JW Insider

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.

That sentence might have just pinpointed the issue. Russell collected a body of teachings and promoted them with faith and vigor and a sense of urgency. Jehovah doesn't forget his work and the love he showed for him. Neither should we. (Hebrews 6:10) For God is not unrighteous so as to forget your work and the love you showed for his name by ministering and continuing to minister to the holy ones. But we should not be trying to defend him as a person in such a way that we rationalize the false teachings. For most of my life I fell into the same trap of saying, yes he was wrong on this or that, but we can ignore it because of the greater good he did. I had to wonder why I am defending him as a person. He may or may not have been a good person, we can't judge. I believe that in the main he was a very good person. And when I had read through the old Watch Tower magazines, I realized that the majority of his work was still quite useful and valuable for Christians and would-be Christians. (As opposed to "The Finished Mystery" aka "The Seventh Volume," for example, for which the great majority of it is worthless and false.) But we are not supposed to concern ourselves with Russell as a person, or defend him as if he were some kind of canonized saint. We should be concerned with the truth and "wholesomeness" of the teachings that we have basically inherited from the body of teachings he collected. (1 Timothy 1:10) .and whatever other thing is in opposition to the healthful teaching (1 Timothy 1:5-7) 5 Really, the objective of this instruction is love out of a clean heart and out of a good conscience and out of faith without hypocrisy. 6 By deviating from these things, some have been turned aside to meaningless talk. 7 They want to be teachers of law, but they do not understand either the things they are saying or the things they insist on so strongly. One of the great problems, in my opinion, of course, is that when Bible Students and Watch Tower readers heard what Russell taught and thought, they might think: Russell might have many things wrong but who is to say? For example(s): Russell copied and expanded upon some embarrassingly false beliefs about the value of the Great Pyramid to our faith. Russell copied and expanded upon some embarrassingly false beliefs about the times and seasons (eschatology), and built up a whole doctrine around a debate over words like "parousia" that had come up as a means to avoid admitting the complete failure of a false prophecy. Now we may still agree with some of these teachings, but some of them were clearly wrong, and many Bible Students apparently accepted them without question: He might be wrong, but who is to say? But Jesus, in Revelation 2-3 had said that it was up to each of us to say: individual Christians and Christian congregations. Just as Paul said that even if it were apostles or angels who declared something not in line with the truth they had learned, THEY, as individuals were responsible to reject the teachings even of those who were called and seen as apostles. (2 Corinthians 11:5) 5 For I consider that I have not proved inferior to your superfine apostles in a single thing. (Galatians 1:8 ) However, even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to you as good news something beyond the good news we declared to you, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:17) 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before I was,. . . (Galatians 2:5, 6) 5 we did not yield in submission to them, no, not for a moment, so that the truth of the good news might continue with you. 6 But regarding those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me, for God does not go by a man’s outward appearance—those highly regarded men imparted nothing new to me. (Revelation 2:2) . . .put to the test those who say they are apostles,. . . When Paul said: "O senseless Ga·laʹtians! Who has brought you under this evil influence . . .?" (Galatians 3:1) he knew it included some of the 12 original apostles of Jesus himself, or what we might call the "Governing Body" at Jerusalem. The Galatians were so enamored by their position and how they were so highly regarded, that Paul needed to remind them that even if it were an angel out of heaven, they shouldn't listen. Did Paul mean that everything that came out of Jerusalem and the teaching of the apostles was "evil"? Of course not! He just used it as an example to prove that they should have been more responsible to pick and choose as mature persons: (Hebrews 5:12-14) 12 For although by now you should be teachers, you again need someone to teach you from the beginning the elementary things of the sacred pronouncements of God, and you have gone back to needing milk, not solid food. 13 For everyone who continues to feed on milk is unacquainted with the word of righteousness, for he is a young child. 14 But solid food belongs to mature people, to those who through use have their powers of discernment trained to distinguish both right and wrong. Today, we have the same issue. The "Governing Body" provides us with a wealth of valuable and nourishing spiritual food. They admit that they aren't inspired and that might even be wrong on some doctrines. But we generally go about with the attitude: They might be wrong on some things, but who's to say? In such a case, it's clearly our own faith, reasonableness and conscience that must come into play. (1 Timothy 4:6-16) 6 By giving this counsel to the brothers, you will be a fine minister of Christ Jesus, one nourished with the words of the faith and of the fine teaching that you have followed closely. 7 But reject irreverent false stories. . . 15 Ponder over these things; be absorbed in them, so that your advancement may be plainly seen by all people. 16 Pay constant attention to yourself and to your teaching. . . .

I think this is important, and especially the scriptures supporting this idea in Ephesians 4 and 1 Corinthians 13. Also, I think it's easy to read what I said as a kind of "attack" on the "Governing Body" or even "the faithful and discreet slave." On the contrary, I think we should all appreciate the great good that is being done by the Governing Body, and all exemplary elders in leadership positions. I think that we should look back on what C.T.Russell did, and what he taught, and how he progressed, and see it with much appreciation for his efforts in the restoration of pure worship. (1 Timothy 5:17) 17 Let the elders who preside in a fine way be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard in speaking and teaching. We should give him his due, just as we would all other exemplary persons who work hard in the interests of Jehovah's Kingdom through Christ Jesus. That was Russell's primary focus, and we benefit so much from his hard work. G.A. pointed out these same types of things that I have repeated here, too: However, no one should need a TITLE for these things. Jesus said that all of you are brothers. (Matthew 23:8) But you, do not you be called Rabbi, for one is your Teacher, and all of you are brothers. 9 Moreover, do not call anyone your father on earth, for one is your Father, the heavenly One. 10 Neither be called leaders, for your Leader is one, the Christ. Older men and other servants who met certain exemplary criteria would be used in the congregations to lead, shepherd, oversee, administer and teach. None of those things require a "title." But to say that one person or one small group of persons should be looked up to as "leaders" is something Jesus said was wrong. I know there is a tendency to try to defend Russell (in his day) and the current Governing Body for every current teaching. The way in which the concept of "Governing Body" is used exacerbates this issue. But this is not the way that Jesus expected congregations to work. We can love and appreciate all teachings that we can accept with a clear conscience. Fortunately, that's a very high percentage. But some here have argued that we must accept every "wind of teaching" even the ones that have tossed us about this way and that way. (As all eschatological teachings have done.) Look at the principles of local congregational direction and personal responsibility that Jesus expected of each congregation in the examples in Revelation: (Revelation 2:1,2,6) “To the angel of the congregation in Ephʹe·sus write: These are the things that he says who holds the seven stars in his right hand and walks among the seven golden lampstands: 2 ‘I know your deeds, and your labor and endurance, and that you cannot tolerate bad men, and that you put to the test those who say they are apostles, . . . 6 Still, you do have this in your favor: that you hate the deeds of the sect of Nic·o·laʹus, which I also hate. (Revelation 2:14, 15) 14 “‘Nevertheless, I have a few things against you, that you have there those adhering to the teaching of Baʹlaam, . . . 15 In the same way, you also have those adhering to the teaching of the sect of Nic·o·laʹus. (Revelation 2:24) 24 “‘However, I say to the rest of you who are in Thy·a·tiʹra, all those who do not follow this teaching,. . . I am not putting on you any other burden. 25 Just the same, hold fast to what you have until I come. We can be very appreciative of all the wonderful things we have learned from work done and distributed by the Governing Body, but Jesus implies that he might still take us to task for following teachings that we should have known were not right. I mean it as an exaggeration, of course, but notice how not-so-different these verses just quoted from Revelation are from a make-believe verse that might have said: "Still you have this in your favor: that you have adhered to the teachings from my Word which you have learned from the beginning. Nevertheless, I have a few things against you, that you have there those adhering to the teaching charts of Brother Splane.

