JW Insider

Well, I now have Shaw's book, the whole thing. It is densely packed. It will take a while to wade through completely, and I'd like to complete it by next week, but I'm not sure I'll even start before then. I would like to complete Meyer's work first, now that I read about a third of it. And I'm constantly find intriguing little side-routes along the way, or things that just come to mind: The most recent sidetrack was a dissertation I just read about the "acrostic" divine name, YHWH, in the book of Esther. I have always wondered what the most complete surveys of the evidence would say about it, and I think my suspicions are now confirmed after reading a good scholarly treatment of that subject last night. The night before it was trying to figure out how early that Christian writers were treating the name Jesus as a divine name. Some of Chester Beatty's mss that could potentially be dated to the second century CE (although this is likely too early) even have the name JOSHUA in the OT turned into a "divine name" based, it is assumed, on the proximity to the name JESUS. The night before that it was reading some things Philo said that I had never read before. The night before that it was reading some things I probably read before in Josephus, but didn't remember. etc. As an amateur, so many of these points are new to me, and I therefore get sidetracked more than most, I'd guess. I'm not a steady reader who can stay on topic. But one of the advantages of being an amateur is the special joy you get when you are about to read someone's treatise on a topic that you know very little about, and you guess the outcome in advance. I'm constantly second-guessing authors with the idea that "I bet I'm going to find . . . this or that." When you guess them right, it's probably the same kind of joy my grandmother would get when she completed a difficult crossword or jig-saw puzzle.

Thanks. For those with JSTOR access through a university or library, it's also here: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3265328

@indagator Thanks again. I have not read that much of Shaw directly yet, but I have read all the reviews I could get and sizable portions of other books that quote him, and his own reviews of others (Wilkinson). (I have access to the complete "Philo of Alexandria: An Annotated Bibliography" book, by the way, Hurtado's "Early Christian Artifacts," articles by Tov, etc.) But right now I'm in the middle of reading https://macsphere.mcmaster.ca/bitstream/11375/22823/2/meyer_anthony_r_finalsubmission2017october_phd.pdf It's not even a year old yet (in this final submission). As I just mentioned under a similar topic, I find it to be a comprehensive review of all the relevant evidence. (Shaw finds relevance in ALL the references to the Greek IAO, of course, meaning that Shaw treats even apparently non-relevant esoteric evidence as relevant.) Meyer only references Shaw's more esoteric evidence, but barely needs it. I like the way Meyer avoids jumping to any conclusions about the evidence, but as good scholars do, very even-handedly presents it, and presents what others have said about it, and pushes no particular agenda that I can see so far. In fact, he allows the evidence itself to weaken the more direct assumptions that others have made, especially about the timeline from Tetragrammaton to Kyrios. Both of the authors seem to agree that the evidence favors the Greek "IAO" in the earliest LXX examples, before any Hebrew-styled Tetragrammatons were used in the [Greek] LXX.

Found an excellent and very comprehensive review of the evidence on the topic. It's only 357 pages, too: https://macsphere.mcmaster.ca/bitstream/11375/22823/2/meyer_anthony_r_finalsubmission2017october_phd.pdf

And again when they told me that Isaiah 11:8 wasn't literal. Grown-ups always trying to take away our fun. Whaaaaaaaah!

For the record (perhaps even one of Guiness' records) I personally caught about 300 snakes from the time I was about 8 to the time I was about 12. When I was 8 I even brought one to the Kingdom Hall, sort of. I actually had to bring it only to the parking lot to show one of my friends, and then I let it go. (The Hall was on city property, but there was an old abandoned sawmill behind it, and no houses for a couple miles in that direction.) I still got in a lot of trouble. I was only bitten a very few times unexpectedly, once by a fox snake and once or twice by a northern water snake. In catching snakes I expected to be bitten so that doesn't count. Never even tried to catch a venomous one, although water moccasins and copperheads were fairly common. I never saw a rattlesnake except from a good distance. My goal was to catch and release about one of every major species from my "Golden Nature Book" checklist. A really big snake is grabbed with a special stick, but most snakes could be grabbed by hand just behind the head/neck. Such great memories! I visited my sister a couple months ago out at my parents' house in California and we found a 9 to 10 foot gopher snake on the property. He was just out getting a tan so we even got a nice picture of him. My sister remembered that I once (in Missouri) brought home a medium sized green snake (called a "rough green") that I caught and wanted to bring up to the roof of our house where I had a little terrarium for small snakes. She remembers our mother calling out "Don't you bring that snake to the roof!!" while we were still quite a ways from the house. There was no way that our mother could hear us or see us, or know that we had a snake. For years, my sister thought that mothers were psychic.

