Reslight, how do we know?
X-racer
on your website) as accurate. Apparently, the WTS can't. Is this
information documented as accurate? I personally couldn't vouch for it
'as accurate' as I don't have such records showing 75% of the Original
Bible Students left the Jehovah's Witnesses started by Rutherford.
Neither was I alive watching things happen before my eyes during this
time.
http://www.food4jws.org/faq/bsjw.htm
The paragrahs called into question.
***
Pastor Russell was not the founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses. He was
the founder of the Bible Students' Associations in the 1860s. In 1879
the Watch Tower publishing house was established by Charles Taze
Russell. Following his death in 1916 Joseph Rutherford forcibly seized
control of the Watch Tower. He dismissed the majority of the Board of
Directors, began to instill a revisionist theology and established
dictatorial authority. Within the first year of his takeover one fourth
of the Bible Students left Rutherford and remained true to the teachings
of the late Pastor Russell.
Aggressive promotions by Rutherford resulted in a large increase in new
members but generated opposition from the Bible Students remaining from
Pastor Russell's era. In response to this opposition Rutherford embarked
on a campaign from the years 1925 to 1931 to purge Pastor Russell's
followers. Thus, by 1931, over three quarters of those associated with
the Bible Student movement in Pastor Russell's day separated from
Rutherford to remain faithful to the teachings promulgated by Charles
Russell. The lineage of today's Bible Students congregations traces back
through these separatists to Pastor Russell their founder.
In 1931, fifteen years after Pastor Russell's death, Jehovah's Witnesses
was founded. Its founder, Joseph Rutherford, presented a startling
resolution entitled A NEW NAME which was adopted at their international
convention on July 26, 1931. The resolution first observed that neither
"Russellites" nor "Bible Students" were any longer appropriate names
(over 75% of Bible Students from Pastor Russell's era had already
separated. Thus there was little opposition to Rutherford's resolution).
Henceforth they would call themselves "Jehovah's Witnesses."
***
X-racer
Mark Sornson
>
> Mark Sornson ask me to verify the statements on this link (provided
> on your website) as accurate. Apparently, the WTS can't.
The WTS is under no obligation to "verify" statements
made by any outside group, especially any break-away group.
It's up to the one's making the statements to verify
them.
-mark.
Barb Hoy
"Mark Sornson" <sor...@zk3.dec.com> wrote in message
news:3CF681E4...@zk3.dec.com...
> X-racer wrote:
> >
> > Mark Sornson ask me to verify the statements on this link (provided
> > on your website) as accurate. Apparently, the WTS can't.
>
> The WTS is under no obligation to "verify" statements
> made by any outside group, especially any break-away group.
>
in other words....we can't think of a good lie right now and we no longer
care about you....so get outa here!
> It's up to the one's making the statements to verify
> them.
I guess that's why they didn't have anything to say to Dateline...........
>
> -mark.
ResLight
I don't know where the figures come from.
I will forward this to the person in charge of this site.
Ronald
"X-racer" <GoS...@Racer.go> wrote in message
news:3CF663B6...@Racer.go...
Mark Sornson
>
> "Mark Sornson" <sor...@zk3.dec.com> wrote in message
> news:3CF681E4...@zk3.dec.com...
> > X-racer wrote:
> > >
> > > Mark Sornson ask me to verify the statements on this link (provided
> > > on your website) as accurate. Apparently, the WTS can't.
> >
> > The WTS is under no obligation to "verify" statements
> > made by any outside group, especially any break-away group.
>
> in other words....we can't think of a good lie right now and we no longer
> care about you....so get outa here!
Barb ... you're really missing the point.
The WTS has its facts and figures (such as
they are) and publishes them. It can
verify them (I suppose ... though the
figure's we're now talking about were
from a long time ago).
X-racer has repeated a claim by a non-JW
group about early JW membership figures
(in the Rutherford era), but has not
substantiated it (and neither has his source).
Why is the WTS responsible for "verifying"
claims by third parties? How are they lying
when they aren't even involved in any of
the claims being made? They aren't even
involved in denying them (and again, these
are claims about membership figures).
---
My home library is limited on 'old stuff' (like
really old yearbooks), but the modern _Proclaimers_
book says that there was a membership drop
in 1925, but those who left (including some who
were disfellowshipped) were "relatively few."
No exact number or percentage was given, but
there is a great disparity between "relatively few"
and 75%.
The figures I've seen for 1922 and 1935 (a bit
outside the 1925-31 range the 75% claim is said
to appy to) shows that there was growth; so
at this point it seems unlikely to me that
that growth would be possible if there truly
was a 75% membership loss of original members
in the middle of that period).
>
> > It's up to the one's making the statements to verify
> > them.
>
> I guess that's why they didn't have anything to say to Dateline...........
That has nothing to do with this issue about
membership during the Rutherford years of 1925-31,
and the claim that Rutherford kicked out 75%
of the membership in those years.
-mark.
EagleEyes
Mark Sornson wrote:
> That has nothing to do with this issue about
> membership during the Rutherford years of 1925-31,
> and the claim that Rutherford kicked out 75%
> of the membership in those years.
The claim X-racer made isn't that Rutherford kicked out 75% of the original
BS. The claim is they 'left' AND were 'kicked out' by the thousands because they
held to the Ransom 4 All teachings of Russell. An apparent teaching you desire
not to accurately acknowledge, Mark How you're trying to aid, help or debate
with X-racer is beyond me when you can't even grasp his argumentation of the
Ransom 4 All correctly or even how 75% left or were disfellowshipped AS CLAIMED.
EE
ResLight
news:3CF663B6...@Racer.go...
membershps counts, etc., as the JWs do now. There were memorial
participation counts, but even this is not accurate, since there thousands
of new ones responding to Rutherford's new message who were partaking of the
memorial but who knew little about the ransom for all. I do remember reading
in one of the JW publications many years ago that a great number of
"old-timers" "refused" to go along with Rutherford's new ideas, and either
withdrew support from or were disfellowshiped, although I don't think any
specific percentage was given.
I also remember reading in one the JW publications that in the late 20s,
Rutherford sent his representatives out to many congregations in many parts
of the world, separating individuals in the congregations who refused to
accept his new teachings from those who did, and disfellowshiping those who
refused. In some cases whole congregations were disfellowshiped in this
manner. Most of those who held to the ransom for all were those who had been
strongly convinced of this from Russell's day, whereas many of the newcomers
really did not know the difference too much. The WTS was claiming that those
disfellowshiped refused to preach the Kingdom message, and the real problems
were glossed over. (Of course, these Bible Students did refuse to preach
Rutherford's new message, but they did wish to preach the glad tidings for
all people as they had knew it.)
It appears to me that this percentage of 75% is an estimate, based on
observation of those who lived through those times, rather than any actual
counts, as there were no counts being made. I, myself, usually just say that
the greater majority -- without offering any actual percentage -- of the
earlier Bible Students who had been associated with Russell did not go along
with Rutherford's new ideas.
I received the following from Rolando Rodriguez (I corrected some of his
typos):
=====================
The number 75% was quoted to me by several old timers. I believe however
that the key word is "original." That simply means that the majority of
those Bible Students who worked very closely with Pastor Russell left the
Society, many prominent pilgrims and bethelites. Almost immediately there
were whole congregations like Jerzey City who divorced themselves from
the Society. Other congregations split. The majority of the Board
formed the Pastoral Bible Institute. Prominent pilgrims such as Paul
Johnson and Raymond Jolly formed the Laymen's Home Missionary Movement.
Then there were the Stand Fasters. Some stayed throughout the 1920s and
early 30s to later leave and form the Dawn Publishers, others left in the
1940s. Others were thrown out of Bethel for being "Russellites."
Rutherford from the very beginning had started his witness campaign,
going door to door, so he was able to clean house, he started out with a
small remnant who were faithful to him and from there he was able to
increase his numbers, more changes eventually resulted in more leaving.
But by 1935, he had his following of about 100,000 world wide.
Having read many of the older publiscations from the 1920s and 30s from
the various Bible Student publications, it can be seen that the
percentage is correct when reading the letter pages of these various
journals.
Although the Society often feature people whose parents learned the
"truth" from the volumes, it can be seen that most of these are from
foreign countries, or from people who read the volumes in the 1920s, long
after Russell died, so they didn't know Russell personally.
Hope this helps.
RR
===================
I will add that most JWs only have a glossed-over account of what happened
in the years from 1916-1930. There are many documents online that were
written in that time era that are very beneficial in showing in more detail
what did happen, and the concepts, as they existed at that time amongst the
Bible Students. (I am not saying that I agree with all the concepts
presented.)
http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/History.htm
Christian love,
Ronald
X-racer
presented below. Also, thanks for the link at the end of this post which - I
understand - you do not endorse in it's entirety.
X-racer
Mark Sornson
> Mark Sornson wrote:
>
> > That has nothing to do with this issue about
> > membership during the Rutherford years of 1925-31,
> > and the claim that Rutherford kicked out 75%
> > of the membership in those years.
>
> The claim X-racer made isn't that Rutherford kicked out 75% of the original
> BS. The claim is they 'left' AND were 'kicked out' by the thousands because they
> held to the Ransom 4 All teachings of Russell.
Brother 'EagleEyes', here's the quote X-racer
had drawn attention to:
> > ... In response to this opposition Rutherford embarked
> > on a campaign from the years 1925 to 1931 to purge Pastor Russell's
> > followers. Thus, by 1931, over three quarters of those associated with
> > the Bible Student movement in Pastor Russell's day separated from
> > Rutherford to remain faithful to the teachings promulgated by Charles
> > Russell.
To me this sounds most definitely like a
claim that Rutherford sought to kick out or
"purge" the "Russellites", and made a special
effort between 1925 and 1931, that by 1931
had succeeded in getting rid of 75% of the
original 'Russellite' Bible Students.
I will admit, on a reread, that this paragraph
allows room for some to have left between
Russell's death and 1925 (that start of the
alleged 'purge'), but the explicit focus on
the years "1925 to 1931" makes it sound as
though Rutherford initiated a special pogrom
to wipe out his fellow Bible Students during
those years.
In any case, I think it reasonable to ask
for substantiation of the 75% figure. The
WTS admits that people broke away, but says
nothing that remotely indicates that the
figure was 75%. If the accusation is that
the WTS is 'covering up' its losses (though
it would have no reason to, as it already
admits to losses), all I'm asking for is
real proof.
When Russell died, I think the number of
Bible Students was much smaller than were
in assocation with the WTS by 1925. If
75% of the 1916 number left, then so be it,
but again, all I'm asking for is proof.
> An apparent teaching you desire
> not to accurately acknowledge, Mark
I don't have any problem with the notion
that Russell taught some sort of 'ransom for
all' doctrine; it just hasn't been a real
concern to me. Why are you keeping score
about what I do or do not acknowledge?
> How you're trying to aid, help or debate
> with X-racer is beyond me when you can't
> even grasp his argumentation of the
> Ransom 4 All correctly or even how 75%
> left or were disfellowshipped AS CLAIMED.
Actually, EagleEyes, X-racer doesn't
really want to talk to me about any of
the Russellite doctrines he has recently
adopted. I invited him to have an e-mail
exchange about them and he turned me down.
So the particulars about things like the
ransom for all teaching is a moot point,
as he doesn't want to talk to me about
it (via e-mail, which is the medium of
my choice to talk to him about doctrine).
If you understand the ransom for all
teaching so well, knock yourself out
trying to convince X-racer otherwise
about it. But if you don't mind, please
allow me to be in charge of what teachings
I look into in the course of talking
with someone else.
-mark.
X-racer
Mark Sornson wrote:
> Actually, EagleEyes, X-racer doesn't
> really want to talk to me about any of
> the Russellite doctrines he has recently
> adopted. I invited him to have an e-mail
> exchange about them and he turned me down.
> So the particulars about things like the
> ransom for all teaching is a moot point,
> as he doesn't want to talk to me about
> it (via e-mail, which is the medium of
> my choice to talk to him about doctrine).
I have invited to discuss with you on usenet the "Ransom for All" which is Not to be
erroneously touted as a "salvation for all" doctrine. The WTS believes in a "Ransom for
Us" doctrine which can be seen by the teaching that - **those who are not JW's at
Armageddon will be eternally destroyed.** The teaching that I have been enlightened to
understand by Jehovah's holy spirit was taught by Russell. That is, the Ransom Sacrifice
which pays the price of "adamic death" will apply the billions who will die at Armageddon.
Thus, those billions who die from God's wrath on the 'great fear inspiring day' will have
Jesus ransom sacrifice applied to them. Those billions that are destroyed are for
disciplining purposes at Armageddon, therefore will be resurrected in the Resurrection of
the unrighteous on earth during the 1,000 Judgment Day.
I have not refused to talk with any potential scribe of the WTS in an appropriate
forum. Like the first century christians "being cautious as sheep amidst wolves" I desire
not to attached any legal trail to any WTS brother online. I understand you may not have
the time right now to discuss this subject on usenet.
Peace to you and yours,
X-racer
X-racer
Mark Sornson wrote:
> EagleEyes <wis...@myclaws.net> wrote in message news:<3CF7C585...@myclaws.net>...
> > Mark Sornson wrote:
> >
> > > That has nothing to do with this issue about
> > > membership during the Rutherford years of 1925-31,
> > > and the claim that Rutherford kicked out 75%
> > > of the membership in those years.
> >
> > The claim X-racer made isn't that Rutherford kicked out 75% of the original
> > BS. The claim is they 'left' AND were 'kicked out' by the thousands because they
> > held to the Ransom 4 All teachings of Russell.
>
> Brother 'EagleEyes', here's the quote X-racer
> had drawn attention to:
>
> > > ... In response to this opposition Rutherford embarked
> > > on a campaign from the years 1925 to 1931 to purge Pastor Russell's
> > > followers. Thus, by 1931, over three quarters of those associated with
> > > the Bible Student movement in Pastor Russell's day separated from
> > > Rutherford to remain faithful to the teachings promulgated by Charles
> > > Russell.
My reference was "intended" for the start of Rutherford's era.
Anyway Mark and Ron, I wanted to thank you for helping me to see the insight in
correcting statistics not "necessarily" accurate in the WTS history.
I am grateful to grasping this wisdom and understanding ;-)
X-racer
Mark Sornson
>
> Mark Sornson wrote:
>
> > Actually, EagleEyes, X-racer doesn't
> > really want to talk to me about any of
> > the Russellite doctrines he has recently
> > adopted. I invited him to have an e-mail
> > exchange about them and he turned me down.
> > So the particulars about things like the
> > ransom for all teaching is a moot point,
> > as he doesn't want to talk to me about
> > it (via e-mail, which is the medium of
> > my choice to talk to him about doctrine).
>
> I have invited to discuss with you on usenet the "Ransom for All" which is Not to be
> erroneously touted as a "salvation for all" doctrine. The WTS believes in a "Ransom for
> Us" doctrine which can be seen by the teaching that - **those who are not JW's at
> Armageddon will be eternally destroyed.** The teaching that I have been enlightened to
> understand by Jehovah's holy spirit was taught by Russell. That is, the Ransom Sacrifice
> which pays the price of "adamic death" will apply the billions who will die at Armageddon.
As I recall, Russell didn't have the same view
of Armageddon as JWs of today do. Russell thought
that Armageddon was going to be the socio-political
upheaval that would occur when the Kingdom of God
was superimposed on the world of his day, that
would result in the removal of all earthly political
authorities (seemingly with little or no loss of
life at the hands of heavenly forces) and the
establishment of the Kingdom of God over the world
which would then force the mostly-ignorant
non-true-Christian world to recognize it and live under it.
This view made sense to Russell at the time because
a) he thought Armageddon was truly close and b)
he knew that the whole world hadn't been preached
to [as his efforts mostly focused on collecting
together the 'anointed church' whose members would
be taken to heaven to rule with Christ]. Thus, those
whom the Kingdom of God would rule over seemed to
him to be the people (with little or no true faith
and knowledge) who were alive at the time.
Therefore, it really wasn't true that he thought that
"billions would die" at Armageddon, to be pardoned later
and resurrected. Instead he thought that most
people would live right on through it (much to
their surprise) into a world with a divine government
which would then teach them in a way they could not
refute. I suppose any who refused to submit to the
established Kingdom would be put to death, but I
admit that it's been a while since I've read
any of the Russell-era stuff, and I could be
misremembering a few details. (I also recall
reading that he believed that Christ's ransom would
also cover Adam's sin and death. Do the modern-day
Russellites still believe this?)
> Thus, those billions who die from God's wrath on the 'great fear inspiring day' will have
> Jesus ransom sacrifice applied to them. Those billions that are destroyed are for
> disciplining purposes at Armageddon, therefore will be resurrected in the Resurrection of
> the unrighteous on earth during the 1,000 Judgment Day.
If God is going to apply the ransom to them so
that they will be resurrected and live at a later
time, why is he going to waste time and effort
killing them? Since when is deliberate execution
merely a form of temporary discipline? In
reality, they aren't "destroyed" at all.
But, if God is going to allow billions to die at
Armageddon, who will survive, and why?
And, if he's going to resurrect them all, how is
this not really a form of universal salvation?
>
> I have not refused to talk with any potential scribe of the WTS in an appropriate
> forum.
"Appropriate forum" a matter of opinion.
> Like the first century christians "being cautious as sheep amidst wolves" I desire
> not to attached any legal trail to any WTS brother online.
... just as you kept "any legal trail" covered
while you professed to be a JW (or JW-supporter).
> I understand you may not have
> the time right now to discuss this subject on usenet.
My time has, of late, become more limitted.
Thanks for understanding.
-mark.
X-racer
Mark Sornson wrote:
> X-racer wrote:
>
> > I have invited to discuss with you on usenet the "Ransom for All" which is Not to be
> > erroneously touted as a "salvation for all" doctrine. The WTS believes in a "Ransom for
> > Us" doctrine which can be seen by the teaching that - **those who are not JW's at
> > Armageddon will be eternally destroyed.** The teaching that I have been enlightened to
> > understand by Jehovah's holy spirit was taught by Russell. That is, the Ransom Sacrifice
> > which pays the price of "adamic death" will apply the billions who will die at Armageddon.
>
>
> Therefore, it really wasn't true that he thought that
> "billions would die" at Armageddon, to be pardoned later
> and resurrected. Instead he thought that most
> people would live right on through it (much to
> their surprise) into a world with a divine government
> which would then teach them in a way they could not
> refute. I suppose any who refused to submit to the
> established Kingdom would be put to death, but I
> admit that it's been a while since I've read
> any of the Russell-era stuff, and I could be
> misremembering a few details. (I also recall
> reading that he believed that Christ's ransom would
> also cover Adam's sin and death. Do the modern-day
> Russellites still believe this?)
I am not to sure who a "Russellite" is today or if such exist any more. As I've stated, I
have no pipeline into the Bible Students affiliations except Restoration Light exposé on
Armageddon. In any case, the Ransom would apply to any that died during Armageddon (pending
Jah's will). What is more important - thus why I left the WTS - is the scriptural proof that
those that die at Armageddon will come back in the Resurrection of the unrighteous.
Case and Point.
Tubal is prophetically seen 'in the thick' of aggression with Satan at Armageddon along side
Satan.
Ezekiel 38:1-4
And the word of Jehovah continued to occur to me, saying: 2 “Son of man, set your face against
Gog [of] the land of Ma'gog, the head chieftain of Me'shech and Tu'bal, and prophesy against
him. 3 And you must say, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah has said: “Here I am against
you, O Gog, you head chieftain of Me'shech and Tu'bal. 4 And I shall certainly turn you around
and put hooks in your jaws and bring you forth with all your military force, horses and
horsemen, all of them clothed in perfect taste, a numerous congregation, with large shield and
buckler, all of them handling swords;
Tubal is prophetically defeated at Armageddon
Ezekiel 39:1-4
“And as regards you, O son of man, prophesy against Gog, and you must say, ‘This is what the
Sovereign Lord Jehovah has said: “Here I am against you, O Gog, you head chieftain of Me'shech
and Tu'bal. 2 And I will turn you around and lead you on and cause you to come up from the
remotest parts of the north and bring you in upon the mountains of Israel. 3 And I will strike
your bow out of your left hand, and your arrows I shall cause to fall out of your own right
hand. 4 On the mountains of Israel you will fall, you and all your bands and the peoples that
will be with you. To birds of prey, birds of every sort of wing, and the wild beasts of the
field I will give you for food.
Tubal is prophetically also seen in the Resurrection praising Jehovah's Glory during a
Judgment after Armageddon.
Isaiah 66:15-20
15 “For here Jehovah himself comes as a very fire, and his chariots are like a storm wind, in
order to pay back his anger with sheer rage and his rebuke with flames of fire. 16 For as fire
Jehovah himself will for a fact take up the controversy, yes, with his sword, against all flesh;
and the slain of Jehovah will certainly become many. 17 Those sanctifying themselves and
cleansing themselves for the gardens behind one in the center, eating the flesh of the pig and
the loathsome thing, even the jumping rodent, they will all together reach their end,” is the
utterance of Jehovah. 18 “And as regards their works and their thoughts, I am coming in order to
collect all the nations and tongues together; and they will have to come and see my glory.”
19 “And I will set among them a sign, and I will send some of those who are escaped to the
nations, [to] Tar'shish, Pul, and Lud, those drawing the bow, Tu'bal and Ja'van, the faraway
islands, who have not heard a report about me or seen my glory; and they will for certain tell
about my glory among the nations. 20 And they will actually bring all your brothers out of all
the nations as a gift to Jehovah, on horses and in chariots and in covered wagons and on mules
and on swift she-camels, up to my holy mountain, Jerusalem,” Jehovah has said, “just as when the
sons of Israel bring the gift in a clean vessel into the house of Jehovah.”
Another Case and Point in harmony with the above:
Revelation 19:17, 18
17 I saw also an angel standing in the sun, and he cried out with a loud voice and said to all
the birds that fly in midheaven: “Come here, be gathered together to the great evening meal of
God, 18 that you may eat the fleshy parts of kings and the fleshy parts of military commanders
and the fleshy parts of strong men and the fleshy parts of horses and of those seated upon them,
and the fleshy parts of all, of freemen as well as of slaves and of small ones and great.”
Notice the "small and great" are defeated at Armageddon.
Revelation 20:11-12
11 And I saw a great white throne and the one seated on it. From before him the earth and the
heaven fled away, and no place was found for them. 12 And I saw the dead, the great and the
small, standing before the throne, and scrolls were opened. But another scroll was opened; it is
the scroll of life. And the dead were judged out of those things written in the scrolls
according to their deeds.
Notice the "great and small" are resurrected during the 1,000 yeears.
Revelation 19:19-21
19 And I saw the wild beast and the kings of the earth and their armies gathered together to
wage the war with the one seated on the horse and with his army. 20 And the wild beast was
caught, and along with it the false prophet that performed in front of it the signs with which
he misled those who received the mark of the wild beast and those who render worship to its
image. While still alive, they both were hurled into the fiery lake that burns with sulphur. 21
But the rest were killed off with the long sword of the one seated on the horse, which [sword]
proceeded out of his mouth. And all the birds were filled from the fleshy parts of them.
