by Pureheart 20 Replies latest jw friends
Pureheart,
Why don't you state clearly what it is that you believe happened after Russell's death? You mentioned what was alluded to in the Proclaimers book and you made a vague reference to Russell's will. Tell us, from your understanding what did, in fact, happen. Please be as detailed as possible.
Kent works to furnish truth. Sometimes (very rarely) he puts up stuff that is not-quite accurate. When he finds that out, he takes it off.
He is an honest man. He was once a dub. During that period he was not an honest man. He has worked very hard since then to make up for that.
Question everything, and when you do, you will find other honest people who will clarify things or even dispute them.
I've known Kent for years. He's not interested in producing lies. He has long left the religious masters who taught him to lie as a way-of-life.
Farkel
"When in doubt, duck!"
Pureheart,
Here is the difference between the Watchtower Observer site and the Watchtower magazine:
If you note a mistake on WT Observer, tell Kent and he'll fix it and thank you. If you note a mistake in the Watchtower, tell Bethel and they will ignore your letter while telling your elders to counsel you on your bad attitude.
Now, you tell me: Which is likely to be more accurate?
It's always hard to differenciate the facts when pouring through a can of worms such is the society.
*
Pureheart,
I have to admit, after this board, the Observer is my second favorite on the Web. I know not long ago I sent Kent information that later we found to be in error, he removed immediatly. Along with the challenge Seeker gave you, why don't you directly ask the society what their answer is to any question you have. I know that you can download any of his information and print it out, send it to Brooklyn. And let him know their response, I am sure he will be intersted in it But above all, don't take any persons word for it, investigate on
your own.
wendy
Blind faith can justify anything.~Richard Dawkins
The Observer is the one of the most comprehensive factual sites dealing w/ Jw's on the net.
It's my fav palce,and helped me immensely when first coming around these parts.
I had no problem verifying the data posted there. It is very very reliable and honest.
On the rare ocassion an error is made,or a nuance of language is off,Kent corrects it as soon as brought to his attention. He is an honest and ethical journalist.
Being a jounalist and not not a WT writer,his articles aren't counched in candy fluff to make it palatable. Truth is like that. Often hits one fast and hard. This type of honest jounalism actually makes it quite easy to undertsand his points and issues. There is no ambiguity or obfuscation to wade thru.
I find his style similar to motherjones,village voice etc . Where uncomfortable and unpopluar truths are presented.
Some are more comfortable with a kid glove approach. That's ok. Whatever gets the info across is the whole point.
So,nothing dishonest about his site. Simply a matter of journalistic style.Tina
Jehovahs Witnesses,Proudly Serving Their Corporate Masters!
Howdy Pureheart,
The WTBTS in general doesn't allow it's readers to question their validity, in the privacy of their own minds, or in spoken word.
Those that leave need to question the validity of most everything they've learned - or are now reading. We need to learn to use our thinking ablilities to evaluate what we read - not just to take it as "The Truth."
In Brother Russells will, he specified the ones he wanted to serve in order to keep his work going. The Observer said that Rutherford took over and did not honor Russells choices. The Proclaimers book alluded to that but did not name the ones that resisted Rutherfords take over.
Also, in Brother Russells will I understood him to say that there would not be another "one" person to lead the WTS, but would be
directed by a body of men; Editorial Committee, Board of Directors.
I will leave it at that for now. -Pureheart
Like others, I also go to Kent's site, but there are many good sites. The historical information he posts can be found on other sites also - and is verified and cross referenced as much as possible.
I think you answered your own question about Russell/Rutherford, btw. If you think of the death of Russell and the rise of Rutherford as you would a corporation......then it makes sense. Russell had the power, likely recognized that it wasn't for the good of his followers to continue that way - so he chose to change it after he died. I say *likely*, because no one knows what another is actually thinking.
However, the next man who wanted power like Russell, took over. Those that disagreed, broke away and formed their own religious group.
Seems quite logical and realistic - and happens all the time.
On Freeminds, there is a listing of other sites to go to for information. I believe if you keep reading and questioning, cross-referencing, you'll build up respect for these sites. Different formats, but same good information. Unlike the WTBTS, they give references for you to ascertain their validity.
waiting
Quote from Apocalypse Delayed by M. James Penton, p. 48
In fact, Russell had hoped that his position as chief spokesman for the Bible Students would be taken over by a collective leadership. According to his will, The Watch Tower was to be under the superintendence of an editorial committee of five, and no article was to be published without the agreement of at least three members of that committee. (5) Interestingly, Rutherford was not named to the members of that committee and was named only as one of five possible alternate members.(6) So, while Russell had had no intention of passing on his authority or role intact to any individual successor, Rutherford had other ideas.
Rutherford was an autocrat who obviously believed that for the good of the society - and all Bible Students - he should rule it with a rod of iron rather than simply administer the decisions of its board of directors. (end of quote)
If I understand his references correctly, Penton is quoting from the Watchtower, 1916, reprints 5999, 6000. The reason I say "if", is that he has about 50 pages of references because he references almost every sentence he writes.
Which is very good for the reader - so we can get answers to questions like - "where did you get your information, and how can we look it up?"
Which is not what the WTBTS does for it's readers.
waiting
Thankyou Waiting,
You answered my question directly. I aprreciate everyones answers. All of the responses put together satified my question.
Pureheart
Your welcome, Pureheart.
There's so many sites with good information, actually an over-lapping. But the personality of the site owner come through, so sometimes different portions are given more importance.
For instance, if the person is really into evolution & science, it will be noticeable. History - tons of it. Personal accounts, etc. The politics of foreign countries, and how the WT actually enters those countries.
Almost any site will give you clicks to other sites. Within this organized maze is a tremendous amount of truth about the religion we thought we knew.
Fascinating information - and a mountain of work already done for us by others, but giving the references so we can look it up ourselves. Thankfully the WTBTS gave us the WT cd-roms, making it a lot easier.
Enjoy your looking and questions. A brave new world.
waiting