[over a dozen examples] Oh yes . . . that, too.

I agree, and I also agree that a few of the poster's other comments have given me the impression that JWs are being selectively chosen as if they are uniquely afflicted with certain problems. But for this particular question, it struck me as one that took a completely different tack: It was almost like saying, hey we know that all kinds of groups are troubled by such crimes, but there is one group that has claimed a lot of examples of angelic protection, especially while engaged in the ministry to outsiders. So why is it that individuals are almost certainly NOT being protected from a problem that can occur right within the congregation itself. I don't think anyone is arguing for an Ananias and Sapphira style judgment. (Although I'd like to see at least certain parts of such criminals deadened by the holy spirit.) To me, the question reminded me of the claims by some snake-handling sects who might be protected from venomous snakes and scorpions (Luke 10:19; Mark 16:18, NWT 1984): (Mark 16:18) 18 and with their hands they will pick up serpents, and if they drink anything deadly it will not hurt them at all. Persons from these sects, will often proudly show off their snake-handling skills, but they will not be nearly so likely to show off their ability to digest arsenic. If persons from these sects were loudly proclaiming the protection (from snakes) by angelic forces or holy spirit, then It would be a perfectly legitimate question to point out the number of persons from these sects who might have died by poison or even alcohol abuse. The question would have nothing whatsoever to do with how many other sects were afflicted by deaths from poison or alcohol abuse.

@Jack Ryan might have a lot of issues, or these might not even be his own issues. At any rate, this particular question is a good one, in my opinion. (And @Gone Away it doesn't really matter if he should expand it to include all persons who get hurt from all types of crimes and injustices. He has started with a specific, narrow example and this should help us to focus on the point of the question.) Back to what you were saying that I requoted, @Space Merchant: In this case, J.Ryan is not treating pedophilia and child sexual abuse as if it were just a JW-only thing. In fact, the nature of the question very clearly shows that he is questioning why we are quick to imply that angels have often run interference for JWs who are in the midst of the preaching work. He is right that we have shown images of angels in protective mode and guiding mode as they watch over the preaching work. I know of several of the images he is referring to. There have been dozens of examples of experiences printed in yearbooks, Watchtowers, and from the convention platform that thank Jehovah for specific cases of angelic protection in the face of all kinds of dangers. Most of these more recent articles about angels, with one exception, no longer depict a ghostly angel hovering over the door-to-door work, although one recent one, below, indicates that they are "over" the cart-witnessing work. Most of the more recent articles show several examples of angels in Biblical times then show the preaching work, but without the depiction of the angel in modern times. Still, the wording that goes along with the pictures is telling: Watchtower, 5/15/2009 p.23 and 24 When viewed alongside the recent pictures that try to give us a sense of the hundreds of millions of such angels standing at the ready it really does, and really should, make us wonder about specific activities that angels are handling in modern times. Did those angels in the Yearbook experiences really make a person miss when they shot bullets at point blank range during times of war and persecution in modern times? Did angels make a person of the right heart condition glance over at a cart? Or was it the receptive heart condition that caused them to glance? Did an angel send a Witness to the door exactly when the householder finished praying for guidance in their search? Other religions have told of the same experiences. What makes our claims different? These questions will also touch on why Jehovah permits wickedness, and why someone's prayer might be answered when another one's is not. It may also touch on human nature. When almost everyone except an especially photogenic young child is saved from an explosion, a burning building or a crashed train or airplane, we will often hear the media interviewing people who say that God must have had a special purpose for that child. We will hear about how wonderful God is in sending an angel to swoop down and save this one or that one. We will not hear about the injustice and loss to the others who died. At any rate, not that anyone has a complete answer, but this is still a good question. Angels help declare the good news throughout the earth -- Watchtower's caption, https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2017169

I suspect you reversed this convention.

