When You Look Back At The History of Jehovah's Witnesses/Russelites---Has Anything Really Changed?

by minimus 26 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  RubaDub

  Unlike Russell, you won't get your picture in the WT/Awake anymore if you have a beard.

  Rub a Dub
• 

  minimus

  beards aren't professional. JWs are.
• 

  RubaDub

  beards aren't professional.

  I only let my beard grow when on vacation. And even then, my wife says it tickles too much when I am working "South of the Border" when I am not clean shaven.

  Rub a Dub
• 

  Band on the Run

  People post opinions here on how the Witnesses were so literate and well spoken. If you read Russell literature, he was an idiot and so were his followers. Rutherford ushered in the fascist times. They went looking for trouble. Rutherford changed the tone to make other religions and government evil. My family owned a chain of funeral homes. You rely upon clergy for referrals. "Religion is a snare and a racket" hurt their bottom line. I don't know if they stayed in a Bible Student group or return to the Dutch Reformed Church. Those who walked away from Rutherford prospered and even ran as public officials. Those who stayed in were bright but there was no place to use their brightness. My mom told me there was a night and change between the early days and what The Judge (who was no judge) imposed. Neither of my parents had a decent word to say about Rutherford. They thought Knorr was a business administrator.

  My ggf was a member of the remnant. I do believe he did not know new light in his later years. Russell followers could not be well educated or sophisticated and believe his views. When you read old newspaper clippings, though, Russell knew how to market himself. Americans knew who he was. If he were so into pyramids, why did he not join a team excavating the pyramids? I have no idea what was the attraction to Russell.

  I heard the Witnesses disavowed Russell. It is about time.
• 

  minimus

  The Brethren still love Russell and consider him right up there with the apostles.
• 

  BackseatDevil

  If you take the specific information out of the equation, you are completely correct... there really isn't a lot that has changed. With the psychological structure they have established, they can switch out the specifics of information (i.e. this means that, or that now means this), but the clockwork mechanism is EXACTLY THE SAME. It's not what they use as “proof” or even how it is used. It is more about what they find is acceptable as “proof.”

  For example, is some politician says something against religion as a whole, Jehovah's Witnesses would use that as PROOF of potential persecution yet to come... although they stir all the emotions of persecution TODAY.

  100 years ago, no politician would ever speak against religion but they would speak against certain aspects of society. The content isn't as telling as the context. Whatever was declared would be deemed PROOF of potential persecution yet to come... and the Bible Students, etc. woud stir all the emotions of persecution yet to come RIGHT THEN.

  The structure doesn't change even though the topic does. NOTHING about this religion has grown or progressed over time... including it's psychology. This psychology that they use is numbing when it comes to the legitimate betterment of oneself, but but vastly successful for making money. I guess at a certain point it is safe to say that the religion as a whole is more about making money than it is about the spiritual well-being and sustainability of those who practice it.
• 

  minimus

  Back, great post!!
• 

  Ding

  A friend who joined in the 1920s told me that the organization was nowhere near as authoritarian as it later became, at least for rank and file JWs.

  He left during the Ray Franz purge and fallout when he saw how bad things had become.
• 

  minimus

  Rutherfordites were like gang members.
• 

  Kitledge

  Generally speaking, during Russell's time, congregations were basically autonomous, i.e. electing their own bodies of elders, ministerial servants and the such. Control from Bethel was minimal, and was usually guided around the Watchtower magazine and Russell's own published writings (books). Today's Bible Students, i.e. Associated, International etc..., continue this tradition of autonomy based on Russell's writings.

  Rutherford, on the other hand, systematically reversed this autonomous system, changing it into a highly controlling one, all orchestrated from Brooklyn Bethel. Entire Bodies of Elders were removed and replaced by elders appointed by Bethel's "gulag". Needless to say, this type of intrusive high-handedness was rejected by many of the Bible Students and droves of them formally separated themselves from the WT Org.

  NOTE: William J. Schnell's book, "30 Years a Watchtower Slave", delves into this historical development in great detail which features the German congregations and the local Branch office as the 'test case', circa the 20's/30's era. A fascinating read!

  Since the early 1960's (when I began to associate with the WT org), the Society has "turned the ratchet" to progressively increase and demand the congregation's absolute allegiance to the "Mother Org" and, more specifically in recent times, to its Governing Body. This 'loyalty' to the Org, enforced by threats of punitive judicial actions, including DF'ing typically resulting in separation from family members, creates fear and paranoia within congregation members. Constructive criticism or questioning of WT policies and/or teachings are not tolerated leading to an Orwellian state of affairs.

  So, yes, things have definitely changed, from bad to worse!