it originally came from the 1700's. With the exception of one side note (like a footnote) this is similar to the "Barnes' Notes" references. Since Insight, there is never a date or name of his books or commentaries, although at least the term "19th-century" is mentioned a couple of times. Examples: *** w11 9/15 p. 22 par. 9 “Run . . . That You May Attain It” *** Scholar Albert Barnes observed: “As a runner would be careful . . . *** w07 4/15 p. 27 Let the Congregation Be Built Up *** Bible scholar Albert Barnes recognized that Jesus’ direction to “speak to the congregation” could mean . . . *** w02 12/15 p. 5 Lessons From the Record of Jesus’ Birth *** 19th-century Bible scholar Albert Barnes . . . *** w02 12/15 p. 5 Lessons From the Record of Jesus’ Birth *** 19th-century Bible scholar Albert Barnes . . . *** w00 6/15 p. 17 par. 2 “All You Are Brothers” *** . . . it is contrary to the ‘simplicity that is in Christ,’” noted the Bible scholar Albert Barnes. . . . With reference to what I said in a previous post on the use of commentaries in the Watchtower magazine, Albert Barnes is referenced 10 times in the 1970's (positively) and only 2 times in the 1980's (once negatively). Yet, his works, such as "Barnes' Notes" are mentioned 8 times in the 1970's (positively) and have only been mentioned twice since the 1970's until now. And one of those was a negative reference in 1984. Discounting the negative reference that means only one time, positively, since 1978. And even that supposedly positive reference said he "makes an honest admission" that something was true. (Imagine how "positive" we would take it if someone said that Brother Splane had to honestly admit that something was true.) There is also a tendency, as partially indicated above, to reference any commentators as persons: as scholars, commentators or theologians, but not necessarily as authors, and therefore with very few references to their specific books. Before Insight, it was much more common to also reference the title of their commentaries or books. Sorry for a lot of trivial detail, but if you are looking for subtle differences between the Aid Book research "era" and the Insight research "era," then the above does express a kind of trend to quote commentaries less. Although the two commentaries I used in the examples above are almost always used favorably, except in the 1980's, it is a little more common now to quote a commentator as a "bad" example, too. I think this helps serve as a kind of reminder that we heard in the 1980's, in warnings against seeking out commentaries for a different view of something.

Yes. There are many subtle differences between Aid and Insight. All of them together make Insight much better, and much more valuable as a Bible reference. Aid was printed at a time when we did not have the ability to print multi-color and at a time when we rarely referenced our sources as a matter of policy. Content-wise, the vast majority of the Aid book remained unchanged. The subtle differences will be in the style of the additional material. The additional material is primarily based on more recent, or updated information and a lot more relevant photographs. Naturally there will be exceptions to every rule, but I don't think you were looking for a discussion of all the trivial differences. As far as minor mistakes and typos remaining in the latest material, I don't know of any in Insight. The Aid book went from Remington-Underwood-Selectric style typewriters to linotype typesetters. Everything was therefore typed twice and there was no direct transfer through Word Processing or Spellchecking utilities, and some typos and mistakes remain in the latest printed version. Insight took advantage of both. I'll quote the Watchtower article below at the end of this post, and it explains the best reasons for Insight, and draws several comparisons. The one point you made that is relevant here is the fact that the Insight book tried to push some doctrinal material into the content, and the Aid book almost always avoided this. While working on the Aid book, writers were suprised that the factual, non-doctrinal style had allowed commentaries like Matthew Henry and Barnes Notes to remain valuable for a hundred, or even 200 years, and they were amazed at how much Biblical knowledge could still be drawn from them. A lot of the "in-demand" speakers from Bethel (those usually called upon to give talks in area congregations), along with Governing Body, District Overseers and Circuit Overseers) began to quote more often from such commentaries, and they were more often made use of by everyone in the two Bethel Libraries. (124 for Writing and 107 for Gilead Students). Bethelites could even order their own copies through Dean Songer's Department in the factory. Of course, 1980 put a stop to all that. One of the first moves was to stop the ability of Bethelites to purchase commentaries through Society channels. The Bethel Library was then made off limits to Bethelites, the Gilead Library now had very limited access, which was also then removed from easy Bethelite access. These were replaced with a few bookshelves placed in public access areas of the larger Bethel residential buildings with mostly just Society publications. Governing Body members spoke out against the use of commentaries to the Bethel family. This was the reason that the Insight books needed to get an update. The article on the Faithful and Discreet Slave was updated in 2015 to match the latest Watchtower changes, for example. There were a few other articles with more minor changes, relative to some parables. The Insight book has added information about 1914 in the Gentile Times article and the Earthquake article. Some of these changes that add specific doctrinal material to the content might make the Insight book subject to more frequent revision as was required in 2015. I believe in these cases, that the Aid book remained just as accurate all along. Both of them had some trouble with chronology, but the Insight book sticks its neck out a little further with claims that might not prove accurate. Here's the Watchtower's assessment of the differences. Quoted in its entirety: *** w89 3/15 pp. 10-11 “Insight on the Scriptures”—A New Bible Encyclopedia *** “Insight on the Scriptures”—A New Bible Encyclopedia AT THE “Divine Justice” District Conventions of Jehovah’s Witnesses, announcement was made of the release of a new Bible encyclopedia entitled Insight on the Scriptures. This is a two-volume publication, with a total of 2,560 pages, all of it in clear, readable type. At present it is available only in English, but translation is already well under way in a number of other languages. Insight on the Scriptures includes much of what was formerly in the book Aid to Bible Understanding and a great deal more. In what respects is it different? Scores of sections have been revised and updated. There are also many new articles as well as added features in Insight on the Scriptures. Books of the Bible Each book of the Bible has been given special attention. Valuable background material is presented. There are fresh outlines of all the books of the Bible, each one drawing attention to the book’s distinctive features. These convey a concise but comprehensive view of the contents of the book in a manner that is easy to grasp. For example, there are four Gospel accounts of Jesus’ earthly life and ministry, each having a different objective. When introducing the Gospels, the respective outlines present those objectives in this way: ‘The apostle Matthew’s account of Jesus’ life was written primarily with the Jews in mind. This Gospel demonstrates that Jesus is the foretold Messianic King.’ ‘Mark sets out a concise, fast-moving account of Jesus’ life, presenting him as the miracle-working Son of God.’ ‘Luke’s account of the life of Jesus was written to confirm the certainty of events surrounding the life of Christ and in a manner that would appeal to people of all nations.’ ‘The apostle John’s account of the life of Jesus highlights the theme that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, by means of whom eternal life is possible.’ After these introductory remarks, the outlines present the contents of the books under a limited number of main headings. This can help you to remember the principal ideas that the Bible writer developed. Refinements Careful analysis of statements in this publication has been made in the light of the meaning of words used in the original languages of the Bible. Details have also been included to enable the reader to appreciate the Biblical scope of meaning of the original-language words. Additionally, Biblical name meanings have been refined in the light of the way the basic elements of those names are actually rendered in the New World Translation. A diligent effort has also been made to bring the material in this publication up-to-date with what has been published in The Watchtower in recent years. For example, we have learned much about the heart, the book of life, being declared righteous, and many other things. This information has been embodied in Insight on the Scriptures. Details of secular history have been checked against the original sources, where available, instead of simply relying on what other writers have said about the content of those sources; hundreds of references have also been included to show where such information can be found. Scientific aspects of the articles have been updated. There has been a complete reappraisal of geographic locations on the basis of archaeological research done in recent years. A Bible Atlas Insight on the Scriptures includes some 70 maps, showing hundreds of locations mentioned in the Bible. Thus, included in this publication is a comprehensive Bible atlas. In most instances, an individual map focuses on just a limited aspect of Biblical or secular history. Hence, it draws attention to places that are of special significance in that context. You will find a map setting out the travels of Abraham, one outlining the wilderness wanderings of Israel, another covering the conquest of the Promised Land, one for David’s life as a fugitive and another for events associated with his kingship, a series of maps outlining the places to which Jesus traveled during his earthly ministry, and a number of maps showing details of Jerusalem during various periods of history. A map index is provided to help you to locate the specific maps that provide the most helpful information regarding given places or locations. With many of the maps, there is also a list of place names, along with scriptures that show why the places are significant in the particular historical context under consideration. On the adjoining pages of the book are color photographs of locations featured on the map. These features can help you to benefit more fully from the Bible accounts, as you see the relationship of one location to another, read details as to what took place there, and see what the places look like today. Special Features in Full Color In preparing this publication, museums in North America, Europe, and the Middle East were combed in order to locate valuable objects related to the Bible record. Pictures of the most worthwhile items were obtained. In addition, a number of collections of photographs of places mentioned in the Bible were reviewed, in order to select the ones that would be most helpful. The results have been worked into eight 16-page full-color inserts that are of practical value. These are fascinating highlights that you will enjoy and will be able to use in many ways when teaching others. For example, there is a section entitled “How We Got the Bible.” Graphically, it depicts the steps through which the Bible has reached us—from the original writings down to modern translations. It contains pictures of portions of some of the oldest manuscripts and visual evidence testifying to the care taken by early scribes, even to the point of counting the letters in manuscripts that they copied. Another section is about the “Flood of Noah’s Day.” It considers such issues as, “Could the ark have held all the animals?” and, “Where did the floodwaters go?” It also presents an analysis of Flood legends from six continents and the islands of the sea to show that memories of the Deluge of Noah’s day are found among people of diverse cultures all over the earth. Other sections deal with geographic features of the Promised Land, ancient empires whose activities affected Israel, and a picture tour of places that visitors can see in and around Jerusalem today. Altogether, there are 50 of such topics developed in full color. All this information has been made easily accessible by means of comprehensive indexes right in these volumes. These indexes direct you to the choicest discussions of scriptures cited and subjects listed. Taking an overall view of the work, these introductory comments appear in the first volume: “The objective of this publication is to help you to acquire insight on the Scriptures. How is it done? By bringing together from all parts of the Bible the details that relate to subjects being discussed. By drawing attention to original-language words and their literal meaning. By considering related information from secular history, archaeological research, and other fields of science and evaluating this in the light of the Bible. By providing visual aids. By helping you to discern the value of acting in harmony with what the Bible says.” So within the pages of Insight on the Scriptures is a wealth of truly valuable information that you can use to benefit yourself and others. One thing I noticed that I thought was a bit funny is that the Insight book quotes Barnes Notes about 5 times and Matthew Henry about 2 times. But each time it quotes Barnes it always references only the date 1974, and each time it quotes Matthew Henry, it always references only the date 1976. This reference method tends to obscure the fact that Barnes Notes was completed in 1832, not 1974. It also obscures the fact that Matthew Henry was written in 1706, not 1976.

More related trivia: Guess who wrote the book mentioned below? Pastor Charles Taze Russell: An Early American Christian Zionist by David Horowitz Yep, you guessed it. It was David Horowitz. I read this book, and I photocopied it, too. It praises Russell for being one of the only Christian Zionists who expected Jews to remain Jewish, and didn't think they needed to convert to Christianity to be "saved." Guess who was the FOUNDER of the same United Israel World Union? David Horowitz Guess who worked with both Horowitz and Rutherford and became a Bible Student under Russell's aegis? Yep!