POPE FRANCIS TRIES HIS HAND AT TECHNOLOGY PREDICTIONS A paper from the local Vatican press office, http://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino.html , L'OSSERVATORE ROMANO, has reported on a speech that Pope Francis gave last month while looking out from above Vatican Square and addressing a crowd of visitors below. Most of the speech was intended as spiritual encouragement in a changing world. I'll only attempt to quote a very small portion of the article that deals with a specific technical prediction: Looking out over a crowd of persons, mostly tourists in Vatican Square, Pope Francis was no doubt responding to the sea of smartphones aimed up at him. To the delight of the crowd, his apparently unscripted speech veered into the arena of technical forecasting, and he made an astounding prediction. He began by saying that it was now hard to imagine that so many past generations lived without ever seeing the many inventions that we now take for granted. He said that the current generation has seen a lot of changes in their lifetimes, too, but that the younger generation has already grown up on iPods, iPads and iPhones, and that they take these things for granted to such an extent that they will not be surprised in the least if they find themselves getting from town to town in self-flying cars long before their own generation passes away. This is where the Pope, evidently paying some homage to the Olivet sermon, added: "But truly I tell you that this generation will not pass away before self-flying cars will be taking us from one town to another, and even from one part of town to another." The above sermon never happened (as far as I know) which is why I put this in "controversial posts." It's fake news. I know it is fake because I just made it all up myself 2 minutes ago. I made it up because we just don't talk enough about the meaning of the term "this generation," as found in Matthew 24:34, Mark 13:30 and Luke 21:32. I use the example because it addresses the fact that generations overlap. Even in Jesus' day, let's say that the average person lived to be 65 years old and the average person got married and had a son at age 25. And if that son grew up the same, and his son grew up the same, etc., then any person hearing Jesus would, on average, be alive for a few years while their grandparents were still alive, and their first 40 years while their own father was still alive, and their last 40 years while their son was still alive, and their last 15 years while their grandson was still alive. For most of their life there would be 3 overlapping generations. The length of time between each new generation was about 25 years, using this example. Yet, it's also obvious that when Jesus said "this generation" that he didn't need to be addressing only the youngest generation that was just then coming up. He was more likely addressing the entire group of all overlapping generations and treating them as if they were one group of people who would not completely die out before they saw "these things occur." (Remember that the original question was "When will these things occur?" (Referring to the destruction of Jerusalem's temple when not a stone will be left upon a stone.) It occured 37 years later, so that even a 50+ year old grandparent might live to see it, and even a 25+ year old father would very likely live to see it, and his children in the very youngest generation would almost all live to see it. So we can easily see that Jesus was more likely referring to all these overlapping generations as contemporaries. Meaning, all these people who were then alive at the same time. So the question might come up: Could Jesus have been addressing people who had not been born yet? There would be people born over the next 37 years who would also see the destruction of the Temple ("these things") occur. That would be natural. But is that who Jesus was addressing, or was he addressing all the people alive (contemporaries) in the audience? Scripture becomes very flexible when we need it to mean something that it never meant, but we are less forgiving when it comes to contemporary humans who claim they meant something when they said something else. For example, what would we think if 50 years from now, people still weren't seeing these flying cars, and supporters of the Pope starting claiming that he didn't mean his own generation, or the generation of parents, but he meant only the youngest generation of children, the ones who were just then growing up on their iPads and iPhones? That's clearly not what he meant, but we'll accept the possible interpretation as not too far off. But what if 100 years from the time of the speech, even that younger generation had died off? Now the only possible way that the Pope could be right is for people to defend him by saying that the Pope meant that these things would be seen by people who had not yet been born at the time of the "speech." He meant that as the people died out and didn't yet see it, that they would overlap with a new group of people, born as many as 80 or 90 years after the speech, whose lives might have just barely overlapped with those who had actually heard the speech in Vatican Square. They would start to claim that this is the real meaning of the term "this generation." At this point we would probably think that those defenders of the Pope were just lying.

