by Old Goat 16 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
slimboyfat
Would it be fair to describe his work as apologetic in nature?
That's a great question. I get the feeling from what I've read that there will be more than a hint of apologetics in this book. Maybe the authors or Old Goat can clarify?
Cedars
We leave issues of faith largely untouched. We’ve taken a historian’s approach. We will tell you what Russell said of himself and others. We will tell you what his associates said and did. We will not tell you that all this was guided by Holy Spirit or God’s own hand. That’s not a historian’s place. We will leave that analysis to your own their prayerful (or skeptical) estimations of themselves and others. ... I do not care if you hate or adore Russell. I do not care if you see any of the descendant religions as God’s authoritative voice to humanity. We’ve written this book to present accurately research history that meets academic standards. Our goal is to tell the history in detail so that all the trends, events and outcomes make sense.
Thanks for highlighting that cofty. I hope it sticks to telling the history, as it promises to. I'm looking forward to reading it.
Cedars
One former adherent has turned himself into an Internet “troll,” posting in the comments section of any news article about Jehovah’s Witnesses that Russell was an Adventist. The claim of Russellite Adventism is common. Aside from the fact that this claim is wrong, we are at a loss to explain how having been an Adventist would tarnish Russell’s character.
The simplest way to answer this is to define ADVENTIST.
/'ad?ventist/ Noun
A member of any of various Christian sects emphasizing belief in the imminent Second Coming of Christ.
In 1967 Cassius Clay wanted to be called Muhammed Ali. Few people in the press obliged him.
If the above argument pivots on the fulcrum of how a man wanted to be called, okay.
Otherwise, Muhammed Ali was Cassius Clay.
They saw themselves as distinct doctrinally.
So, seeing is believing, then.
I don't see this as apologetic. I’ve never seen such detail. I've chucked at his footnotes. He is an equal opportunity smack-down artist on occasion. He calls crap crap when he sees it. This includes material from watchtower writers and everyone else. If he sees something as historically inaccurate, he says so. I can’t speak for him, but I see implied criticism of what Dr. de Vienne calls on her web page "a well known tract society." See this from his essay:
Mythology replaces history when lack of curiosity is coupled by lack of thorough research. Among Russell’s modern-day friends this is especially pronounced. A number of letters passed between us and institutions representing descendant religions. In a nearly uniform way, they focus on Russell, express lack of interest in anyone else, and simply do not look for detail. This distorts the history. Russell did not function in a vacuum. He was influenced by his friends, by his enemies, by what he read and experienced. These details are recoverable.
There is a fairly interesting examination of Russell's business ventures stuck on the end of chapter one. I'm impressed. I wish there was a bit more depth. But it's an example of what I said above. He takes apart Russelite claims, leaving them in the dust. He takes on some common opposition claims and pretty much trashes them too. So one is left with a flat narrative. I asked him if he intended to enlarge on the subject, and he said most of the business history was more appropriate for book three in this series. I've been looking on my own, but I can't improve on what they've written.
There is more detail (I'm fascinated by the details they give) than I was aware was out there. They mention a furniture business I knew nothing of. Stock investments on Wall Street are mentioned based on the Russell v. Russell transcript. Really fascinating is a quotation from the King v. Ross transcript. J. J. Ross's atorney and Russell. Interesting result. I'd paste it here, but last time I did something like that Dr. de Vienne saw it and scolded me soundly.
An example of a "you got it wrong" smack down is found in Chapter Two. Chapter two details his connections to Wendell and Stetson, giving extensive biographies of both men. (They quote from Pittsburgh papers about Wendell's first visit. Very interesting stuff). When the chapter transitions from Wendell to Stetson they write this:
Some considerable nonsense has come from the pen of Ralph Orr, one time editor and writer with the World Wide Church of God (Armstrongites). Orr asserted that Wendell predicted the return of Christ for 1874 and that he was responsible for the 2520 year count for the Times of the Gentiles. He says that after the failure of 1874, Wendell “replaced” that date with 1914. None of this is true. Gomes and Bowman suggested that Wendell provided a Seventh-day Adventist influence. This piece of utter nonsense should bring a sense of shame to the authors and their publisher Zondervan, though it probably does not.
They can become snippy. And it's very equally distributed.
In short, I don't see this as an apology, and I don't think they intend it to be one. I think we should take him at his word and see it as an attempt to tell accurate history.
I shouldn't get in trouble by noting this from the last chapter of volume one, the book due out sometime next year, because they posted it on the public blog:
Russell presupposed things about Adam’s creation and subsequent sin that aren’t found in the narrative or in the Apostle Paul’s comments. Russell wrote that Adam had significant grounds for doubting God. “What did Adam know about the matter?” he wrote. “Here was another being at his side who contradicted God, telling him that he would not die … that God was Jealous, because eating of this fruit would make him a god also.” He thought everyone would make the same decision Adam made. He thought God permitted Adam’s temptation and sin because “it was necessary that his creatures should know good from evil.”
Russell’s statement betrays profound scriptural-ignorance at least on this point. In the Genesis narrative the Serpent speaks to Eve not Adam. The Apostle’s commentary on this says Eve was deceived. Paul says Adam was not deceived, hence a willful sinner. Russell altered this view in later years, though he continued to think Adam would be resurrected and rehabilitated. If he had in 1878 seen Adam’s test as “fair” and Adam as “fully equipped mentally” his rebuttals would have been more to the point.
This does not seem to me to be something an apologist would write.
On Terry's definition: Many Baptists emphasize christ's return. They are not adventists. Besides, you're replying to their discussion without having read it. That's a bad idea. In the 19th Century there was a distinctive difference between Literalists and Adventists. Adventist historians such as Froom (Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers) discuss this. Both sects emphasized Christ's return. But Literalists were not Adventists. An attempt to draw Literalists into the Advent fold failed because Literalists thought Adventists were stupidly ignorent of the scriptures. This is not a new thought. This is well doucmented by Adventists in their own histories back to 1874 and discussed on the Voice of Truth back in the 1840s. This material is not hard to find.
On Terry's definition: Many Baptists emphasize christ's return. They are not adventists. Besides, you're replying to their discussion without having read it. That's a bad idea.
I read the link you posted and can only reply to that and what your comments are here.
Taxonomy= Genus/Differentia
I'm 100% all for as much historicity as humanly possible.
I see the upcoming book on Russell as a breath of fresh air if it is fearless in presentation of MORE verifiable sources.
Here is where I have the same problem all Internet writers have.
1.What is said may not have been said but somebody who should have known says it is so.
2.What people think of themselves may not comport with reality or how others are willing to agree
3.Religious "authority" is unverifiable at all times. We only have claims in all respect.
4.The GENUS of Adventism will gray out into DIFFERENTIA at some calculus of detail. Where does one draw the line?
I appreciate your Topic and applaud your passion for accuracy!
An interesting discussion and commentary:
