George88

Thanks Pudgy, we should all be a lot clearer. We should make it understood when "Rose Ball" was a foster child living with the Russell's and wore short child dresses perhaps up to the age of 12, and it would be speculative to suggest she wore short dresses before she got married and moved to Australia. Now, in modern times, we don't see a 12-year-old as a child, but a teenager. Was it the same mental state back then? I recall in western times, youth was considered much older than 16, and adults was much older than 21. So, we need to stick with the mental state of that era, not ours, regardless if it's agreeable or not.

Indeed, it is funny, when different statements are made, and you call my submission false. I guess I would have to call your submission false. I guess the only way to debunk something is if we were present. I guess this means you were there; glad to hear it. Personally, if one was at fault, then the other was at fault. In a marriage, there's no such thing as clean hands. Anyone suggesting is disingenuous. The point about Hennings is not who he is in line with, but the issues he had with Russell. Two distinct differences, where one has nothing to do with the other. If you were there, I'll take your word what kind of wardrobe she had even though in the era it might seem you have exaggerated the ware. You can say that, but it amounts to your opinion, and the fact that you weren't around for none of it, makes me believe you have exaggerated many aspects of Russells life. It's a shame you can have an intuitive discussion with "many" and be aggressive when someone disagrees with your distortions. Pity.

Seems to me, it's you people making a big deal out of the past, not me. So, I can defer the matter to that. As you stated many times, what's the purpose of airing out other people's lives, if it doesn't matter to you. What's the motive and end game? That's in their publication, so if it's false to you, then it's false by them. I however, believe what was stated, and your assertion is false. But that's something you need to take up with the bible students and accuse them of being false writers as you do with the Watchtower. That's the point of the Bible Students following the set pattern of devotion Russell started. I have no idea if they worship Russell or not, I'm not a member, but for what I see, they still use the volume set. If you know Bible Students and have a different experience, then that's your personal experience along with all your personal opinions. Always have and always will.

Rose Ball It is important to highlight that Mrs. Russell harbored ulterior motives and was not consistently honest in certain occasions. It is possible that she was deceived by E.C. Hennings, a hypocrite who began to disagree with Pastor Russell on various matters. Something we don't need to use Sultz's book to address. She did not get a divorce at all; the court merely made a decree of separation. A sympathetic jury concluded that we both would be happier legally separated. My wife's charge contained not a suggestion of immorality. It charged "cruelty." The evidence submitted to her attorneys seemed to them rather slim proofs of cruelty, and two sets of lawyers abandoned her case. The third set of attorneys "cooked" up some so-called evidence including the story about Rose Ball, then married and gone to Australia and who long years before was our foster child. Emily Matthews, the housemaid of twenty years ago, had also married. Hearing of the case she came to Court voluntarily to testify on my behalf. But before I could put her on the witness stand the Court had ruled that portion of my wife's testimony "out of court" and to be stricken off the Court records. My wife knew everything and never for one minute doubted my faithfulness as a husband. She merely sought revenge, because I did not accede to her "women's rights" notions. It is worth while noting at this point that Mrs. Russell at the trial gave every appearance of casting“Rose” as “the other woman,” and that it was the Pastor who pointed out that she was a child. Had Mrs. Russell intended to coconveyhat the Pastor had molested a child—which would have been a “bombshell” accusation—surely she would have testified to that effect in court. Mrs. Russell attempted to transform the fatherly affection and comfort given to a child, into illicit attention toward a woman. No accusation of child molestation ever surfaced in the Pastor’s own day; it is rather the product of newer fertile imaginations. Subsequent events seem to bear out the Pas tor’s side of his incident. Rose could not be called upon as a witness in the separation trial to give her own account because she was in Australia at the time. In the years following the original incident, she had grown up and eventually married E. C. Henninges, a close confidante of the Pastor who became branch manager of the Watch Tower work in Australia. But in 1909 the Henninges split from the Pas tor over a doctrinal issue and joined others in America to spearhead the “New Covenant” movement. An astute observer writes Undoubtedly, there are numerous negative aspects to consider when discussing the experiences of both individuals involved in a divorce or separation. These aspects, however, should not have been subject to public scrutiny. Unfortunately, due to Mrs. Russell's decision to make her situation public, this discussion became inevitable.

There are other motives at play here. One being disingenuous responses.

The divine code given to Moses can be interpreted by Rabbis in various ways throughout the centuries. While there is still speculation and conjecture surrounding this topic, it is important to consider different aspects. For instance, before the flood and during Noah's voyage in the Ark, there was a discussion about consuming carrion (carcasses), and referring to animals that had died naturally without any human involvement. It is unlikely that Noah would have engaged in such behavior, as he possessed a pre-flood understanding of God's intentions, which was much closer to God's timeline compared to those who offered opinions millennia later on the Noahide Code. Additionally, Noah was granted specific instructions regarding permissible meats, excluding those that defiled nature, such as scavenger birds. Similarly, Moses was given a unique understanding of God's will when it came to certain meats. Rabbi Moshe Weiner, Dr. Michael Schulman - The Divine Code The Guide to Observing the Noahide Code, Revealed from Mount Sinai in the Torah of Moses-AskNoah (2022) Sheva Mitzvot HaShem Seven Divine Commandments "Throughout most of post-Biblical history, the Noahide commandments could not be widely promoted, for the obvious reasons of the restraints of the Jewish exile, especially under the duress of the threats from non-Jewish religions who dominated the governments throughout the Diaspora. These circumstances made it difficult even to apply the comment of Rabbi Yomtov Lipman Heller that if we are ordained to promote observance of the Noahide Code, how much more so then to use friendly persuasion to lead the hearts of all to the Will of their Creator.[2] With few exceptions, this has led to “neglect” of this important aspect of Torah." Now, did Paul bend the laws in order for the gentiles to accept?

So, why is it relevant to mention that the person is a tycoon in the first place? From what I understand, she was present in court when the Judge made a ruling. Surprisingly, her statement was not permitted, despite your previous point. Nevertheless, the question remains: does any of this truly hold any significance? Critics often have varying perspectives when it comes to viewing events from the past. Personal opinions don't matter to me. The good thing is, all those things you mention here are in print, and people can decide, if one's opinions are slanderous on their own.

Who was president before Russell? Why does it matter who started the publishing company in its humble beginning that wanted to publish a view that wasn't inline with the rest of Christendom and at times within the "association" itself? The point should be, Christendom as a whole still hasn't gotten it right, and no amount of criticism about the Orgs operation won't change that fact. Therefore, when it came to honesty in a court of law, "Rose Ball" decided to exaggerate certain incidents in favor of Mrs. Russell, Bro. Russell criticized her for. Strike that, reverse it. Mrs. Ball wanted to help Brother Russell with certain allegations made by sister Russell about Rose Ball, but the court refused to allow it.

Are you referring to the editorial rights, or the operational (function) rights? I'm a little confused by the way you are framing your statement. Are you for the operations of the board and the editorial obligation Russell over sought?

The Watchtower cannot be blamed for the fiasco; rather, it was caused by eager individuals who misinterpreted the publications and overreacted unnecessarily.

I have listened to many talks and sermons on and off the mic from Bro Fred Franz. That was never my take in the matter other than the one I describe. When Bro Russell died, there was still a board, and the presidency was just a formality for legal reasons that was made in New York that wasn't present in Pennsylvania. I will agree he had the best insight on doctrinal matters enough for an institution to invite him to attend, and teach. Something he rejected outright. So, he would have been the strongest to interpret scripture in his day. I will also stipulate there were some wanting to not take the advice given by Bro Fred Franz concerning the 6000 years ending in 1975, that some took wrong enough that the Watchtower had to publish it in 1974 about those mistaken ideologies just like Russell had to in 1914. If you wish to use the term "fail" that's fine since we all "fail" in our daily lives.

It's worth noting that the governing body Fred Franz was criticizing was similar to the Sanhedrin, which existed in the first century. Scriptural evidence shows that this court had no interest in the teachings of Christ. Personally, I wouldn't want to be governed by such a body either, just like the Catholic Holy See.

Wherever God's people choose to worship, His spirit will follow. However, secular authorities might impose financial requirements regarding code compliance. I recommend you reread the police reports, and not the ARC assertion, if you have access to them. What makes this answer stand out from the ones you typically give? Imperfect individuals yearn for intellectual and civil conversations that not everyone manages to engage in.

Would it be more appropriate to construct synagogues or worship in tents to address your question? In my opinion, in a society governed by regulations, secular authorities would likely enforce codes and ordinances for the occupants to follow, but this is only my way of reasoning things out. The Elders actually have a list that covers a span of 65 years, documenting the actions of certain individuals, but not everyone. This is done while respecting the privacy laws of the respective governments. However, it is not accurate to claim that the Watchtower instructed anyone to keep this information to themselves. In fact, there was a situation in the Australian Royal Commission where at least one person, who was being investigated, insisted that secular authorities should not be contacted. Address that situation. This is incorrect as well. Secular laws were modified to accommodate the Australian Royal Commission (ARC). However, some territories in Australia still maintain clergy privileges that apply to "all" religions, not just a few. In matters of government, it's a matter of all or nothing, and the decision to protect the Vatican, just as the government did with "Pall", was made by Caesar, not the Watchtower. Why haven't you challenged the ARC's decision to overlook Australia's detention centers and the government's readiness to apprehend and imprison doctors, nurses, or any whistleblowers who expose concerns regarding these institutions? Back then, a law was specifically passed for that very purpose.

I would have to say Daneil Webster was referring to the type of leaders the pharisees were and the conduct the Pharisees thought was negative for them about Jesus. It proves how scripture should be compared when dealing with leaders, and that it doesn't lead to pharisee ideology by its church members. 3 “Therefore, brethren, select from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may put in charge of this task. 4 “But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” 5 The statement found approval with the whole congregation; and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas and Nicolas, a proselyte from Antioch. 6 And these they brought before the apostles; and after praying, they laid their hands on them. I will be surprised if that will ever be agreeable here.