The video with the Sahidic Coptic text of John 1:1 caught my attention. I've used this in discussions of Trinity as evidence that the NWT has found a fair (but literal) translation of the verse. I wondered what scholars have said about it lately and found a very accessible page about it here: http://www.equip.org/article/jehovahs-witnesses-john-11-new-evidence-advances-discussion/ The overall intent of the write-up is to dismiss the NWT. But it is illuminating in that the writer has so much trouble finding other Coptic evidence that might apply. He twice advances the possibility that this 2nd to 4th century manuscript might actually be from a different perspective than that of the Nicene creed. In other words, non-Trinitarian. But after considering as much relevant evidence as deemed necessary, the writer concludes something which is exactly in line with our own understanding of the verse. Likewise, I am aware of this new evidence, and have weighed the various options. At the end of the day, I believe the best explanation of all three occurrences of the indefinite article in the Sahidic Coptic version of the New Testament is the qualitative one. Therefore, John 1:1c should read: ‘and the Word [Jesus] possesses the same qualities as God.’ This scholarly supported category contextually fits other, grammatically similar passages and best corresponds with what is attested elsewhere—scripturally and historically. The writer thinks it is so important to get rid of the very literal translation "a god" that he doesn't seem to realize that he has actually found agreement with our own position about the verse in that it means "a god" (or even "a God") in the sense of having the same divine qualities as God. This of course fits the context, the rest of the book of John, and helps explain what have seemed to be other difficult passages in Trinity discussions.

I was reading up on the Russian Orthodox Church and noticed that they have an unusually high number of books (apparently) which defend the idea that the "Church" must have more mystery. Both these articles you linked tend to want to make the relationship of God to Christ [and the holy spirit] a "mystery." The first guy says it's a mystery so we shouldn't have tried to make up stuff about it. The Trinity defender says it's a mystery and that's why we should keep using the terms as they have developed over the last couple millennia about the Trinity. For thousands of years, I suppose that priests (including the "academic priesthood") have discovered that even so-called knowledge is power.

Very funny. Even though I already saw this over on your site.

Hey! I wasn't the one doing the "lifting." ?

Yup.

I must admit my confusion at the two different writing styles. Turns out that almost the entire post was a verbatim copy from the FoxNews article from the start, right up until the sentence just requoted (without attribution, I might add). [ http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/07/27/water-on-mars-does-sciences-theory-about-origin-life-hold-up.html ] Then you threw in a couple paragraphs just before the end from The Onion, of all places, before finishing with Michael Guillen's last sentence again: With every passing year in our search for extraterrestrial water and life, we are getting closer to finding, if not outright proof, then a resolution to Clark’s assertion. Is intelligence ultimately a blessing or a curse? Surely, the answer will make for the biggest headline of all. Michael Guillen Ph.D., former Emmy-winning ABC News Science Editor, taught physics at Harvard and is now president of Spectacular Science Productions. His thriller, "The Null Prophecy," was released in July, 2017. His upcoming book, "The End Of Life As We Know It: Ominous News From The Frontiers Of Science," is coming out October 16th. The Onion article was where all this paragraph started: Shortly following a transmission sent by the Mars Express spacecraft verifying that its instruments had detected a subglacial lake a mile below the planet’s surface, the European Space Agency confirmed Thursday that the orbiter’s surface-penetrating radar had disturbed the eternal and unspeakable dreaming of an aeons-old, world-ravaging malevolence, waking it from its 500-million-year slumber in the underground Martian reservoir. etc. etc. [ https://www.theonion.com/world-eating-leviathan-awoken-from-500-million-year-slu-1827928509 ]

Agreed.

