Charles Taze Russell: Dates, Expectations, Predictions, Apologies, Response, Relevance

[Witness]

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Where do I find these reports?

This is her interview.  I listened again to the first hour where she does mention the tunnels and describes the tunnel in detail, that took her to the room where she channeled.   She spoke of many people involved in the automatic writing, perhaps you will recognize those names not so obvious, I only recognize the more prominent ones.    She said her place was to channel the book of Daniel, chapters 11,12.  This woman also mentions the book "Angels And Women" and said her father would read it her when she was small.  

 The other woman, "the first woman"  who I feel may be mentally damaged because of her childhood and the pressure put upon her, has her website posted below the video – Veronica Houston.   

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-JVdBHKTtE

 

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

Ban me if you like from this forum.

I assume you already know that I don't have any power to ban people from this forum. And I wouldn't ban anyone anyway, because I don't believe it's a good or useful thing to do. I think everyone comes to these forums for their own reasons. Mine are different from yours obviously. But I don't think I have any more right to be here than you do. I don't know the owner of the forum, and I'm not always happy with the way things go all the time, but it's not my forum, and he or she or they can run it as wished. I'm tired of it at times, but I still like to share what I learn, and learn if what I have shared has been thought about in a different way by others.

The most important thing for me is to share things in such a way that they might attract some others who are equally willing to discuss the same issues that have caused concern for me or other WItnesses, and who have found solutions or counterpoints to the specific issues raised.

I understand where you are coming from. And based on things you have said, I would agree that the easiest way to handle issues I have brought up (when you disagree) is to simply think of me as an apostate, or think of me as dishonest, or badly motivated. It's not possible for you to think of me as a brother, and I admit that it stings a bit, but I understand that I have no reason to take it personally on a forum, where I am not here in person. And I would not be able to be so honest if I were here in person, anyway. But this in no way keeps me from thinking of you as a sister, and understanding the predicament. If an apostate said any of the things I am saying, you would not need to be the least bit concerned with giving any kind of answer or response. You could merely ignore it, or simply state that you disagree. And you might even want to spit a bit of venom my way. It's probably natural.

I understand that it is my own fault if I create discomfort for some, in the same way that these questions once created discomfort for me. Some still do create a lot of discomfort for me, but I will still be honest about these issues, especially if I am going to find someone else who has found a solution that works for them, and might also work better for me.

The way I have come to see it is this: that in order to provoke an honest response I sometimes need to state the issue as honestly as I think it's possible to state it. There are many examples right here under this same topic. In a previous post here, I could have said, for example:

I don't think that Russell should be seen as having a special part in the fulfillment of Malachi 3 because I think it's possible he lied in court and it's possible he showed himself to be hypocritical and it's possible he was presumptuous and it's possible he was dishonest in other ways.

That might be a bit provocative but it would not be likely to elicit a real thought-out defense of why Russell should have a part in fulfilling Malachi 3. It just makes it more likely that someone will simply respond:

OK maybe Russell did some of those things, and maybe he didn't, so let's just give him the benefit of the doubt, and go with the WTS publications that involve Russell's work in the fulfillment of Malachi 3.

It's not that claim would have been dishonest, because I do believe "it's possible" when I spoke about those things I believed were possible. But it would be more honest if I stated my more honest belief that it's not only possible, but very true that Russell lied in court, for example. This way, I might elicit a solution from someone who actually also knows that it is true. Or a responder might show that they are just as concerned with the Bible issue in Malachi by asking for the reference about Russell. And if If they don't believe it, but also don't show any interest in the evidence, then I already know that they probably don't really care about the Bible problem involved, and have probably misunderstood it to be a sly way to take a "dig" at Russell, or relay some embarrassing history. And this will tell me something right away about the level of seriousness the person has about the Biblical issue.

And some will be expected to simply give a downvote to the very idea, or make a judgment about me that implies bringing up an issue (honestly) makes me apostate or demon-possessed. That's another way to handle the discomfort, and I can't judge them for it. It's the same way I tried to handle the same discomfort for a while. I can't take it personally for that reason. It's my own doing, since I am not trying to couch everything in easy terms here as I would do in my congregation.

And perhaps it's merely that I am the wrong kind of person to ask about such issues. Using another more common example, we would allow, or even expect an apostate to ask about the "overlapping lifespans" making up the latest definition of the generation. But if a Witness herself asks, it is considered possible evidence of apostasy, depending on how seriously they feel they need to present the question. If someone were to say, "Hey, I don't really have much of a problem with it, and I can see it going either way, but I am still a bit concerned," then we give them a pass, and say that they are probably not apostate. But what if that same person, to be more honest with others, will say, "Hey, I can't see this at all! I've looked up the Scriptures, and I think the explanation is wrong!" Now, that Witness is suspected of being or becoming an apostate merely because they are being more honest, or want their faith in things unseen to be based on evidence.

And I'm not saying that any Witness needs to respond to her question about the generation, even if they might find it necessary to down-vote her, or make a simple statement to say that it makes sense to them. For certain issues, that might even seem an appropriate response. It may be all we can do.