Notice the Wild Beast (all governments) and False Prophet (anglo-american world power) are
'hurled into the fiery lake' BUT THE REST are killed with the long sword. This is in harmony
with Daniel 2:44
Daniel 2:44
“And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be
brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush
and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinite;
But why say "BUT the REST" instead of saying, AND the REST are hurled in the fiery lake
(meaning eternal destruction). The Destiny of the Wild Beast & False Prophet is different from
the Destiny of the those killed with the Long Sword (incl the small & great).
>
>
> > Thus, those billions who die from God's wrath on the 'great fear inspiring day' will have
> > Jesus ransom sacrifice applied to them. Those billions that are destroyed are for
> > disciplining purposes at Armageddon, therefore will be resurrected in the Resurrection of
> > the unrighteous on earth during the 1,000 Judgment Day.
>
> If God is going to apply the ransom to them so
> that they will be resurrected and live at a later
> time, why is he going to waste time and effort
> killing them? Since when is deliberate execution
> merely a form of temporary discipline? In
> reality, they aren't "destroyed" at all.
They are destroyed just as Jehovah destroyed other people in past judgments, yet will
recieve a resurrection. I have studied this with great eagerness in defending it Mark, but
Jehovah kept showing me in his word and by means of his spirit the 'truth' of what is to come.
Here is a portion of Reslight's version which aids and compliments the above argument.
****
Prisoners in a Pit
"And it must occur in that day that Jehovah [Yahweh] will turn his attention upon the army of
the height in the height, and upon the kings of the ground upon the ground. And they will
certainly be gathered as of prisoners into the pit [Hebrew, bowr], and be shut up in the
dungeon; and after an abundance of days they will be given attention." -- Isaiah 24:21-22.
(47) The Bible tells of the great destruction that comes upon the earth at Armageddon. (Isaiah
24:1-22) Notice, however, that it speaks of those who are destroyed as being shut up in a
"prison." Job refers to those in death as "prisoners" who "rest together". (Job 3:18) The Bible
tells of the gathering of "captive ones" from many nations in the latter days, the days when
God's kingdom will rule the whole earth. (Jeremiah 48:47; 49:6,34-39; Isaiah 2:2) Yahweh speaks
of gathering the captive ones of Sodom and Samaria along with the captive ones of Jerusalem.
(Ezekiel 16:53) They are spoken of as returning to their 'former state', that is, they return
from the prison house of death to their former state upon the earth. So with those who are
thrown into this prison at Armageddon - after many days they will be "visited." To be visited by
Yahweh can mean to visited with his anger, or to be visited with his blessings. (Isaiah 26:14;
Psalm 65:9) Since Yahweh's anger had already been expressed upon those shut up in prison at
Armageddon, their being "visited" after many days would have to signify that they would then be
released from the prison and have the opportunity to respond to the blessings that will then be
upon the earth during the thousand year reign of Christ. - Revelation 20:11-15;21:1-4.
(48) Will there be any, then, who will suffer eternal destruction at Armageddon? There may be
some, though we cannot say with a definite certainty on this. If there be any living who have
accepted of the favor of God though Jesus, and then willingly, totally reject that which they
accepted, such as these would have been released from the wrath upon man through Adam, and but
their willful and total rejection Jesus would condemn them to the second death. Therefore, if
any of these should be upon the earth at Armageddon, they would die, not the same kind of death
that comes from the wrath of God because of inherited sin. No, these must suffer eternal
destruction for their own willful sinful condition. They once knew God and the good news. They
no longer know God and have not obeyed the Good News. Having already been "made alive" once, and
having given that new life up, they no longer can be made alive again, since there are no more
sacrifice for sins. Such living at the time of Armageddon we would expect to suffer eternal
destruction. But of such there are not many, if any, living at the present time.
(49) The word "pit", used in Isaiah 24:22, is translated from the Hebrew bowr. Bowr can be seen
to be a close synonym to the Hebrew word, Sheol. Many scriptures use these terms in parallel,
thus indicating that they refer to one and the same place: "For it is not Sheol that can laud
you; death itself cannot praise you. Those going down into the pit [bowr]cannot look hopefully
to your trueness." - Isaiah 38:18; See also Psalm 30:3,9; 88:3,4,6; 143:7.
(50) According to the scriptures, the king of Babylon is laid in the pit, Bowr-Sheol, with the
other kings of the earth: "However, down to Sheol you will be brought, to the remotest parts of
the pit [bowr]." (Isaiah 14:15) Tyre is also brought down to Bowr-Sheol: "I will also bring you
down with those going down into the pit [bowr] to the people of long ago, and I will cause you
to dwell in the lowest land, like places devastated for a long time, with those going down into
the pit [bowr], in order that you may not be inhabited." (Ezekiel 26:20) Additionally, "Pharaoh
and his crowd" are said to go there. (Ezekiel 31:2,14-18; 32:18) Assyria and all her crowd are
also in Sheol-Bowr. (Ezekiel 32:21-23) Elam and all her crowd are there. (Ezekiel 32:24-25)
Meschech and Tubal and all her crowd are there. (Ezekiel 32:26,27) Edom, her kings and all her
chieftains are there. (Ezekiel 32:29) The Sidonians are there. - Ezekiel 32:30.
(51) Will these come back in the resurrection day? Yes! The Greek word corresponding to Sheol
is Hades. The scriptures definitely tell us that all in Hades (Sheol-Bowr) will be raised for
individual judgment in the judgment day. "And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and
death and hades delivered up the dead which were in them; and they were judged every person
according to their works."- Revelation 20:13
(52) Some have claimed that Isaiah 24:21-22 refers to the lineage of kings that was destroyed
when Jerusalem was destroyed by Nebucadnezzar. However, these verses could not apply to the
destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar: it speaks of the kings of the ground [the earth]. It
has never been fulfilled. No reference at all is made to Jerusalem until the last verse of this
chapter. There it shows that this is fulfilled at the time when Yahweh reigns on Mount Zion and
in Jerusalem. This can only refer to the end of this age when Yahweh takes his rule through the
Lord Jesus, as Jesus begins his rule in the midst of his enemies. (Psalm 110:2; Revelation
11:15,17) It would take a lot of twisting of scripture to try to apply this to the destruction
of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar.***
(53) Notice how Isaiah 24:21-22 corresponds to Revelation 19:17,18: I saw also an angel
standing in the sun, and he cried out with a loud voice and said to all the birds that fly in
midheaven: "Come here, be gathered together to the great evening meal of God, that you may eat
the fleshly parts of kings and the fleshly parts of military commanders and the fleshly parts of
strong mean and the fleshly parts of horses and of those seated upon them, and fleshly parts of
all, of freemen as well as slaves and of small ones and great."
(54) Revelation 20:12 shows that the 'small and great' return for the day of judgment. The
expression used here, "small and great", is similar to that used in Revelation 19:17,18,
indicating that the 'small ones and great' who die in Armageddon are brought back for judgment
during the resurrection day: And I saw the dead, the great and small, standing before the
throne, and scrolls were opened. (Isaiah 29:18;24) But another scroll was opened; it is the
scroll of life. And the dead were judged out of those things written in the scrolls according to
their deeds. - Revelation 20:12.
(55) The next scripture also corresponds: The nations have sunk down into the pit [Hebrew,
shachath, trap] that they have made; In the net they hid, their own foot has been caught.
Jehovah is known by the judgment he has executed. By the activity of his own hands the wicked
one has been ensnared. Wicked people will turn back [retreat - Strong] to Sheol, even all the
nations forgetting God. (Psalm 9:15-17) The wicked nations are still around, so this has not yet
been fulfilled. Those in Sheol/Hades will return for judgment in the day of judgment: And the
sea gave up those dead in them, and death and Hades gave up those dead in them, and they were
judged individually, according to their deeds. - Revelation 20:13.