There are plenty of ways that elders and sisters and children in the congregation can "take the lead." Those with specific responsibilities should take the lead in the conduct necessary to meet those responsibilities. In Romans, the entire congregation, children included, are asked to take the lead: (Romans 12:10) 10 In brotherly love have tender affection for one another. In showing honor to one another, take the lead. This is not specifically an extension of the role of older men. This is also about how the apostles would take the lead in honoring a sister, or a sister would take the lead in honoring an apostle. Or a young child would honor their parents, or the parents would honor the child. The honor goes to one another, so it is obviously based on respect for the dignity of each one of us, based on Christian conduct and love. We should be willing to die for one another if necessary. (Luke 22:25-27) 25 But he said to them: “The kings of the nations lord it over them, and those having authority over them are called Benefactors. 26 You, though, are not to be that way. But let the one who is the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the one taking the lead as the one ministering. 27 For which one is greater, the one dining or the one serving? Is it not the one dining? But I am among you as the one serving. On the issue of the submission mentioned in Hebrews 13:17, note that the NWT crosses this to Ephesians 5:21 where, again, we are to be submissive to one another. There is an order with respect to responsibilities, but wives are honored in that the husband should have the attitude and willingness to give up his life for his wife, just as Christ had that much love for the congregation. (Ephesians 5:21-26) 21 Be in subjection to one another in fear of Christ. 22 Let wives be in subjection to their husbands as to the Lord, 23 because a husband is head of his wife just as the Christ is head of the congregation, he being a savior of this body. 24 In fact, as the congregation is in subjection to the Christ, wives should also be to their husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, continue loving your wives, just as the Christ also loved the congregation and gave himself up for it. The idea of Hebrews 13:17 is probably better linked to 1 Th 5:12, about showing respect (honor) for those doing the work required to preside and teach and admonish. Still, this is all in the context of people doing their part in serving others based on their gifts and abilities. Those older men, especially, who teach must work harder to prepare material that meets the needs of the congregation. They are watching the congregation as a good shepherd would for areas of weakness and danger and areas where more encouragement and good examples are needed. Since they are working to meet the needs of the congregation, the congregation would do well to be obedient and submissive, as this is directly related to the upbuilding and encouragement of both the overseers and those who are being watched. Humbly following good admonition brings joy to those doing shepherding work and brings joy to those following the admonition. It's another form of mutual encouragement that helps to build up the congregation. (1 Thessalonians 5:11-15) 11 Therefore, keep encouraging one another and building one another up, just as you are in fact doing. 12 Now we request you, brothers, to show respect for those who are working hard among you and presiding over you in the Lord and admonishing you; 13 and to give them extraordinary consideration in love because of their work. Be peaceable with one another. 14 On the other hand, we urge you, brothers, to warn the disorderly, speak consolingly to those who are depressed, support the weak, be patient toward all. 15 See that no one repays injury for injury to anyone, but always pursue what is good toward one another and to all others