If you believe the Watch Tower publications, however, you would have to agree that he actually did claim to be the "faithful and discreet slave." I know you have already seen the quotes in "The Biography of Charles Taze Russell" that the WTS published, along with reports from his funeral, Convention reports from both before and after his death, and A. H. MacMillan's book "Faith on the March." Even though he did say it to some, he most certainly did not need to. Many of the most successful men of the 19th century were experts at "mock humility." In some situations it was considered the only "proper" way to communicate one's authority and title to others. One method was to always allow others to introduce your title. (Colossians 2:18) 18 Let no man deprive you of the prize who takes delight in a false humility and a form of worship of the angels, “taking his stand on” the things he has seen. He is actually puffed up without proper cause by his fleshly frame of mind, Teaching that there was only one person in his day who should be identified as that faithful and wise servant [faithful and discreet slave] who serves meat in due season [food at the proper time] is admittedly not an explicit claim on its own. But when you also identify your own writings as "meat in due season" and publish many letters addressing you as the "faithful and wise servant" you are merely making wise use of the 19th century methods. Even the admission that you can't let "modesty" keep you from explaining that there is only ONE individual "faithful and wise servant" rather than multiple "servants" is an obvious yet sufficiently humble "reveal." I'm afraid we would just be repeating information already covered if we dug out all the sources again, but I'm sure you know them. The reason I quoted the scripture from Colossians is to discuss the danger, not just of false humility, but of something else, which is just as relevant today: False humility can hide a haughtiness which is often accompanied by presumptuousness and a lack of wisdom and discretion. But you are probably also aware that Russell was worshiped as an angel. When the verse speaks of the worship of angels, we know that no one worshiped angels as the highest authority, but it was a kind of secondary worship based on lower levels in the hierarchy of Jehovah's creatures. This kind of worship should not be acceptable among Christians, yet Russell allowed it. He is never seen strongly speaking out against it. It had to wait until Rutherford who said that one of the first things he wanted to do was change this cult mentality of worshiping Russell. *** w66 8/15 pp. 508-509 Doing God’s Will Has Been My Delight *** Why, brother, if I [Rutherford] ever get out of here [prison], by God’s grace I’ll crush all this business of creature worship. *** yb75 p. 88 Part 1—United States of America *** So it was understood that the “servant” God used to dispense spiritual food was a class. With the passing of time, however, the idea adopted by many was that C. T. Russell himself was the “faithful and wise servant.” This led some into the snare of creature worship. [Strange that in 1975 the writer didn't feel free to admit directly that it was Russell himself who positioned this doctrine to be applied to himself, even if it was an issue where he allowed people close to him to promote at first.] *** kr chap. 2 p. 23 par. 32 The Kingdom Is Born in Heaven *** . Though Brother Russell wanted no such reverence, a measure of creature worship had grown up around him *** jv chap. 28 pp. 625-626 Testing and Sifting From Within *** But you, Brother Rutherford, have a disposition which has no comparison with that of Brother Russell. Even your looks are different. It is not your fault. It was your birthday present, and you could not refuse it. . . . Did the Lord know what he was doing when he placed you at the head of affairs? He surely did. In the past we were all prone to worship the creature more than the Creator. The Lord knew that. So he placed a creature with a different disposition at the head of affairs, or I should say in charge of the work, the harvest work. You desire nobody to worship you. [I don't think it's true that so many were prone to worship the creature, Brother Russell, more than the Creator. But worshiping, or assigning reverence to an "angel" even if we know the relative place of that angel in the hierarchy, still detracts from the worship of the Creator. There is also an implication that Rutherford was different from Russell in that he did not desire to be worshiped, implying that perhaps Russell did very little to stop the worship and the development of a cult around him. I don't think this implication was intended, but I do believe there is some truth to it.] *** jv chap. 6 p. 65 A Time of Testing (1914-1918) *** Others, on account of their deep respect for Brother Russell, seemed more concerned with trying to copy his qualities and develop a sort of cult around him. On the topic of worshiping angels, this is a curious coincidence: *** w85 7/15 p. 12 par. 11 “Let No Man Deprive You of the Prize” *** A fourth-century council at nearby Laodicea found it necessary to declare: “Christians ought not to forsake the Church of God, and . . . call upon the names of angels. . . . If any one, therefore, be found to exercise himself in this private idolatry, let him be accursed.” However, fifth-century theologian and scholar Theodoret indicates that “this vice” of angel worship still existed there in his day. Places near Laodicea had an early problem with worship of angels, and I'm sure you know which angel Russell was associated with: Rev 3:14 "And unto the angel [messenger] of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;" KJV Page 4 of the 1917 book, The Finished Mystery says: Pastor Russell being the messenger of the Laodicean Church, and occupying the position of the Lord's special servant to give the Household of Faith meat in due season .... Page 53 of the same book says: The special messenger to the last Age of the Church was Charles T. Russell, born February 16, 1852. He has privately admitted his belief that he was chosen for his great work from before his birth (p. 53).

I'll make a call tomorrow (or at least later in the week) to another person, still at Bethel, who knew him well. Can you tell me how you knew him?

I really appreciated the info you provided on the first two versions of Paton's book. The third one was in 1890, and appears to match the timing of an article by Russell in the May 1890 Watch Tower where Russell reviews the history with Barbour and Paton in an article called "Sifting the Wheat." He mentions these first two versions of Day Dawn, and how it came about that he finally stopped accepting articles from Paton and stopped distributing his book which favored a view of the Ransom that came closer to Barbour's view (Restitution without Substitution). Are you indicating that he was NOT arguing in favor of himself being viewed as the FDS[FWS]? Even the article just mentioned in 1890 says that Russell wanted to personally be God's "mouthpiece," God's "instrument," and he said that the frame of mind he put himself into, back in 1881, allowed him to receive the correct and harmonious understanding "and no one has ever yet been able to find a flaw in it." Of course, Russell then ties this new understanding to several ideas about the ransom that we now find flawed, including the very topic implied in the title of this thread [OP]. Russell said several things about the ransom sacrifice that we would now find just about as ridiculous as the view of the ransom that Barbour held, including the idea that this ransom sacrifice was not completed by Jesus, but would include the sacrifices of the joint-sacrificers. I understand completely that most of Russell's ideas had a basis in Scripture, even if some of his interpretations of those Scriptures were unwarranted. I defend and appreciate the long view of what Russell was involved with, but I can't always see a way or even a reason to defend him for those unwarranted interpretations. As Paul puts it in Galatians 1: 'after all, is it men I am trying to please, or God?' In other words, I don't see the same parallel you see: that both Russell and the modern Governing Body struggled to understand Matthew 24:45 in a way to avoid an awkward view. From what I can see, the only parallel is that ultimately both Russell and the GB made the same mistake, a mistake that makes Matthew 24:45 even more awkward in trying to explain it in context, and when trying to keep it from contradicting the rest of the Bible. A much less awkward understanding had already been available to and accepted by Russell for many years prior to his view that he personally was acting as the FDS/FWS. Claiming that the FDS/FWS was one individual, and accepting himself as the one person who could then claim that role, is about as awkward as @TrueTomHarley claiming that because he once had a good neighborly experience taking care of a robbery victim, that he is, individually in his person, the "True Neighbor" of Luke 10:29-37. Just as "True Tom" can claim to be the "True Neighbor" that answers the question: "Who really is my neighbor?" the Governing Body can claim to be the answer to the question "Who really is the faithful and discreet slave?" [See how dangerous it is to join this thread, TTH?]

I really liked him. That's because back when I was just 21, he gave me an assignment to help set up the pre-press, typesetting, and "art" department at the branch in Athens in 1978. This was right in the middle of a vacation which I would spend traveling with a member of the GB and his family for the first few weeks through London, Paris, Barcelona, Nice, and Rome. Then this assignment in Athens (which I honestly didn't deserve) and the last few weeks traveling in 7 additional countries, staying with Witness families and at the Branches. I was born in California but grew up mostly in Missouri, so this was more than I could have hoped for. Because of the extra assignments, I ended up with a 6-week "vacation" after only earning a 3-week vacation. Everyone said Songer was educated as an engineer, and I liked him for his sense of humor. (Most engineers have one as a prerequisite to getting along in their future jobs.) He reminded me of my father, an electrical engineer with a similar sense of humor. Good times!

I agree, which is why I made the comment that it was not necessarily even unscriptural. It just "sounds" even more wrong when juxtaposed with so many other Matthew 24 interpretations he made. Of course, I can't explain why he troubled himself to say that this also made it appropriate to apply to himself and others of the "high calling" additional titles such as "Eternal Father" and "The Prophet Greater than Moses." And it seems to diminish the sacrifice that Jesus made when men such as Russell would claim to be a necessary part of that great propitiatory sacrifice. Very few members of that class that we identify as the modern anointed remnant since the late 1800's, including Russell, have ever "sacrificed" even a tiny fraction compared to what Jesus sacrificed. The most well-known of that class among us in more recent decades have spent the greater part of their life in the comfort of an organizational bureaucracy.

Harumph!! [can't find the appropriate emoji ?]

I agree. The influence of Henry Grew on Russell is clear, even if some of it came indirectly through others. There are a lot of parallels and several probable dependencies in Russell's writings to those of Grew although I don't recall if Russell ever quotes him directly. George Stetson was also anti-Trinitarian, and even George Storrs appears to be non-Trinitarian or at least neutral. Russell was probably non-Trinitarian or neutral in a way similar to George Storrs up until sometime prior to 1882 when Russell writes his own article defending against the Trinity. This was almost immediately after Paton left, so it's likely his mind was clearly made up well before 1882. *** jv chap. 28 p. 620 Testing and Sifting From Within *** Two years later, [1881] Paton, who was then serving as a traveling representative of the Watch Tower, also began to turn away, thereafter publishing a book (his second one entitled Day Dawn) . . . [It's the only mention of Day Dawn in the Proclaimers book, and therefore implies that it was only published after Paton left the Watch Tower.]

