miller and russell... the best laugh i've had for a while

by Aussie Oz 16 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Aussie Oz
    Aussie Oz

    Thanks for the great comments, and the book on barbour link! deep down, it is history that i love.

    Yes i do agree that all religions are fruit of previous religions and ideas, nothing new there.

    What i am refering to is the blatant MISREPRESENTATION OF HISTORY that the Jehovah's Witnesses perpertrate.

    Should it be a problem that they also sprang from millerite ideas? Not in itself, But to whitewash the real facts of history and proclaim that they are totally unique SHOULD be.

    The references in thier literature to Miller, Barbour and others is presented as merely a few who rekindled Russells interest in the bible is pure falsehood.

    To present it as Russell going his own way and researching deeply to arrive at his understandings is a crock of shit. All he did was study the existing Pre millenial adventism fathers teachings and run with it.

    Certainly i do not like the methods and teachings of modern day JWs either.

    For me, the truth about the link to Millerism shows the rot right from the start. Rotten soil, rotten tree, rotten fruit. And that in itself is enough to demonstrate the falsehood. From there on, every thing else i have learned about them is cream on the cake.

    After 37 years of not even knowing this stuff, its like a great revelation. A confirmation that almost every thing i have come accross in the last 7 months about them not being THE TRUTH really is true!

    Indignant that the references in their own history hid it so well from me and still do to others would be an understatement for me.


  • Old Goat
    Old Goat

    That's the link to the biography of Barbour and his movement. I don't think this is selling as well as it should, judging by comments on the authors' blog. It's a shame. This is good, eye-opening history - something that watchtowerites cannot refute. As I said above, it's not an anti-witness book. But it's hard to read this and not get a better sense of Russell's clulessness. Watchtower history as pesented by the Watchtower Society is mostly myth.

  • neverendingjourney

    It really puts things in perspective to realize JW eschatology failed in 1844, 35 years before the first Watchtower was ever published. Russell took Miller's teachings and adjusted a few things here and there to arrive at 1914 as the end of the world. Russell took a prophetic framework that had already failed and tweaked it. That framework still forms the core of JW eschatology to this day.

    It's impossible to look at the following chart used by Miller to "prove" 1844 and not see Witness chronology all over it.

  • neverendingjourney

    I should add that the chart above actually "proves" 1843. Miller, like Russell after him, forgot there was no year zero and later had to add a year arrive at 1844.

  • designs

    Math is hard

  • mentallyfree31

    I fee ya Aussie - miller and barbour was one of the first subjects I got deep into after reading CoC. It's laughable when you read their history and see how CT Russell got hooked up in the same stuff.


  • Old Goat
    Old Goat

    It's laughable?

    I used to think that too. After reading the Barbour biography, I've changed my mind to a degree. Others were looking for the millennial reign of Christ. I'm looking forward to the Millennial reign of Christ. What puzzles me is their acceptance of an already failed chronology, or any so called Bible chronology. The book by Schulz and de Vienne quotes Russell as saying that he believed in an invisible presence before he met Barbour. He and his group had just started considering bible chronology, thinking it would be the only way to know if Christ was present. To me, this is the fatal flaw. This seems a misreading and misunderstanding of Matthew chapter twenty-four.

    IF his return is invisible, why not content yourself with waiting for him to reveal himself? Why speculate on dates and fiddle with prophetic math. It is some comfort to Watchtowerites (Hey, I was one for a longer period than most of you have been alive, and they still count me as one of them) that Russell did no more, and a lot less, than other groups. The difference is that Russell succeeded in building an enduring organization, agressive in propaganda, committed to their message.

    Some "apostates" see every flaw as something to laugh at. I don't. I made the choice to become a witness back there in the late mid-1940's. It was my decision. I wasn't stupid then, and I'm not stupid now. I take responsiblity for my decisions. I watched the organization change into something more and more dictatorial and less and less the welcoming, truth-seeking company it was.

    I met and liked some of those you poke fun at. With a few exceptions (The name Harry C. Good comes to mind among others) most of those committed to the organization that I knew were men of faith - even if misguided belief. I have always been seen as a maverick. That's because I am, to use the words of one now deceased governing body memeber, "a quiet rebel." I generate my own share of nonsense, I suppose. But I also hate nonsense. As a young man I admired F. W. Franz. He was likeable in an odd way. Later, I came to see him as a fruit-cake who found himself in power.

    That Witnesses have Millerite connections is not disturbing. What is disturbing is the Governing Body's interference in the small details of everyday life. I should add that I find most of the current literature insipid. I still read it, because there are gems, starteling and interesting insigts into Bible verses. I have no trouble seen Witnesses as Christians. I have trouble with the organization when it puts its opinions in the place of God.

Share this