Yes. That is how humans are. That is how nations are. That is how the world is. But that is not the way among Christians. (Matthew 20:24-27) 24 When the ten others heard of this, they became indignant at the two brothers. 25 But Jesus, calling them to him, said: “YOU know that the rulers of the nations lord it over them and the great men wield authority over them. 26 This is not the way among YOU; but whoever wants to become great among YOU must be YOUR minister, 27 and whoever wants to be first among YOU must be YOUR slave. Hebrews 13 gives us the right view of leadership in the same context, and in the chapters leading up to this verse. In context, we are submissive in that we look to follow good examples of older men and others who have remained faithful and have continued to show brotherly love (13:1), continued to show hospitality (13:2), visited those in prison and those who have been mistreated (13:3), continued to keep their marriages honorable (13:4), continue to lead a life free of the love of money putting faith in Jehovah instead (13:5,6). Therefore, as we are looking for examples to follow so that our own lives can turn out just as honorably, we look to those who came before us, those who have taught us about such things, and those in the congregation who are right there in front of us to find such faithful examples: (Hebrews 13:7) Remember those who are taking the lead among you, who have spoken the word of God to you, and as you contemplate how their conduct turns out, imitate their faith. The main reason we meet together is in order to look for and hear from such encouraging examples of fine conduct and good works: (Hebrews 10:24-25) 24 And let us consider [fn: 'pay attention to'] one another so as to incite to love and fine works, 25 not forsaking our meeting together, as some have the custom, but encouraging one another, . . . Those who are taking the lead, then, are the ones we see regularly giving their time to those who have been mistreated, those setting a good example when it comes to a non-materialistic lifestyle, morality, hospitality, etc. We look for such persons as we meet together, and as our own faith and conduct turns out, others will be looking to us for the same kind of encouragement, so that we are encouraging one another to love and fine works. But we are not to look to the example of Israel, and their human kings and priests, as an example to go back to. People often bring up Moses (and sometimes Aaron) and how their leadership was not to be questioned, as a good example for our day, which completely misses the point about the leadership of Christ. Persons who question the Governing Body for example are quickly reminded of Korah, Dathan and Abiram. But that doesn't mean that anyone who sets themselves up in the seat of Moses today shouldn't be questioned. It can mean the opposite, because we should question the very fact of any group of humans sets themselves up in a leadership position like that of Moses. (Hebrews 3:1-6) . . .consider the apostle and high priest whom we acknowledge—Jesus. 2 He was faithful to the One who appointed him, just as Moses also was in all the house of that One. 3 For he is counted worthy of more glory than Moses, since the one who constructs a house has more honor than the house itself. 4 Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God. 5 Now Moses was faithful as an attendant in all the house of that One as a testimony of the things that were to be spoken afterward, 6 but Christ was faithful as a son over God’s house. We are His house if, indeed, we hold on firmly to our freeness of speech and the hope of which we boast down to the end. None of us are to be faithful to anyone in the house, because, at most, we are the house. But Jesus is the only one who is over the house. Anyone who claims to be a special attendant in God's household of faith today should be questioned. They are trying to "lord it over" others in the same household. Anyone who believes that their form of Christianity requires such a hierarchy to create an "ark of salvation" must watch out that they are not being like Korah if they in any way try to share the leadership of Jesus Christ, or attempt to mediate the salvation of that household. (Hebrews 8:7-13) 7 If that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no need for a second. . . . 10 “‘For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days,’ says Jehovah. ‘I will put my laws in their mind, and in their hearts I will write them. And I will become their God, and they will become my people. 11 “‘And they will no longer teach each one his fellow citizen and each one his brother, saying: “Know Jehovah!” For they will all know me, from the least to the greatest of them. 12 For I will be merciful toward their unrighteous deeds, and I will no longer call their sins to mind.’” 13 In his saying “a new covenant,” he has made the former one obsolete. Now what is obsolete and growing old is near to vanishing away.

Yes. Some. Not so much the somewhat innocent involvement with such things, but the promotion of them in the service of religion. I was reading a "Modern Living" type magazine from the 1930's yesterday and couldn't help but notice how much like the "Golden Age" that it was, except that the Golden Age backed up its quackery with religious ideology. That's where it's more cringe-worthy.