Could you give a reference for this one please. Sure. The most pro-Trinitarian writing promoted by the Watch Tower Society actually came from the WT's assistant editor, Paton in 1880. Paton's writings in the Watch Tower supported the Trinity, and a book he authored, "The Day Dawn" was clearly Trinitarian although its main focus was to prepare the faithful for the prophecies pointing to 1881. Paton had also been Barbour's assistant editor until 1879 and both Barbour and Paton were unquestionably Trinitarian. Trinitarian-friendly wording even shows up in "Three Worlds" (the early collaboration between Russell and Barbour). It criticized the Christadelphians for not believing the Holy Spirit was a Person. Since the Proclaimers book distances the WTS from the "Day Dawn" I'll include just a bit of info about the book from before that publication, including this from the June 1880 WT. (emphasis mine.) "The Day Dawn, or the Gospel in Type and Prophecy." The first copy of this work has just been received from the printer, and the entire edition of 4,000 copies will be ready for delivery by the time this paper reaches you. It is a more exhaustive and elaborate work than we had at first expected; more so by far than anything ever presented on the above topics, from our standpoint. It contains 334 pages in clear and distinct type. To give an idea of its size, we would say that it contains about three times as much matter as the "Three Worlds," a book familiar to most of our readers, now out of print. . . . we should say it is a work which will do an inestimable amount of good, and to many, will be an instructor second only to the Word of God. . . . the subject is made so beautifully plain and clear, that many, we believe, will bless God for having been permitted to read it. It is divided into twenty-nine chapters, and like God's book, contains things "both new and old." "Price of Day Dawn, in paper covers, 50 cts. " " " " cloth " 75 " . . . We hope that every reader of the WATCH TOWER will avail himself at once of these liberal terms. The time arguments alone, clearly and plainly stated, should do you fifty dollars worth of good if not more. Those who can afford to do so, should keep a dozen copies on their loan list. WT articles are seen promoting the book well into the year 1881. In fact, the oft-quoted article from 1881 "Wanted 1,000 Preachers" was part of a campaign to sell "Day Dawn" books and WT subscriptions. Note this quote from that article in April 1881: . . . as a work of kindness and love to them, endeavor to sell them the "Day Dawn," or to take their subscription for the "Watch Tower," *** w55 2/1 p. 76 Part 3—Expanding the Organization *** While the Society had been circulating a bound book entitled “Day Dawn,” written by an early associate, J. H. Paton, it was decided for Russell to become writer of a new book to be called “Millennial Dawn,” which after many difficulties appeared in 1886 as Volume 1 of a promised series. In one point, the Day Dawn book stated (p.225): The work of the Holy Spirit is one of the most important elements in the plan of revelation and salvation. He is always spoken of by the Saviour as a Person, and is called the "Spirit of truth." He inspired men to write or speak the truth; and second, He enables men to understand it. By comparing this with 1 Pet. 1:11, it will be seen that the Holy Spirit and the Spirit of Christ are used interchangeably. The March 1880, WT had said: There is and ever has been but one Christ. A change of nature does not change identity. Whether as the pre-existent One, as the Word made flesh, or as the High Priest who can be touched with the feelings of our infirmities, He still is Lord, and as such we worship Him. "Ye call me Lord and Master," said He on earth, "and ye do well, for so I am. . . . to worship Christ in any form cannot be wrong, for when He bringeth the first Begotten into the world, He sayeth, "Let all the angels of God worship Him." And Again, "Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Thy hands. Of course, the idea that it was proper to worship Jesus Christ remained in the WT much longer and was even part of the amended corporate charter of 1944, and was explicitly a part of our teachings until 1953. (See, Make Sure of All Things, under the heading "Christ to be Worshipped as a Glorious Spirit") But this is not technically a support of the Trinity. Combining this, however, with arguments in favor of seeing the Holy Spirit as a Person, would be supportive of the Trinity.

Of course, that was part of the point. Just as we think some must have thought it disconcerting for Russell to be making the claim.

