JW Insider

I have just moved about 100 more posts to here from that other topic about Rutherford. Hope this doesn't cause any confusion.

Now that I have finished the book in question, I have one more correction to add to my initial opinion. I stated that Rud Persson lets the evidence and documentation speak for itself, rather than try to push his conclusions on the reader. This is still true, right up to the conclusion. In the conclusion, he tries to argue that all of this information is very damaging to the conclusions that we Witnesses currently draw concerning the "faithful and discreet slave." It's true that he can rationalize bringing this up because the identity of the "fds" has been a side topic of all the various Bible Student groups that he discusses, and he does follow the successes and failures of certain doctrinal ideas with the other groups, too.

But, then without much excuse, he also brings up Rutherford's change to the "superior authorities" teaching and the way this change was currently handled among Witnesses in the early 1960s and early 1980s. His last point had almost nothing to do with Witnesses, and was just there to present a little "dig" or cause a little embarrassment. He also throws in some points against the Gentile Times teaching and 1914, which I agree with, but they were not necessary in a conclusion about the aftermath of the Rutherford issue. 

Well, I've pretty much completed the book. I still have a few more references to find for myself, and look up. So that might take a while.

I have decided that there really isn't enough interest in the actual topic itself. Most of the interest is just a lot of trying to hold onto previously held opinions, or to prove others wrong, with or without evidence.. And unless someone asks me to, I won't even restart the topic in the Closed Club, where it was suggested it belonged in the first place. There are always plenty of good subjects to discuss and a lot of them are much more important anyway.

I will say that the book was excellent. One can read the whole thing and realize that you are not necessarily being influenced by the opinions of Rud Persson. To a much better degree than expected, you are really just reading evidence, and you are allowed to reach your own conclusions about the preponderance of the evidence. That's the way a book of historical research should be written. Not one that tries to draw conclusions for you.

Since I'm ready to draw a conclusion from the book I will say one "last thing." I have realized that, all in all, even though I thought I had been giving the benefit of the doubt to both sides evenly, I haven't. I knew there would be biases and prejudices both for and against the usual conclusions that we have drawn. But I didn't realize that we can be much more sure about which biases to agree with and which were to be rejected. The overall evidence makes it all too obvious. But I won't elaborate further here. People can get hold of the book for themselves if they wish. But even without the book, all one has to do is get hold of the sources, many of which are freely available on line, but with a lot of searching.

I also went back and corrected a couple of misconceptions I had at first. One was too minor to repeat: I had confused Ohio with Maryland as the place where Rutherford had some business and where he had just met PSLJ. The other is also about PSLJ, but is a more significant error on my part. So I will repeat here the correction I made on a previous page:

[Edited to add: I was wrong on this point about Rutherford not dealing with PSLJ as if he had serious mental problems. Rutherford was actually quick to deal with PSLJ as insane and mentally unbalanced, but Rutherford was inconsistent, and seemed to soften his position toward him. This hadn't made sense to me originally, and I was partly influenced here by the comments of a brother I spoke to at length about this very recently after reading this portion of the book. But Persson's book provides a detail that I take as an obvious clue as to the reason for Rutherford's inconsistency. Persson doesn't appear to draw any conclusion from that detail, but it makes me think that it was not just an absent-minded inconsistency on Rutherford's part. It served a purpose.]

I moved a few more of the posts from here the other topic:

https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/89872-posts-moved-from-a-recent-topic-about-a-jfrutherford-book/

4 minutes ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

you become an inactive publisher and you get a talking to.

Even more encouragement!!

1 hour ago, Witness said:

There are already movements by elders, to remove the GB.

Sounds doubtful. Almost as if it needs to be true just to make that particular interpretation work. Worse than eisegesis.

18 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Sigh—I thought this was put into the closed group—that’s why I upvoted it—where it should have been in the first place (IMO) but it was not.