Not so much that, but something related to it. (And I'm not actually that concerned about any modern-day play on the idea that "messenger"="angel", although some Bible Students actually started up Angelophone (Angelico) Records as a way to promote Russell's sermons in combination with religious hymns.) The orange "book-study" book named "Let Your Name Be Sanctified" changed the prophetic fulfillment of the Elijah-Elisha mantle transfer to the transfer between Rutherford's presidency and Knorr's presidency. Previously, it was explained that this part of the Bible had really been prophesying the transfer from Russell's presidency to Rutherford's presidency. (Rutherford himself had NOT tried to focus this fulfillment just on himself personally, but focused more on the work of the "Society" beginning especially in 1918 and 1919. He would have focused on 1916/1917, I think, if he thought this was about him personally.) Although it was easy to see that the "ns" book's focus was on the presidents themselves, technically the wording of the doctrine also vaguely included those anointed associates of Rutherford and Knorr, too. But it was a moot point because all the quotes and references were almost all about Rutherford the individual and Knorr the individual. So it was a distinction without a distinction. Of course, the Society (in 2014) dropped the so-called "prophetic narrative" teachings, and 1942 is no longer significant prophetically. But we still look back especially to just one particular name from pre-1914, that of C.T.Russell, and his associates. And, yes, it results in looking back at Russell as the "Leader" during this time period. To me, this detracts us from seeing Jesus as the only Leader during this time period (and all time periods from his earthly life, his resurrection, and his presence with us until the conclusion of the system of things). Yes, Jesus was able to use and bless the efforts of another sinful human. I'm not at all concerned about the very minor danger that some might be confused if Russell's reputation becomes tarnished whenever some of his more hidden episodes are revealed. In my opinion, the scope creep that is much more dangerous to true Christians is that it legitimizes a similar view that tells us we should elevate to a kind of rulership, or at least "governorship," a small group of sinful humans in our day. It tends to make us want to put our trust in nobles, in whom no salvation belongs. It tends to make us forget that we should let God be found true, though every man be found a liar.

I figure that when C.T.Russell had read George Storrs' phrenological report from 1849, published in his "Six Sermons" in 1855, that Russell just had to have one, too. Some phrenology was used to prove that criminals were born that way and that there should be no death penalty, but most White men who were would-be promoters of their ideas would go to these racists, I mean, phrenologists, to help prove to the public how smart they were. George Storrs report concluded the following about him: A Phrenological description of Mr. Storrs, given in 1849, may conclude this account of the author of the Six Sermons. It is as follows:— Mr. Storrs' physical and mental constitution is durable; he has considerable force and energy of character, with fortitude,firmness and perseverance. He thinks for himself, but is open to conviction; will not be forced, but may be persuaded.He is naturally confiding, but experience may have, to a considerable extent, corrected this predisposition to believe, confide in, or give credence to. He is a man of enlarged views, liberal sentiment, and a benevolent disposition. His object is truth, and this he strives to obtain, no matter at what sacrifice. He consults duty before expediency; and would sooner stand alone with truth, than go with the multitude and be in error; yet, he is not dogmatical in the advocacy of what he conceives to be the truth, but is rather persuasive, conciliatory and argumentative. He is a warm friend, a good companion, and an excellent counsellor. He takes comprehensive views of things, examines both sides of all questions of a scriptural character, and decides according to the weight of evidence. - While he uncompromisingly advocates what he believes to be truth, in opposition to this and past ages, he does not sit in judgment on his opponents, but leaves them in the hands of God, to whom they must give account, and unto whom they stand or fall. How convenient, that bumps on one's head could reveal just how good someone was at interpreting scripture. If phrenologists were such good judges of such things, one wonders why we didn't just make sure that the best religions were started by phrenologists themselves. Russell, in 1913, wrote in the March 15 Watch Tower: The Scriptures say that no man can come unto Christ except the Father draw him. (John 6:44.) The answer is that the drawing cannot be done through the Holy Spirit; for the world has not yet received that Spirit. The drawing power which the Almighty exercises over humanity is in different degrees. Some have a strong desire to worship God, others have a weak desire, and others have no desire at all. This difference is due to the shape of the brain. Mankind are born with differences in this respect.--Psa. 51:5. Beliefs like this must have informed some of the more racist statements found in early Watch Tower publications. The July 15, 1907 Watch Tower included some interesting conclusions correlating the phrenology map with the layout of the Tabernacle: Without claiming that Phrenology has reached a perfection of development--without claiming that any has learned to read accurately from the shape of the human skull the various traits of character therein represented, even while admitting that such a reading of character might be defective, and particularly so with those whose characters have been transformed by the renewing of their mind through the begettal of the holy Spirit--nevertheless we may admit that Phrenology so far as understood fully corroborates the picture given us in the arrangement of the Tabernacle of Israel surrounded by the camp. Thus:-- If we imagine the human skull as spread out flat, we find that the central part would correspond to the Tabernacle and its court; for in the very center of the head on top lies spirituality, and directly in front of it lies veneration. The latter organ would correspond well to the court, the former to the holy. As to enter the holies it was necessary to pass through the court, so to enter into a proper heart-appreciation of the spiritual things it is necessary that we enter in through veneration, reverence for God, which will lead us to worship him and to seek to know and to do his will. Surrounding these two central organs are others which correspond well to the different divisions of the tribe of Levi--the sacred tribe devoted to the service of God in the court and in the Tabernacle. These organs represent faith, hope, benevolence, conscientiousness, firmness, etc., and then outside of these again come the various organs of the mind, which have to do more particularly with earthly things. These, useful and valuable in themselves, all need to be controlled and guided from the center. Even as in the camp of Israel, the center, the Tabernacle, was not controlled by the tribes, but the tribes were controlled and guided from the Tabernacle. Thus all the talents and qualities of mind and body which we possess, and which are all represented in our brains, are all to be subject to and guided by our reverence for God and our spiritual perception of his will concerning us, which will is to be expressed primarily through the intermediary organs of benevolence, faith, hope, conscience, etc. It's ironic that the primary reason people like Russell went to phrenologists was to get their ego boosted, or for self-promotional reasons. At Russell's trial with his wife, he lost his case primarily because the judge agreed with Maria Russell that he had often acted with excessively arrogance. C.T.Russell's defense included the fact that he had seen two phrenologists, and both assured him that "he was deficient in self-esteem." So there! (See Pennsylvania Superior Court Reports, Vol. 37, p. 351)