[Anna]

4 hours ago, Thinking said:

Also who ever runs this forum at some stage you are going to have to step up  and protect ones who are honest hearted….and not become complacent in the devil having a platform……all for the sake of interesting conversations…..why not let’s just sit with the devil…

I think that we are all adults here and it is not the Librarians duty to protect anyone. No one is master over our faith except we ourselves.
Is this the devils platform....or is it a platform for ones to state their opinions, and/or facts (which are up to us to verify). It would be sad if we were swayed by someone's mere opinions. It would be sad if we were swayed by someone stating something as truth or facts even before we checked whether what they were sayin was indeed true. I feel this platform gives me opportunity to keep an open mind, not be gullible, be more discerning  and actually make the truth my own.

I don't understand why you say these things about JWI, I don't seem to see anything about him being sly. As far as I know he has always been open about his beliefs, and always admitted that he could be wrong (all humans can be wrong). But it shouldn't matter to us what JWI thinks, or anyone else for that matter because in the end we are all accountable to God individually. If we are going to allow ourselves to be swayed by someone else's thinking besides God's, then it means we haven't learned much from the Bible. This forum is the least of my worries, honestly. But I accept you feel differently about it....

[JW Insider]

3 hours ago, Witness said:

This is her interview.  I listened again to the first hour where she does mention the tunnels and describes the tunnel in detail, that took her to the room where she channeled.

Thanks for responding. As soon as I opened "6 screens" I knew I would have trust issues with the video, because I have known completely false information in the past to come from that site on the only other video I have watched from them so far. And then I noticed that this 'tl;dw' too long ; don't watch. But I might get to it another time.

I did watch 5 minutes and lost interest after the kinds of admissions made in those first few minutes.

An an early mistake caught my attention. It won't mean much unless there are other similar ones, which may or may not come up later. (It was the idea that the arrangement just before the elder arrangement was the "company servant." The actual sequence was "company servant" a very long time ago, before her birth, then for many years the "congregation servant," and then the "elder arrangement" (with the "presiding overseer" and more recently "chairman of the BOE"). It's possible evidence she's confused what she's read with what she's experienced.)

The potential of this resulting from CSA trauma also fits a couple of her descriptions and even a potential Freudian slip or two: For example:

When she accidentally uses the the word "insect" for "incense" (at 00:05:16) she just happens to use two words that could phonetically combine to "incest." And then she relates it to a "bunch of men" in the woods watching her in "her little blue robes" which might give away more than she thinks she is giving away. And her subsequent protest that this wasn't a CSA experience rings hollow.

This Freudian theory sounds like a stretch, I'm sure, but I don't know if you are aware that this exact same Freudian slip was already made to be the key to a 1995 movie about CSA called "ANGELS and INSECTS." Spoiler alert: In the move, the problem with the girl is discovered when the solver rearranges the word INSECT to spell INCEST, and the entomological and etymological conflation finally explains all her obsessions.  It's almost too much that she will then, you say, go on to make use of the title "ANGELS and WOMEN" in the same video. It smacks of being a test case for Bruno Bettelheim's famous 1976 book: "The Uses of Enchantment."

Anyway, as interesting as it might be, there is also the area of demon possession which I know nothing about, and don't intend to learn about either. This may mean that no matter how much I think I could learn from it, I will never wish to wrap my head around this type of experience. It just becomes a matter of prayer and supplication, and I can say no more.

[Arauna]

7 hours ago, Thinking said:

The demons are very active on forums …it gives them the voice that Jehovah took from them.

Spot on observation. A chance to show doubt and hate. It is clearly part of all the propaganda now leading to Armageddon.  

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

22 hours ago, Thinking said:

Ban me if you like from this forum..which houses dark forces anyway….I have to ask…myself why on earth are we and even worse/ me! tangoing with such dark forces….

Also who ever runs this forum at some stage you are going to have to step up  and protect ones who are honest hearted….and not become complacent in the devil having a platform……all for the sake of interesting conversations…..why not let’s just sit with the devil….I wonder how Jehovah would view us then..

 

22 hours ago, Thinking said:

The demons are very active on forums …it gives them the voice that Jehovah took from them.

I'm sorry you are feeling so unwell, get well soon.

It is my opinion that God created women to be be more emotional than men. So also in my own opinion you and Arauna show more emotion than practical thinking. Your aka is Thinking, but it seems your thinking is based on emotion rather than consideration of facts.  

I do find it funny though that some us are judged in a more derogatory term each 'day'.

Apart from being called, stupid, dodo, etc, some of us are called apostate and more, but now it seems you wish to call us 'demon possessed'.  I'm impresed actually. Jesus was said to 'have a demon' 

Luke 11 : 15 

Berean Study Bible
but some of them said, “It is by Beelzebul, the prince of the demons, that He drives out demons.”

JWs seem to live and think inside a small box. That small box is controlled by the GB through others with 'authority', down to the Edlers. When anyone thinks outside of that box they are accused of all sorts of 'sins'. 

I think your comments are just over emotional reactions. But please be careful what you accuse people of as it may not go well for you in the coming judgement. 

