Most believe it was Rutherford took over, any ideas?
When do you think WTBS became a cult?
When it was run by Russell, it was your average, B-Grade Personality Cult. I would give it a "6" on the Cult Scale (0 to 10).
For every new leader, I would say in incrased it's Cult Scale Ranking by half to one Point.
Today, that would put them pretty high on the scale.
OK. Everyone grab a piece of paper and wriet down a number between "1" and "2000". The correct answer is ...... 1879.
It was a defnitely a cult from the beginning ... before Rutherford took over. Rutherford just gave it a different flavor ... and made it worse.
Russell was crazy, but Rutherford was two kinds of crazy!
It was defnitely a cult from the beginning...
I agree Wild Thing because from the beginning they said the World would end in 1914. They have never been right and never will be.
Wikepedia: In religion and sociology, a cult is a cohesive group of people (often a relatively small and new religious movement) devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding culture or society considers to be far outside the mainstream. Its separate status may come about either due to its novel belief system, because of its idiosyncratic practices or because it opposes the interests of the mainstream culture.
In common usage, "cult" has a negative connotation, and is generally applied to a group by its opponents, for a variety of possible reasons.
When someone resorts to 'name-calling', like calling the Org. a cult, it damages their case. When the GB call oponents 'apostates' they do the same.
Stick to the arguments and you might win over some honest hearted ones currently being deceived by the WT.
"OK. Everyone grab a piece of paper and wriet down a number between "1" and "2000". The correct answer is ...... 1879." Actually, the number on that scale that comes to mind would be, 1975! (and maybe even better, 1914). :u)
Russell was a figure head and so as a leader of a small sect that thought they were the only chosen ones it could be said he started a cult.
Rutherford introduced a stricter more dominating form of control, and many of the more damaging aspects of the religion, such as blood and the concept that only JWs will survive armageddon.
Knorr introduced the strict form of disfellowshipping now suffered by JWs. So each leader built on the sins of the previous one.
Now that there is no clear leader, and people are leaving as fast as they come in, hopefully changes will be made to the more cult like aspects.
"When someone resorts to 'name-calling', like calling the Org. a cult, it damages their case. When the GB call oponents 'apostates' they do the same. Stick to the arguments and you might win over some honest hearted ones currently being deceived by the WT."
While I appreciate your point of view, sometimes you have to call a spade a spade. Sure, the term 'cult' has negative connotations to be certain, and it can be used as an insulting gesture, unfortunately. However, that said, we all have come to know and understand that there ARE such groups of people who have such peculiar ideologies that they have no place in the mainstream of belief (ie. Jim Jones), and they render themselves as cultic by their own doing. I believe that the Watchtower Society (by today's definition) is just one such example. A group that would sacrifice the lives of its children (blood transfusions), is in my opinion a cult in every sense of the word, albeit negative. Now, if that challenges a Jehovah's Witness and causes discomfort for him or her, then I believe that’s totally appropriate. Sometimes, you just can't sugar coat something in an attempt to win someone over. Put it out there, and let them see it for how it really is. Maybe then, they can make a good decision.
If becoming a "cult" means trying to follow Christian standards set forth in the the Holy Bible as closely as humanly possible, then I would say right from the very beginning as Bible Students in Pennsylvania. I think the word "cult" is being used too liberally on this chat. Let's all look up the word in Funk and Wagnall's.