Golden Age Goodies
Thank you, Chasson, for this pdf!
Fascinating stuff!! Any chance the other two issues could be made available also?
Sorry cabasilas, i have not the two others, but if someone wants to share it with us ? Bye Charles
chasson....Much thanks!! Amazing that the extremely technical calendar article took up the entire issue w/o room for anything else!
So do you think you would have heard things like this at Bethel in 1935??
You're here in Peace? I thought you were going to come in Jehovah.
The Toronto branch needs to fill their order of Vindication for the months between Vindication and Order.
Don't be superstitious -- Mansday the 13th falls on Jehovah this year.
I didn't realize it was already the end of Jehovah!
Please, Judge, we need a break -- it's already the last day of Life!
Vaccination, food poisoning by aluminium cooker, cure cancer by grape juice. All is here in the Golden-Age April 2 1930.
Sorry, as a standard european, i use mozilla firefox, and i will never used Micro$oft Internet Explorer.
Wow, thanks for the PDF. :)
Check out p. 445. The article "Give Mollie a Chance" is nothing less than an advertisement for a Kansas restaurant.
I just got the other two issues of Golden Age in that continue the series on the Theocratic Calendar. I plan on making pdfs of them very soon and will announce it here when it's available.
I just had a couple of questions for other researchers here:
I remember the Yearbook about this time (must have been the 1935 YB) had a page on the new calendar. Were there any other mentions of the Theocratic Calendar in the WT literature of this period?
I seem to remember reading years ago some terse statement (was it in a later Golden Age or the WT of this period?) which put the kabosh on this whole idea. Seems like it was a note from Rutherford saying concern about the calendar was a waste of time or something like that. Can anyone confirm this?
And, one finally for some fun. How hard would it be to resurrect this Calendar? Could we create a 2007 version of the Theocratic Calendar? It might be fun to figure it out and create a webpage for it.
I like that little dig at the beginning of the calendar articles--
"This is no nonsense, or worse than nonsense from the Great Pyramid in Egypt..." LOL Take that Russell! Rutherford and Company would never put forth any nonsense, now would they!?!
For all the work they put into it, they didn't really think through the practical every day use of their "Jehovah's Calendar." I wonder if anyone tried to use it. Great for a laugh. Thanks! And yet...it makes me really really sad and embarrassed that my great-grandfather and grandparents bought into this.
On p. 168 of the 1935 Yearbook, the wacky Woodworth calendar is presented with the footnote: "A series of articles in explanation will appear in the Golden Age. Watch for them". However the day's text that follows fails to allude to this revisionist calendar in any way.
The letter of Olin R. Moyle to Judge J. F. Rutherford (dated 21 July 1939) makes reference to Rutherford's displeasure of the calendar:
"Shortly after coming to Bethel we were shocked to witness the spectacle of our brethren receiving what is designated as a 'trimming' from you. The first, if memory serves me correct, was a tongue lashing given to C. J. Woodworth. Woodworth in a personal letter to you stated something to the effect that it would be serving the devil to continue using our present calendar. For that he was humiliated, called a jackass, and given a public lambasting" (Moyle v. Fred W. Franz, et al., pp. 1732-1733).
In his testimony, Woodworth described the incident in a way that supported Rutherford:
Q. Were you one of the men that made the research in preparation for the Bible calendar that was suggested? A. I was the principal man. Q. You were enthusiastic about that, were you not? A. I examined 220 works on Astronomy to write it. Q. The matter had been a subject of discussion for considerable time in the Bethel Family, prior to this occasion, had it not? A. Yes, it had. Q. And it had been brought up for discussion and the subject closed? A. Yes. Q. (Continued) In the Family? A. Yes. Q. After that, tell us, after you had delivered the letter to the Judge, what happened on the day in qeustion that you have mentioned at the table? A. The calendar story had occupied 64 pages of the magazine in three issues, and had gone into the subject exhaustively. It had drawn attention to the fact that 10 calendars -- The Court: He wants to know the details of the conversation with Judge Rutherford. You told us Judge Rutherford said he had received a communication from one of the members of the Family. Q. Did he say that at the opening of the meal? A. Yes. Q. Tell us what if anything was said right away or how long it was before anything was said. A. He threw the matter open for discussion as to whether -- The Court: Q. Did he read your letter first? A. Yes, my letter was read. Q. Then the matter was thrown open for discussion? A. Yes. Q. Who was the first to make comment? A. There were two or three who made comments, and then I requested permission to make a comment, and when permission was granted to me, I stated what I knew to be a fact, that I ahd allowed my enthusiasm to go ahead of my better judgment in the matter, and that I had made a jackass of myself, which was correct. Q. In advocating the charge of the calendar? A. Yes. Q. In writing the letter advocating it? A. Yes. Q. Then what, if anything, did Judge Rutherford say on that occasion in response to what you said? A. He agreed with what I had said, and I think that was all right.... [Cross examination] Q. Did you say that somebody was called a jackass on that occasion? A. I said that I called myself one. Q. Have you ever called yourself a jackass before? A. I think so. Q. How often? A. As circumstances seemed to suggest. Q. Does that occur very often? A. Quite often" (Ibid, pp. 1092-1093, 1103).
Another interesting tidbit he divulges in his testimony is that his own daughter was interested in the Pastoral Bible Institute -- e.g. the "Evil Slave" (p. 1107).
Interesting. The Calendar was most likely Woodworth's invention but that it appeared in the 1935 Yearbook would indicate it had Rutherford's approval...at least, initially.
I wonder if anyone has ever critiqued Woodworth's scientific calculations?