You constantly highlight all the negative aspects of the Org, yet fail to acknowledge the significance. Secular laws are subject to change, and this necessitates that Elders receive guidance to support their decision-making.

Aaron's past actions, such as defying God by building the golden calf, should lead us to a logical conclusion: his response to Moses' action at the rock would likely have been predictable. Even if Aaron had known about Moses' split-second decision, I believe he would not have intervened, considering his history.

I remain skeptical as I am referring to your tendency to twist other people's words, a behavior that you sometimes exhibit with mine. The brotherhood, in general, exhibits a remarkable level of maturity and obedience. Contrary to your evaluation, their exemplary behavior stands as a strong argument for my disagreement. Here, it's a different story. This would seem just to be a personal opinion. It seems you are quick to criticize others for their spoken words, much like the critics of Christ. Your assumption is based on what you want to hear rather than considering the bigger picture. Take a moment to reflect on your own words and you will notice a striking similarity. Would it be fair for honest individuals to judge you based on your own words? As you rightly noted, the book serves as an invaluable guide for Elders to navigate various situations that may arise. It is crucial to acknowledge that Elders exercise discretion in matters concerning the congregation, as the Watchtower cannot possibly dictate every decision. After all, even imperfect human beings, like ourselves, make mistakes regularly. None of us can claim to be perfect in a flawless world. It is often those who are quick to criticize others that fail to recognize their own shortcomings. These individuals mistakenly assume their voice should hold authority, even though their understanding may lack wisdom and discernment. Who should we trust and strive to emulate: the Pharisees or Christ?

Come on! My friend had one, he went 3 days before he ended up having to push it. He had a truthful saying, "Yugo and fix it"[expletive], lol! I'm sure I would have failed in my mission since Jehovah himself most likely would have stopped me. But it would have been interesting for me to have tried. Somewhat like Peter, and I'm sure I would have obeyed Jesus had he given me the same command to put away the sword. This goes toward the question about Adam and Eve, and Aaron and Moses. Would have God seen a different outcome from man?

In a court of law, it is crucial to acknowledge that the term "blood transfusion" can also refer to fractionated blood. The responsibility of providing clarifications lies with the lawyers, but with the understanding of all parties involved. If an answer is provided without any need for clarification, it implies that no further action was required. The "Shepherd" book serves as a comprehensive guide, incorporating biblical principles to provide valuable insights for Elders. This distinctive aspect lies in its inclusion of practical scenarios, which can greatly assist Elders in their decision-making process. Likewise, numerous other publications by the Watchtower organization adopt a similar approach, making them accessible to individuals of all ages, be it men, women, or even children who possess a profound understanding and ability to discern scriptural truths.

I'm not entirely sure about your thoughts here, but it seems that you're suggesting that even if the Jews back then had read the scrolls themselves, they wouldn't have trusted Jesus. If that's the case, I agree with Pudgy's emoji response.

It sounded like part of that Tina Turner song. "Oh-oh, what's love got to do, got to do with it? What's love but a second-hand emotion? What's love got to do, got to do with it? Who needs a heart when a heart can be broken?" It's remarkable how certain individuals expect others to adhere to their beliefs. And you know what? It's absolutely valid. We must choose to follow the path of God rather than fall for deceitful personalities.

Do you believe, If people in Jesus' time had read the ancient scrolls, they would have undoubtedly realized that the Pharisees were engaging in dishonest practices, regardless of their literacy levels. Imagine the future. Despite the overwhelming evidence that demonstrates Trump's racism, dishonesty, deceit, and manipulative nature, do you think there will come a point when MAGA supporters will open their eyes and see the truth about him as it is consistently revealed to them in the media? Why do apostates refer to the Shepard book as a "secret book" when it is simply a manual for Elders? What is the basis of their belief? If the instructional manual is based on scripture, then it would be appropriate to refer students to the Bible when they have questions. It becomes the responsibility of the "teacher" to guide the students in comprehending and applying scripture to their everyday lives.

Misinterpreting scripture and articles is not nonsensical, it is a factual error. Many individuals, including you, have proven this by consistently misrepresenting information. Thus, the fallacy resides in the failure to comprehend the true essence of "biblical context" as understood by the vast majority of intellectually engaged individuals. This claim is completely unfounded. The book by Shepard that you are misinterpreting actually provides guidance that extends beyond legal implications, specifically addressing individuals who are compelled to accept blood transfusions. It focuses specifically on "whole blood" and its fundamental four components, rather than fragmented blood.

If you and others currently fail to comprehend it clearly, why do you believe that you and those individuals will grasp it any better? It seems that you will always find a way to criticize something, similar to how the Pharisees did, regardless of how it is presented. So, you think the Governing Body should be so "perfect" that apostates constantly bring it up? Do you believe the apostles were flawless? Therefore, in what context is the Governing Body making that declaration according to the perspective of someone who has been excommunicated or a person who lacks bible understanding and is cynical.