(56) And the scriptures also indicate that favorable conditions prevail when the nations are
judged. With my soul I have desired you in the night [the present night of darkness and sin];
yes, with my spirit within me I keep looking for you; because, when there are judgments from you
for the earth, righteousness is what [what is right] the inhabitants of the productive land [the
earth - footnote] will certainly learn. Though the wicked one [those who prove to be wicked in
the day of judgment] be shown favor [even though he has been given every opportunity in the day
of judgment], he simply will not learn righteousness. In the land of straightforwardness [when
the vail of darkness covering the earth is lifted and there will be no misleadings from Satan -
Isaiah 25:6; Revelation 20:3] he will act unjustly and will see the eminence of Jehovah." -
Isaiah 26:9,10.
(57) The world of mankind, including its rulers, being deceived and blinded by Satan, are not
even permitted to see the truth at the present time. If they could understand, then most would
probably be different than they are. The apostle Paul agrees with this: We speak God's wisdom in
a sacred secret, the hidden wisdom, which God foreordained before the systems of things for our
glory. This wisdom not one of the rulers of this system of things came to know, for if they had
known it they would not have impaled the glorious Lord. - 1 Corinthians 2:7,8.
(58) The time for the world to understand the truth is not yet, for Satan has not yet been
bound. At the present time, no one comes to Jesus except that the Father calls him. The kingdom
message in this world is only to those who have ears to hear. (Matthew 13:10,11) The true
purpose of the Armageddon destruction upon the wicked is so that they may know who Yahweh is.
(Psalm 83:17-18) If they are gone forever they will never know who he is. The only way that they
could know is through the resurrection of the dead in the day of Judgment. - John 5:28,29;
Ezekiel 16:53-59: Matthew 11:24.
(59) What would it mean if Yahweh did eternally destroyed the billions of men, women and
children who are now blinded by Satan and unable to see the truth? Billions of children would be
eternally destroyed without ever having even a remote chance. And millions would be eternally
destroyed who are still blinded by Satan, or who have never heard the truth. What a reproach
such a teaching is to his name! And yet the claim made by the leaders of the "Jehovah's
witnesses" organization that they and those who follow them are the only ones on earth truly
honoring God's name! How well Isaiah speaks to his people concerning such leaders: Hear the word
of Jehovah, you men who are trembling at his word: "Your brothers that are hating you by reason
of my name, said, 'May Jehovah be glorified!' He must also appear with rejoicing on your part,
and they are the ones that will be put to shame." - Isaiah 66:5.
(60) If you are with the Watchtower organization, do you really believe that the billions of
children, many of whom are starving and greatly suffering, will be eternally destroyed along
with their parents simply because they are blinded at present? This teaching in no way honors
God's name, but is rather a blasphemy against his name! It would be better to be alone in this
world and rejoice in the truth about Yahweh than trade this truth for anything. (Proverbs 23:23;
Matthew 10:24-27) The idea of an "organization" of millions of people is comforting to the
flesh, but does very little for the spirit of truth. (Romans 8:14-18,9) Let each decide! If you
wish to continue being men-pleasers, so be it. (Galatians 1:10) But as for us, we are taking our
stand for Yahweh and his Son Jesus. - Joshua 24:14,15.
Above Reslight info found here:
http://reslight.addr.com/armageddon.html
****
X-racer
Mark Sornson
> Actually, I don't think anyone can verify its accuracy, as there was no
> membershps counts, etc., as the JWs do now. There were memorial
> participation counts, but even this is not accurate, since there thousands
> of new ones responding to Rutherford's new message who were partaking of the
> memorial but who knew little about the ransom for all. I do remember reading
> in one of the JW publications many years ago that a great number of
> "old-timers" "refused" to go along with Rutherford's new ideas, and either
> withdrew support from or were disfellowshiped, although I don't think any
> specific percentage was given.
Still, saying it was "a great number" suggests something
substantial, say, 25% or more. I'll admit that sometimes
I go by memory, too ... but I'd still like to see a
substantiating quote.
>
> I also remember reading in one the JW publications that in the late 20s,
> Rutherford sent his representatives out to many congregations in many parts
> of the world, separating individuals in the congregations who refused to
> accept his new teachings from those who did, and disfellowshiping those who
> refused. In some cases whole congregations were disfellowshiped in this
> manner.
I recall a more recent publication (perhaps the
_Proclaimers_ book) saying that at some point
the choice was given to congregations (or
"companies") to vote whether to stay in association
with the WTS or not, but I think this had to do
with the matter of "voting for" the congregation
leaders [the way some congregations in Christendom
did and still do] or accepting the new top-down
"theocratic" approach. Thus the matter of "new
doctrinal teachings" (supplanting Russell's ideas)
wasn't really an issue.
Weren't all the Russellite-break-away groups
already established well before the late-20s?
I suspect that any disfellowshippings or further
break-aways by the late 20s had little to do
with the issue of being faithful to 'pure Russellism'.
> Most of those who held to the ransom for all were those who had been
> strongly convinced of this from Russell's day, whereas many of the newcomers
> really did not know the difference too much. The WTS was claiming that those
> disfellowshiped refused to preach the Kingdom message, and the real problems
> were glossed over. (Of course, these Bible Students did refuse to preach
> Rutherford's new message, but they did wish to preach the glad tidings for
> all people as they had knew it.)
Two can play the game of saying the other side
is engaging in revisionist history. Why do you
doubt that the issue of each member, and congregation
leaders in particular, being a public preacher
was a real issue? It certainly is a make-or-break
point to this day.
>
> It appears to me that this percentage of 75% is an estimate, based on
> observation of those who lived through those times, rather than any actual
> counts, as there were no counts being made. I, myself, usually just say that
> the greater majority -- without offering any actual percentage -- of the
> earlier Bible Students who had been associated with Russell did not go along
> with Rutherford's new ideas.
But without taking or providing actual counts, what
factual basis is there for claiming that even "the
greater majority" (more than 50%) left? I mean,
even to 'eyeball' that amount as an estimate would
require some real, though coursely quantifiable
proof. Otherwise, why could it not be chalked up
merely to excessive optimism?
>
> I received the following from Rolando Rodriguez (I corrected some of his
> typos):
>
> =====================
>
> The number 75% was quoted to me by several old timers. I believe however
> that the key word is "original."
Still, based on what evidence?
There are probably a few "old timers"
kicking around among JWs who could
dispute this simply by making the
counter claim that they should know
because they, too, are "old timers".
> That simply means that the majority of
> those Bible Students who worked very closely with Pastor Russell left the
> Society, many prominent pilgrims and bethelites. Almost immediately there
> were whole congregations like Jerzey City who divorced themselves from
> the Society.
OK, that's one congregation by name.
> Other congregations split.
I've heard this ... but where's the proof that
the numbers among those that split favored the
Russellites over the Rutherford-led WTS, and that
the number of congregations that did split was
in the majority?
> The majority of the Board
> formed the Pastoral Bible Institute.
The PBI website gives an overview of its
history. It says of the break-away efforts
(to remain 'true' to Russell's teachings):
Through the efforts of these small groups
of Associated Bible Students, the Pastoral
Bible Institute came into existence in
1918.
Though not giving actual numbers or percentages,
"small groups" suggests that they were small
with respect to the organization from which
they broke away, namely the WTS/IBSA.
That, in rough terms, would be the opposite of
"the greater majority".
Interestingly enough, the PBIs 'charter' and
determination seems to be to remain small.
They thumb their nose at any sort of "great
outward movement" -- an obvious dig at JWs
for growing their numbers with members of the
"great crowd" -- and are content merely "to be
spiritually helpful to scattered friends in
various parts of the world", those "scattered
friends" evidently being the ones who are
members of the small 'true church'.