We had a fairly recent Watchtower Study and a very recent Congregation Bible Study where it was claimed that Russell and his movement represented the larger fulfillment of the messenger [Gk. "angel"] of Malachi 3:1-4: *** ws13 7/15 pp. 10-11 “Look! I Am With You All the Days” *** A MESSENGER ‘CLEARS UP A WAY’ 5 Long before Jesus gave the illustration of the wheat and the weeds, Jehovah inspired Malachi to foretell some of the same events. (Read Malachi 3:1-4.) John the Baptizer was the ‘messenger who cleared up the way.’ (Matthew 11:10, 11) The nation of Israel would be judged soon after John’s arrival in the year 29. Jesus was the second messenger mentioned in Malachi’s prophecy. He cleansed the temple in Jerusalem twice. The first time was at the start of his ministry, and the second was at the end of his ministry. (Matthew 21:12, 13; John 2:14-17) So the cleansing of that temple happened over a period of time. 6 What is the larger fulfillment of Malachi’s prophecy? For many years before 1914, C. T. Russell and the brothers working with him did a work like that of John the Baptizer. Russell and unnamed associates are the LARGER fulfillment of Malachi, whereas John the Baptizer was therefore the SMALLER fulfillment when he cleared up the way for Jesus. *** kr chap. 2 p. 14 pars. 5-6 The Kingdom Is Born in Heaven *** Who, though, was the other “messenger,” the first one mentioned at Malachi 3:1? This prophetic figure would be on the scene well before the Messianic King’s presence. In the decades before 1914, did anyone “clear up a way” before the Messianic King? 6 Throughout this publication, we will find answers to such questions in the thrilling history of Jehovah’s modern-day people. This history shows that in the latter part of the 19th century, one small group of faithful people was emerging as the only body of genuine Christians in a vast field of imitations. That group came to be known as the Bible Students. Those taking the lead among them—Charles T. Russell and his close associates—did, indeed, act as the foretold “messenger,” giving spiritual direction to God’s people and preparing them for the events ahead. Let us consider four ways in which the “messenger” did so.