[Srecko Sostar]

15 hours ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

16 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

First it was God’s name. Now it is the paradise earth. It didn;t take long. Tomorrow, if not now it will be “all roads lead to heaven.”

Once again you find the need to misquote me or to twist what I write. Tom you seem unwell spiritually.

So explain this implication quoted above if you can ? 

Ok, TTH said how their "core doctrines" are 100% accurate, and that gave them guarantee how Jesus will put them on His "right side". Well, that would/could mean also, how Jesus will not look with disapproval on all other false teachings that GB producing and put as "must" on JW members. 

According to such premise and logic, I don't see why would Jesus reject other religious movements that also have a partly correct and partly wrong interpretation of the Bible, such as WTJWorg too!?

Obviously, according to TTH, the ratio and selection between “true and false teachings” becomes a crucial factor for Jesus’ judgment.  

 

 

[TrueTomHarley]

3 hours ago, Patiently waiting for Truth said:

God created women to be be more emotional than men. So also in my own opinion you [Thinking] and Arauna show more emotion than practical thinking

Oh sure, says the dodo who has accused me of being sexist. All that remains is to tell the little women to leave the thinking to us menfolk, who know how to do it.

[Arauna]

16 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

So also in my own opinion you [Thinking] and Arauna show more emotion than practical thinking

This is a reply to the person who made this comment the first time!  Not for Tom!

I come across as emotional because I have a strong way of expressing myself.  I am South African.... but believe me your logic and rationality is not more than mine - so you must have more female hormones than I do.... lol.

[TrueTomHarley]

56 minutes ago, Arauna said:

but believe me your [PSomH] logic and rationality is not more than mine - so you must have more female hormones than I do.... lol.

Exactly.

And you Arauna, do not come off as emotional at all. You come off as passionate, to be sure, but never at the expense of clear thinking.

He, on the other hand, makes so many contradictory, nonsequitur, and ridiculous statements, his thinking is so muddled that, despite my nobler instincts, I am drawn in again and again to kick him in the rear end. Accusing others of being sexist and then proving it true of himself in spades is just the latest example.

(Not to mention, no doubt, his subsequent crying like a baby that merely quoting his words is “misrepresenting” hm.)

For crying out loud, you dodo, just tell me what you mean to say and I will say it for you. (though perhaps not with the same malignant spin)

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

15 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

All that remains is to tell the little women to leave the thinking to us menfolk, who know how to do it.

Now that is your attitude toward @Witness .

14 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

And you Arauna, do not come off as emotional at all.

Only that she accuses half of this forum as being hateful OCD, just because people do not agree with her on most things.

And now it seems that @Thinking accuses us of having a demon. 

And you think that is all rational thinking.  

I would also suggest, this need in you to call me a dodo every time, shows some unbalanced emotion in you.

Hence you seem to get on well with the ladies on here.  

 

[Witness]

11 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Anyway, as interesting as it might be, there is also the area of demon possession which I know nothing about, and don't intend to learn about either. This may mean that no matter how much I think I could learn from it, I will never wish to wrap my head around this type of experience. It just becomes a matter of prayer and supplication, and I can say no more.

I understand that, and its not something that I would tend to dwell on; but I personally feel knowing the manipulating power of Satan, can explain how he uses individuals to do his will.  

This is only the second time that I have visited this video.  Last night I listened the entire episode, skipping through Rick’s comments and a question by a listener about her belief in the trinity.  Whether her mess-up with key words were a Freudian slip, I can’t say, since I have a touch of dyslexia and tend to twist my words around at times.  I was a victim of child abuse..besides dyslexia, perhaps I am guilty of such Freudian slips??  Maybe.   She expressed several times that she was not sexually abused, but treated as a “princess”; which is interesting. since another person who claims to be used by the leaders for automatic writing, said the same thing.  At the last part, Barbara Anderson came in and quizzed her pretty heavily about people, etc.  She said that at the woman’s young age of three when this journey began, the tunnels had not been built.  Later, it could be credible that she was actually led into another “tunnel” off the main tunnel, if that was truly the case.    Barbara said there was a large kitchen with narrow corridors that could have been where the woman was led, when very small.  Barbara also corrected her that her description was not as the woman stated, a case of “SRA”, since it didn’t include horrid acts and details.  Althought the other woman’s account, most certainly did. However, this woman explained that she was “drugged” through her childhood, naming the drugs used and injections given to her by her aunt, which appeared to be administered for no reason.

One comment she made was interesting, she said she wasn’t demon possessed, but demon obsessed.  I could understand that.  When my husband and I were in the organization, our first son at the age of about two, had an “invisible friend”.  He began to talk when he was 1 ½ years, and by two could carry on a conversation with us quite well.  He would tell us what his “friend” was doing; what he liked, and conversations they had together.  We asked what his friend’s name was, he said “Harsha”.  We thought that was a strange choice for a little boy to come up with.   Not until leaving the organization, did I run across this name in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah.  When looking up its meaning, I was rather shocked.  It means, “mute”.