> Prominent pilgrims such as Paul
> Johnson and Raymond Jolly formed the Laymen's Home Missionary Movement.
Which seems to be an even smaller movement
than the PBI. So far I haven't been able
to find any numbers on it. So, that's one
small fraction (the PBI) plus an even smaller
fraction.
> Then there were the Stand Fasters.
By poking around the net, I found a source
that says that there were about 300 by 1923
(it broke away in late 1918). If we assume
there was some growth from 1918, that would
have made them an even smaller group in 1918.
If they shrank starting from 1918, they likely
didn't shrink from a much larger number.
> Some stayed throughout the 1920s and
> early 30s to later leave and form the Dawn Publishers, others left in the
> 1940s. Others were thrown out of Bethel for being "Russellites."
As soon as you get away from the initial
group of break-aways in 1918, given that
the Rutherford lead WTS/Bible Students
started to grow rapidly, how do you distinguish
original Russellites who left from any who
joined during those early years but didn't
stay long? After all, any who stayed into
the 30s and 40s could hardly claim that they
were finally breaking away because Rutherford
wasn't being 100% true to Russell.
To push out the 'Russellite purges' into the
20s-40s is quite a bit of handwaving, I'd say.
Additionally, the group called _The Dawn Bible
Students Association_ was mostly a regrouping
of earlier break-away Bible Students, so you
have to be careful not to count them twice
(even if they did receive some new members
from JWs as time went along).
>
> Rutherford from the very beginning had started his witness campaign,
> going door to door, so he was able to clean house, he started out with a
> small remnant who were faithful to him and from there he was able to
> increase his numbers, more changes eventually resulted in more leaving.
> But by 1935, he had his following of about 100,000 world wide.
Just about any number you start with as having been
'faithful to Rutherford' to 100,000 is a big jump;
but don't forget that Rutherford, while in prison, was
voted in as president by a majority of WTS 'stock
holders'; and since to be a stock-holder all one had
to do was contribute $x (some small figure) to the work
of the Society, that was mostly all the IBSA members.
Thus, he wasn't backed merely by "a small remnant."
>
> Having read many of the older publiscations from the 1920s and 30s from
> the various Bible Student publications, it can be seen that the
> percentage is correct when reading the letter pages of these various
> journals.
You mean the break-away Bible Student publications?
Well, of course all the letters in those pages would
likely be from break-aways, and thus seem at a glance
to be 'a whole lot of people'; but how many letter
writers were there? Thousands (to make up the alleged
3/4)? Or merely hundreds, or fewer? It isn't the
percentage of pro-breakaway letter writers that will
tell you what the actual numbers are (for if there
were 100 letters writers and 105 break-aways altogether,
the letter-writers would be nearly 100% of the
total break-aways), but their actual numbers, and
what percentage of all the break-aways that they
represented.
>
> Although the Society often feature people whose parents learned the
> "truth" from the volumes, it can be seen that most of these are from
> foreign countries, or from people who read the volumes in the 1920s, long
> after Russell died, so they didn't know Russell personally.
And of course, those publishing and reading the
Russell-reprints today don't know Russell personally,
either.
>
> Hope this helps.
It was interesting.
>
> RR
> ===================
>
> I will add that most JWs only have a glossed-over account of what happened
> in the years from 1916-1930. There are many documents online that were
> written in that time era that are very beneficial in showing in more detail
> what did happen, and the concepts, as they existed at that time amongst the
> Bible Students.
Each written from a one-sided perspective, as though
theirs alone is the correct perspective. What a surprise
that most people remember and present history subjectively,
based on what is most important to themselves.
> (I am not saying that I agree with all the concepts
> presented.)
That the break-away groups were fragmented indicates
that among themselves they didn't agree on what
'real Russellism' was.
-mark.
X-racer
Mark Sornson wrote:
> ResLight wrote:
>
> > Actually, I don't think anyone can verify its accuracy, as there was no
> > membershps counts, etc., as the JWs do now. There were memorial
> > participation counts, but even this is not accurate, since there thousands
> > of new ones responding to Rutherford's new message who were partaking of the
> > memorial but who knew little about the ransom for all. I do remember reading
> > in one of the JW publications many years ago that a great number of
> > "old-timers" "refused" to go along with Rutherford's new ideas, and either
> > withdrew support from or were disfellowshiped, although I don't think any
> > specific percentage was given.
>
> Still, saying it was "a great number" suggests something
> substantial, say, 25% or more. I'll admit that sometimes
> I go by memory, too ... but I'd still like to see a
> substantiating quote.
Interesting tidbits from "Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose" book
published by the WTS.
****
P. 71 (last para)
As a result, after the summer of 1917, many of the congregations all over the
world were composed of two parties. The spiritual drowsiness that had been
settling on many during this period made them an easy prey for the smooth talk of
these opposers, and they refused to co-operated with the awakening spirit of the
revitalized work in preaching the Kingdom good news at that time.
****
X-racer notes that the refusal was to preach a new teaching by Rutherford
emphasizing a "Ransom for Us" doctrine *during his starting years* which the
paragraph camouflages thereby insinuating such distinction a non-issue at the
time.
****
P. 73
Lois: Were there many who separated from the Society at that time?
John: It would be difficult to know exactly. But some idea can be gained from
partial reports received by the Society. In times past the Society had published
a partial report of Memorial attendance throughout the world. This was sent in by
various congregations. But due to the difficulties of 1918, both inside and
outside the organization, these attendance figures were not gathered. In 1917,
the partial report for the Memorial on April 5 showed 21,274 in attendance as
associated with the Society. At Memorial, April 13, 1919, according to a partial
report without all foreign lands, included, attendance figures were 17,961. From
these figures, incomplete as they were, it becomes evident that far less than
4,000 had ceased to walk with their former faithful associates. (Footnote WT
1917, p. 157)
****
X-racer notes that no observance of "new comers" is being presented by the
WTS. The BSA is asserting 25% left immediately after the Rutherford take over.
The figures by the WTB&TS give credence to the BSA's 25% figure as accurate when
you *take out* any potential "new comers" in the count of 1919 (which is still not
complete).
We are talking about 21,274 minus 25% at the the takeover of Rutherford.
Later, we are talking about 75% + of the Original people that made up those 21,275
left in by 1931.
All because of the arrogant strong arm of Rutherford's dictatorship (not a
governing body, but a single man) who promulgated a "Ransom for Us" doctrine in
contrast to Russell's "Ransom for All" doctrine.
X-racer
ResLight
> ResLight wrote:
>
>
> Still, saying it was "a great number" suggests something
> substantial, say, 25% or more. I'll admit that sometimes
> I go by memory, too ... but I'd still like to see a
> substantiating quote.
I really don't want to spend a lot of time on this, as to me the actual
number of those who remained in the earlier Bible Student doctrine is of
little importance.
As I said, I don't know of any way to substantiate the number by any
accurate count, for nobody was counting. I have little doubt, however, that
the greater number -- that is, more than 50% -- of the earlier Bible
Students did indeed leave or were separated from the WTS in favor of staying
by the earlier teachings concerning organization, Israel, and especially the
ransom for all. etc. Despite the point in time and the point that caused the
separation, these Bible Students were continuing to study Russell's writings
(or studies that upheld the basic doctrines that Russell taught).
There had always been some variations on various details of belief amongst
the Bible Students, even in Russell's day, so we should not be suprised that
Bible Students are not in agreement on various points even to this day.