I did start moving it there, and as I read some of the posts, I realized that most of the posts couldn't be moved there and it would seem to some like we were just talking about people behind their back, as it were. Another choice was to lock this thread and allow no more discussion on it over here. Then a new one could be opened up in the Closed Club. At this point it just didn't seem right.

4 hours ago, Arauna said:

At the gates or market Paul usually would find someone favorable and go home with them and preach further. On occasion he would use this house as a base. He also went to the Synagogues.

Thanks for your input. This makes perfect sense, and it aligns with what we read in Acts and does not at all contradict Jesus' instructions to the 70 evangelizers. There was an urgency to the preaching in the first century, and the most effective means, for that time and place, would have been used first.

4 hours ago, Arauna said:

Although the Greeks had the oratory tradition, I wonder how much of a help it really gave to the poor and those who moved in the lower echelons of society? Religion was run by the upper echelons or educated segments of society. It was also very set in tradition and ritual. To my thinking, it offers only an empty framework of tradition and many stories of Gods

Thought this was excellent, too. Among the Greeks [and Romans], these empty rituals were more important than beliefs. There was not much concern that the story about a certain god in one town could differ quite a bit from the stories told in another town. There was no specific set of beliefs or doctrines, so that the expectations about how humans could be affected from the gods was more general and rooted in superstition. Events were often "chalked up" to the capriciousness of those gods.

Your description of the appeal and superiority of the Christian message in those next couple paragraphs was packed with so many good points. I loved it.

It sounds like you have a great knowledge of history, but there is a difference in knowledge and making sense of it to people today. I think that's a great skill of yours. You actually make sense out of it. And the fact that you live in such historic geographical locations must make your knowledge and application come alive even more.

As a family (wife, kids, brother, parents) we have taken a couple Mediterranean cruises that covered Rome, Pompeii, Athens, Corinth, Ephesus/Smyrna, Egypt, and Istanbul. I'm sure I bored my kids with all the details I wanted to share about the Biblical and historical connections in all these places. At least they could always go back to unlimited ice cream and pizza when they got back on the cruise ship. 

I know that the Librarian mentioned liking tacos a couple of times.

1 hour ago, WalterPrescott said:

What was Paul's farewell to the Ephesians? And why should it matter?

[Acts 20:]20 I did not shrink back from declaring any-thing that was helpful to you as I taught you publicly and from house to house,

It does not contradict what Jesus said, because the Greek here does really not say anything about going from house to house. The KJV translators had a lot to do with this translation, and "from house to house" has therefore become a common English way of saying "in your houses."

Paul is saying, basically: I didn't just teach you brothers publicly [among other people], but even [privately] in your homes.

Notice that the literal expression in the Kingdom Interlinear is "according to houses" not "from house to house."

This is different from Jesus; words in Luke 10:7 which actually forbid (under those circumstances) going from house to house. Literally: "Do not you be going from out of a house into [another] house."

And, of course, Jesus explains why in the context.

Most translations still follow the KJV example, but some have used a more koine-Greek-based translation, saying:

NLT: I never shrank back from telling you what you needed to hear, either publicly or in your homes.

Latin Vulgate: quomodo nihil subtraxerim utilium quo minus adnuntiarem vobis et docerem vos publice et per domos

Moving posts from another topic to their own topic here.

Since xero's post is now first in this topic, the software makes it his. Also, I can reword the title of the topic if I didn't get it right.

On 5/24/2022 at 3:38 PM, WalterPrescott said:

You might consider moving these last none Rutherford comments to the other topic you created.

Good idea. It actually deserves its own topic.

Done. I moved those comments here:

https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/89872-posts-moved-from-a-recent-topic-about-a-jfrutherford-book/

3 hours ago, WalterPrescott said:

Not that is has nothing to do with Rutherford, but your personal stance about disliking the preaching work method,

Are you kidding? I love the house to house work!! It's true that Rutherford made excuses as to why he didn't participate, but I bet he would have loved it, too, if he had just did done more of it. At least he pushed the laws of the land to make it more legal and more commonplace. Rutherford deserves a lot of credit for why Witnesses have the top reputation for the religion that preaches the kingdom from house-to-house, even after the hiatus.

I think it's also a very appropriate method for today. We don't really have a town square "agora" equivalent today. House to house isn't as effective as some methods, such as good publicity in widely watched media, but it's still the perfect method for most of us.

My true preference is a mix of face-to-face Bible studies for about half my time, and house-to-house for the other half. I like to see the householder's face to see how they are really responding.

In Jesus' day and in Paul's day you could find interest by preaching in a synagogue or town square or another public meeting place, and then follow up on that interest by getting invited to the home to develop the interest of that person/family.

Also what about angels? They must have still had the ability to guide circumstances here and there on earth, even when the spiritual gifts waned.

And there was another practical method of preaching that we don't have. There was a reason that Paul didn't go from house to house. And there was a reason that Jesus forbid the 70 disciples from going house to house. It was because you had an immediate assembly as soon as got into the gates of most towns/cities. You could begin announcing the reason for your visit in the town square and draw a crowd. There was no reason to go from house to house. It would be a waste of time (and they were never going to finish the circuit of towns in Israel as it was).

But there was always a chance to find multiple favorable ears, all that would listen, by just walking into a town and start preaching to the crowd in the marketplace, the square, the agora.

I moved a lot of the comments from here over top another topic:

https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/89872-posts-moved-from-a-recent-topic-about-a-jfrutherford-book/

I should have never started this discussion in the JW Open Club, and I was warned not to. I just started to move some posts that are not closely enough related to early Watchtower history, or which produced unrelated distractions from that topic. It's an imperfect process, since so many comments cover multiple topics.

If anyone believes their comments were germane to the original discussion, I'll move them back. There are still plenty of good and interesting points that have been moved over here, and I hope that doesn't mean the ideas will get lost in the shuffle.

1 hour ago, WalterPrescott said:

12 hours ago, Thinking said:

Did he or did he not change the understanding that the ark no longer represented Jesus and baptism to meaning the ark represented the organization? 

Quite frankly, to answer your question would be to reteach you the fundamentals of bible understanding.

The simple answer is NO! Why JWI agrees with this false narrative seems to indicate he doesn't understand either.

The opposite should be understood.

I don't think the question was about what the "Flood" represented, but what the "Ark" represented. The Children book says it represents God's organization, as you saw. But I only brought up the Children book because someone here had just mentioned the book. You could actually go to MOST of Rutherford's books and find a similar statement.

Here's his book "Riches" (1936)

. . .

...

If it sounds odd to say that the "other sheep" must work with Jehovah's witnesses, it was because, in those years, only the anointed remnant were called Jehovah's witnesses. The "other sheep" were called Jonadabs.

In the Salvation book (1939) he also says the Ark represents God's organization. Curiously, this time he made Noah represent Jesus instead of the faithful remnant (faithful and discreet slave), but still had his sons and their wives represent the "other sheep" (Jonadabs). In this particular book (Salvation) he somehow left out the faithful remnant.

At any rate, you are probably aware that Rutherford consistently says that Noah's Ark represents God's organization, and that this means only Jehovah's witnesses could expect salvation.

29 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

At the International Congress in Vienna, I think 1989 or so, they repeated that nonsense about marriage and children.

Yes, I also heard that this was around 1989. That's because the January 1, 1989 Watchtower had just predicted that the new system would be within about 11 years.

"He was laying a foundation for a work that would be completed in our 20th century."

This was a "necessary" belief based on the then-current understanding of "this generation."

It's human nature, I guess. If things go on the same, I expect the same kind of talk in 2025 or so, in preparation for a subliminal belief among us that the end must come by 2034, else the 1914 teaching would become effectively obsolete. Then, if all continues, such talk will keep happening until the overlapping groups within the generation become mathematically impossible.