Bible Students' congregations had always elected their own elders and run
their own affairs before 1917. Gradually, Rutherford took more and more
control away from the congregations. Many Bible Students said they put up
with Rutherford's new ideas for the sake of peace, until at some point they
realized they could not do so anymore. The central teaching that all Bible
Students hold to, however, is the "ransom for all", which Rutherford
rejected around 1925. I believe it was in 1928, he brought forth so-called
"new light" that Adam was not covered by the ransom, which rejects the very
premise of the ransom, and which new doctrine many of the earlier Bible
Students strongly objected to, while many of the late comers were willing to
accept the new teaching upon the belief that the WTS was being divinely
guided through Rutherford.
Many of the "old-timers" did for a long time give partial support to the WTS
with the hopes that eventually it would be returned to the earlier message
and arrangements. Many left and returned to the Bible Student doctrine
(separate from the WTS) at various points of which they became "fed up" with
the trend that Rutherford was leading the WTS into. For some the point came
when Rutherford began applying the destruction of the goats to the beginning
of the millennial age rather than at the end of it; for others the point
came when Rutherford denied the ransomed covered Adam; for others the point
came when Rutherford demanded that all elders be appointed by the WTS; for
others the point came when Rutheford denied character development; for
others the point came when Rutherford denied the prophecies were being
fulfilled in Israel, etc. And while there were those who left the Society
and formed some group(s) separate from the Society that did not hold to the
earlier Bible Student doctrine, those earlier Bible Students who left at
various points did wish to hold onto the former Bible Student doctrine, and
fellowshiped with Bible Students separate from the WTS, even though they
left at various points from 1917 even to the 1940s. While they are no longer
living, I personally met and spoke with many of these especially back in the
1960s.
> I recall a more recent publication (perhaps the
> _Proclaimers_ book) saying that at some point
> the choice was given to congregations (or
> "companies") to vote whether to stay in association
> with the WTS or not, but I think this had to do
> with the matter of "voting for" the congregation
> leaders [the way some congregations in Christendom
> did and still do] or accepting the new top-down
> "theocratic" approach. Thus the matter of "new
> doctrinal teachings" (supplanting Russell's ideas)
> wasn't really an issue.
From reading the Bible Student writings of the era, this appears to be
around 1931. Rutherford's new organization ideas were indeed new doctrinal
teachings that went against the teachings as Russell taught and were part of
the controversy that goes all the way back to 1917. He gradually introduced
his new organizational doctrines, also gradually effecting separation
between the Bible Students who wanted to the stay by the old doctrine and
those who wanted to accept the new doctrine.
> Weren't all the Russellite-break-away groups
> already established well before the late-20s?
I wouldn't say this, for there were many who were still leaving in the early
30s and even into the 40s; I understand that the German Bible Students
Association did not withdraw support from the WTS until after WWII, upon
finding out after the war the direction the WTS had taken over the past 15
years or so.
> I suspect that any disfellowshippings or further
> break-aways by the late 20s had little to do
> with the issue of being faithful to 'pure Russellism'.
I would say that most of the Bible Students who were still associated with
the WTS and who left after 1925 did so because of a desire to hold on the
earlier Bible Student doctrine, regardless of the point that finally caused
the split with the WTS; there were still many who became fed up with with
Rutherford's new doctirnes all through the 30s and even into the 40s, who
decided to associate with the Bible Students movement separate from the WTS.
From about 1931 onward, it was very difficult to remain in association with
the WTS and still try to hold onto the ideas as presented by Russell
concering the organization of the church, the ransom for all, etc.
I remember many years ago, an elderly brother in the Columbus, Indiana
ecclesia told me of how he stayed with the WTS into the 30s, although he
disagreed with the new doctrines, he was hoping Rutherford would come to his
senses. Finally, when Rutherford indirectly criticized Russell on character
development, and if I remember the correct terminology used, Rutherford made
fun of Russell's teaching on this as developing a "sweet character", he said
that was enough for him; he took all of Rutherford's books and burned them
and he and many others at that point began fellowshiping with the "old-time
Bible Students", as many referred to them. The point is, that while it was
different points that led these earlier Bible Students to realize that they
couldn't conscientously continue to support the Society, they still wanted
the earlier Bible Student doctrine that they had learned and loved so well.
> Two can play the game of saying the other side
> is engaging in revisionist history. Why do you
> doubt that the issue of each member, and congregation
> leaders in particular, being a public preacher
> was a real issue? It certainly is a make-or-break
> point to this day.
It is much more difficult to have a revisionist history in the free climate
of the Bible Student movement than it is in the dictatorial climate of the
JWs. I am not saying that the Bible Student writings are totally free of
slant because of personal perception, as they most certainly do contain the
writers' personal perceptions.
Russell had taught, by use of the scriptures, that each congregation was to
elect their own elders; most of the earlier Bible Students wanted to hold
onto this structure, rather than having a central earthly authority that
Rutherford had advocated since 1917, and which he gradually implemented to
greater degrees each passing year.
The WTS claimed these "disgruntled" Bible Students wanted to have a
clergy-laity class; all one has to do is read the writings of the Bible
Students from that era and see that the WTS statements are misleading, to
say the least. The claim was that these Bible Students refused to preach the
Gospel; of course, they did not wish to preach Rutherford's new gospel,
which was going further and further away from the glad tidings of the ransom
for all into bad tidings of eternal destruction if you disagree with
Rutherford. Although there has been disgreement over the extent of witness
to be given at the end of the age, in general that Bible Students have
continued to preach the gospel, the glad tidings of the ransom for all, is
attested by historical facts, for their publications from those years verify
this.
Many of these writings are available at:
http://www.biblestudents.net/history/
(See especially the bulletins)
http://www.biblestudents.net/history/witnessbulletin1.htm
October, 1931
Honoring Jehovah's Name
A response to Judge Rutherfords claims in regards the name "Jehovah's
Witnesses."
http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/doctrine/witness2.htm
January, 1932
All Sincere Proclaimers of the Truth Invited to Cooperate with Jevhovah's
Witnesses
A reply to the statements made in "The Golden Age" magazine of July 8th,
1931.
http://www.biblestudents.net/history/witnessbulletin3.htm
Summer, 1932
Scriptural Unity
http://www.biblestudents.net/history/witnessbulletin4.htm
October, 1932
The Press Still Pressing On
http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/doctrine/witness5.htm
Failure to Recognize God’s Organization a Fruitful Cause of Divisions Among
Christians
A candid discussion of a vital matter, in regards the Watchtower's claim
that they are "God's visible Organization".
http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/Herald%20Year%20List.htm
http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/History.htm
There are also a few things written from that era at:
http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/Treatises.htm
As far as I know the DAWN from that era is not online yet.
Christian love,
Ronald
X-racer
ResLight wrote:
> There had always been some variations on various details of belief amongst the
> Bible Students, even in Russell's day, so we should not be suprised that Bible
> Students are not in agreement on various points even to this day.
From a historical point of view looking at the different "Bible Student"
factions from Russell's death, the WTS is 'one' of the many associations. After
briefly looking at the History BSA internet link you provided, it is apparent to
me, all the "Bible Students" no matter what the faction, fed off each other
during these years. They ALL went separate ways eventually. The WTS became the
most popular - plus had the most money and resources - due to the legal hostile
take over of the WTS.
X-racer
X-racer
ResLight wrote:
> Many of the "old-timers" did for a long time give partial support to the WTS
> with the hopes that eventually it would be returned to the earlier message
> and arrangements. Many left and returned to the Bible Student doctrine
> (separate from the WTS) at various points of which they became "fed up" with
> the trend that Rutherford was leading the WTS into. For some the point came
> when Rutherford began applying the destruction of the goats to the beginning
> of the millennial age rather than at the end of it; for others the point
> came when Rutherford denied the ransomed covered Adam; for others the point
> came when Rutherford demanded that all elders be appointed by the WTS; for
> others the point came when Rutheford denied character development; for
> others the point came when Rutherford denied the prophecies were being
> fulfilled in Israel, etc. And while there were those who left the Society
> and formed some group(s) separate from the Society that did not hold to the
> earlier Bible Student doctrine, those earlier Bible Students who left at
> various points did wish to hold onto the former Bible Student doctrine, and
> fellowshiped with Bible Students separate from the WTS, even though they
> left at various points from 1917 even to the 1940s. While they are no longer
> living, I personally met and spoke with many of these especially back in the
> 1960s.