But these things shouldn't phase us (too much). Elsewhere @xero spoke of how we should enter the kingdom as little children. Little children, on their way to an anticipated destination are prone to over-excitement, asking questions like: "Are we there yet?" "Now how many more miles, daddy?" [If that was in another forum, xero, I hope you don't mind having the idea repeated here.]

7 minutes ago, Thinking said:

the sadness of it at times is just overwhelming for those who dont survive.

We can always trust that Jehovah is righteous and his judgments are righteous. When all things are made new, the old will be forgotten. And I don't think we know enough about who will and won't survive anyway.

7 minutes ago, Thinking said:

That became a solid teaching we were taught and taught others…it mis represented Jesus ..and was based on a lie….why can we not just come out and say that…it helps no one trying to beat round the bush with this..

I'm not sure when, specifically, a change was made on this teaching. I still hear the connection between Noah's ark and the earthly organization in recent GB talks. Also this relatively recent Watchtower from 2006:

*** w06 5/15 p. 22 par. 8 Are You Prepared for Survival? ***
Just as Noah and his God-fearing family were preserved in the ark, survival of individuals today depends on their faith and their loyal association with the earthly part of Jehovah’s universal organization.

23 minutes ago, Thinking said:

C’mon  JWI..we both know he had the power to scotch that new light dead in the water…he promoted it…and to write it in the Childrens book is even worse…in fact disgusting…

That became a solid teaching we were taught and taught others…it mis represented Jesus ..and was based on a lie….why can we not just come out and say that…it helps no one trying to beat round the bush with this..

It did an enormous amount of damage to so so many….and also to Jehovah’s own name and personality .

I wasn't trying to beat round the bush. I agree that a lot of damage was done to many. For example, my father and his two sisters (my aunts) received the Children book in person at the St. Louis assembly. The Children book made my father and his two sisters reconsider marriage and having children, because it made having children in this system appear untheocratic, even unchristian. My father of course decided to marry and have children, but my two aunts did not have any children, and in later years they were both quite sad about having followed these "instructions from the Lord."

In 1950, the Watchtower was already loosening up on those instructions, as you can see from a Watchtower article that year, but still with the remaining implication that if you want "perfect" children, you should wait:

*** w50 6/1 p. 176 Letter ***
The flood was a real physical catastrophe to the old ungodly world. The Battle of Armageddon will be likewise a physical catastrophe to this present evil world, and not something just spiritual. The ark of salvation that we enter is not a literal ark but is God’s organization; and as for Noah’s family’s not having children while in the ark, if the “other sheep” class’ now having natural children in the “ark” condition vitiated the picture of the childlessness of the ark’s occupants, then the anointed remnant’s having natural children now would also vitiate the “ark” picture or type. But it does not. Children born now are not born in fulfillment of the divine mandate reissued. When God reissued this mandate to marry and reproduce to Noah after the flood (Genesis 9:1, 7) the mandate was fulfilled in a typical way by a token fulfillment, 70 (10 X 7) generations being listed in Genesis, chapter 10, as springing from Noah and his sons. In the same way the fulfillment of the divine mandate reissued after Armageddon will be, not by crowding it with inhabitants to the saturation point, but by a token fulfillment that will allow for the resurrection of the dead with plenty of room for these resurrected ones. Thus, as pointed out in the Watchtower article “The Apostle’s Counsel on Wedlock”, February 1, 1947, page 45, column 2, footnote, God will show that he can have the divine mandate fulfilled in a very literal way in vindication of his world and he will give a faithful demonstration of its fulfillment. Those having part in its fulfillment will still ‘serve God in his temple day and night’ (Rev. 7:15), they will fulfill Deuteronomy 6:7 as to bringing up their children, and their children will fulfill Ephesians 6:1-3 as to obeying their parents, in the same way that the anointed remnant and their children are instructed to obey these divine commandments.