This is totally new & enlightening to me.
The WTS doesn't teach the flock this stuff currently.
Thank you Ron, for bringing it out.
X-racer
Mark Sornson
>
> Interesting tidbits from "Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose" book
> published by the WTS.
>
> ****
> P. 71 (last para)
> As a result, after the summer of 1917, many of the congregations all over the
> world were composed of two parties. The spiritual drowsiness that had been
> settling on many during this period made them an easy prey for the smooth talk of
> these opposers, and they refused to co-operated with the awakening spirit of the
> revitalized work in preaching the Kingdom good news at that time.
> ****
>
> X-racer notes that the refusal was to preach a new teaching by Rutherford
> emphasizing a "Ransom for Us" doctrine *during his starting years* which the
> paragraph camouflages thereby insinuating such distinction a non-issue at the
> time.
The WTS has been fairly open about the changes in
understanding that is has experienced along the way,
so, given that it has documented the 'uproar' that
printing the 7th volume of Studies in the Scriptures
created, I cannot think of a good reason why it
wouldn't document another major 'uproar' over a change
in view about the ransom.
I'm not saying that the teaching on the ransom didn't
change, but so far all you've done is insinuate that
there was a direct connection between people quitting
and a change in this doctrine, whereas it seems to me
that the issues were broader (almost 'political' in
the area of 'control') and not so tightly focused
over this one doctrine.
Do you have proof that any of the 'splitters' felt
that the change in ransom doctrine was such a MAJOR
issue all by itself?
You keep saying there was a 'refusal to preach a
new teaching by Rutherford', but the info I've read
indicates the majority of the congregations didn't
have that problem. I don't have the book with me
just now, but the 1975 yearbook gives figures for
the number of congregations that agreed to have the
WTS 'organize them for preaching' back then,
and the figure was about 80% (I think about 82%)
of the congregations. So, that suggests that about
20% may have broken away, which comes close to the
25% Memorial drop-out figure. But the comment was
also a bit ambiguous, in that it didn't say one
way or another whether others joined later (it just
gave a figure for a specific year).
The emphasis also isn't on merely disagreeing
over the preaching of one particular doctrine,
but rather over the very idea that all in a
congregation (or "company" as they were called
back then) were supposed to be preaching.
Frankly I find that very believable.
>
> ****
> P. 73
> Lois: Were there many who separated from the Society at that time?
>
> John: It would be difficult to know exactly. But some idea can be gained from
> partial reports received by the Society. In times past the Society had published
> a partial report of Memorial attendance throughout the world. This was sent in by
> various congregations. But due to the difficulties of 1918, both inside and
> outside the organization, these attendance figures were not gathered. In 1917,
> the partial report for the Memorial on April 5 showed 21,274 in attendance as
> associated with the Society. At Memorial, April 13, 1919, according to a partial
> report without all foreign lands, included, attendance figures were 17,961. From
> these figures, incomplete as they were, it becomes evident that far less than
> 4,000 had ceased to walk with their former faithful associates. (Footnote WT
> 1917, p. 157)
> ****
>
> X-racer notes that no observance of "new comers" is being presented by the
> WTS. The BSA is asserting 25% left immediately after the Rutherford take over.
> The figures by the WTB&TS give credence to the BSA's 25% figure as accurate when
> you *take out* any potential "new comers" in the count of 1919 (which is still not
> complete).
>
> We are talking about 21,274 minus 25% at the the takeover of Rutherford.
21,274 - 17,961 = 3313, which is 16%.
16% is not 75%, and is different enough
from 25%.
Something else to consider (though this is based
more on my observation of modern record keeping)
is that Memorial attendance is usually several
times greater than the average and peak publisher
counts (of 'actual members'). This is because
the Memorial figures count everybody, including
children and newly interested ones.
Additionally, since the preaching work virtually
stopped in 1918 due to the war-time persecution,
new growth was probably very small.
I'm not saying that the 16% drop is still not
significant, but the raw number alone doesn't
allow one to break out how many of the 16% were
full-fledged Bible Students and how many were
family members or interested ones who might
simply have gotten discouraged and thus stopped
coming (for that or other reasons) without ever
joining.
>
> Later, we are talking about 75% + of the Original people that made up those 21,275
> left in by 1931.
75% of the original 1917 total would be 15,9xx people,
or 12,6xx after the initial 16% drop (of Memorial
attenders, who, again, may not all have been full-fledged
Bible Students).
Do the total figures for the break-away groups
come anywhere near 16,000 people throughout
the duration of the total break-away period?
> All because of the arrogant strong arm of Rutherford's dictatorship (not a
> governing body, but a single man) who promulgated a "Ransom for Us" doctrine in
> contrast to Russell's "Ransom for All" doctrine.
Personal slams (about Rutherford being "arrogant")
are pointless as they are so subjective and attack
the person not the issues, and are often made by
people who never even knew Rutherford, nor where
alive at the time (to give them any first-hand basis
for any such character assessment). No doubt those
who sided with Rutherford viewed him, not as arrogant,
but as bold and confident enough to make changes
that he felt were needed.
One could just as easily argue that it was really those
who refused to change, who insisted in clinging to
everything Russell taught, who were too arrogant to accept
correction. In fact, that the break-aways were really
not a unified movement, but many smaller groups following
specific persons/personalities might prove to a greater
degree that it was those who opposed Rutherford who
were self-centered and "arrogant," as high-profile disgruntled
ones 'drew off followers for themselves.' Two can
play the personal slam game as easily as one.
-mark.
X-racer
Mark Sornson wrote:
I don't give a dam about supplying you "proof" as it is becoming irrelevant to me.
If I'm just jabbing you with this stat, then I apologize.
The "ransom from adamic death for all" (not to be confused with "salvation to live
forever for all") is why I am leaving the WTS.
[snipped rest for brevity]
X-racer
Mark Sornson
>
> "Mark Sornson" <sor...@zk3.dec.com> wrote in message
> news:3CFFC7DE...@zk3.dec.com...
> > ResLight wrote:
> >
> >
> > Still, saying it was "a great number" suggests something
> > substantial, say, 25% or more. I'll admit that sometimes
> > I go by memory, too ... but I'd still like to see a
> > substantiating quote.
>
> I really don't want to spend a lot of time on this, as to me the actual
> number of those who remained in the earlier Bible Student doctrine is of
> little importance.
In the 'big picture' I agree that numbers are of
lesser importance.
However, there's a certain rhetorical impact to the
claim that more than 50% (up to 75%) broke away that
is being used to bolster arguments that Rutherford
was simply a bad guy through and through. Really it's
an ad hominem add-on ...
>
> As I said, I don't know of any way to substantiate the number by any
> accurate count, for nobody was counting. I have little doubt, however, that
> the greater number -- that is, more than 50% -- of the earlier Bible
> Students did indeed leave or were separated from the WTS in favor of staying
> by the earlier teachings concerning organization, Israel, and especially the
> ransom for all. etc. Despite the point in time and the point that caused the
> separation, these Bible Students were continuing to study Russell's writings
> (or studies that upheld the basic doctrines that Russell taught).
Not that I expect anything further on this, but I'd still
like to see even the 50% figure substantiated.
The reason why is this: Russell wasn't merely establishing a
body of doctrine that he assumed would, in its entirety,
stand forever without change, but instead was establishing a
method (and philosophy) of applied Bible study that had
change/correction/improvement as one of its essential
characteristics.
The Bible Student break-away groups
Mark Sornson
-m.