I'm glad you found it thought provoking. That was the intent. What I like about a forum such as this is that a person can share the types of things that that have provoked one's own thoughts and then hear whether others have thought about the same, or if others agree or disagree with the thoughts. In the congregational setting, not all thought-provoking thoughts can be shared, or else they must be shared with great care, especially when one considers the counsel of Jesus to avoid stumbling others. However, in a discussion forum such as this, a sincere person can ask any question, even one that might not have been asked in a congregational setting for fear of stumbling others. There is nothing new in this topic, of course. Although it's something that's little known among most Witnesses. The primary source is Watchtower publications, in this case. So back to the idea of the content and style (or should we say "the object and manner") of the religious movement under Russell's leadership. Yes, one of the points is that Russell would most assuredly have stumbled many persons who tried to follow his leadership if they took him as seriously as he took himself. But, as you say, it also shows, as we often say, that the work he was doing was blessed sometimes in spite of his efforts, rather than just because of his efforts. It's an expression you will still hear among the brothers in modern times, too, referring to how things still often work out for the best in spite of us apparently getting in the way of ourselves. The idea that this religious movement could therefore be expected to "falter" and yet greatly succeeded is quite true. Of course, we realistically should also learn from the fact that it really did falter many times, with many great times of stumbling, sifting, false prophetic predictions, even teaching twisted private interpretations as doctrines, etc. Looking at the likely proportion of gains and losses among the brothers is infomative. Barbour and Russell knew that there could easily be as many as 50,000 Second Adventists who could be receptive to Barbour's eschatology. Barbour apparently was building up to a readership aiming at such a number when when his own 1874 "Disappointment" knocked his expectation from near 30,000 back to a readership of less than 5,000. Russell went straight for the 50,000 again when he initially teamed with Barbour in 1877, but another 1878 "Disappointment" put his expectation for his own paper (Zion's Watch Tower) at less than 8,000 when it started in late 1879. Membership built up again slowly, but specific doctrinal challenges evidently produced schisms linked to those doctrines. For comparison, Mormons and Seventh Day Adventists both came out of the same time period and built from the same "Burnt Over District" milieu as a foundation, and steadily gained converts on par with the Bible Students, and even passing them. Today, there are more active JWs than Mormons. (Mormons count 14.5 million, but only about 30% actively attend meetings.) SDA has grown to at least 25 million, 3 times the size of the Watchtower/Bible_Student/JW movement, perhaps even with a larger number actively attending meetings and joining in church activities. Yet JWs are successful in promoting an even greater level of weekly and monthly congregational and ministerial activity, even with only one-third the members. Again, I mention all this unnecessary background because I wouldn't start counting the "success" back in Russell's time. The Watchtower often points to 1919 as a truer beginning of our current movement (after Russell died). I would put it just 15 years later, in 1934/5. Since then, the progress has been steady, and the doctrinal changes have been overwhelmingly positive. The movement since about 1934 has very few points of recognizable comparison to the movement under Russell. That said, I was not saying that Russell's "I am the Christ" claim, which he would share with others of the "high calling" was even Biblically incorrect. I don't fault it as a crazy doctrine. His basis was rational. It would have been easier for a more hesitant person to be concerned with what others might think of them for making such a claim, but he chose this interpretation over any fear of backlash because he must have thought it was right. This reminds me of another idea Russell had that we might think is crazy now, but it showed a real faith in the outworking of God's "divine plan." Russell thought that he might be a ghost. That's how outsiders might interpret his idea that it was possible that he might wake up some morning in or after 1881, and actually be a spirit in the way that Jesus showed himself to the disciples after his resurrection, able to eat and drink and even show his old scars. Russell apparently mused that he might not even know exactly when the "change" from flesh to a spirit creature had happened, if the anointed of the high calling were changed, but did not immediately ascend to heaven. It was a very odd view of how the rapture might work, athough a more traditional view of the rapture had been held in 1878 and 1881, and this expectation was finally put off until 1914 and then 1915. Others can look at all these and just focus on the apparent "craziness" of it all. But we can also look at it with the idea that Russell must have had a solid, strong faith in the expectation surrounding the "fact" that Jesus really was present in 1874 and ready to act on behalf of the faithful. If he was some kind of charlatan building a religion to gain followers he would not have stuck his neck out. He would have been more concerned with consequences of being wrong. The same could be said for Rutherford's biggest mistake in predicting 1925. He must have had a real and strong faith in this particular interpretation of prophecy.

Not yet. [Pas encore]

A few weeks ago, I mentioned another case, still in progress, where it was a 16-year-old female and about a 25-year-old brother. In this case the congregation is in legal trouble for having asked the girl to claim it was consensual, but the 25-year-old went on to abuse again. I don't know for sure, but I don't think in this case, there is an attempt to go after the elders, based on the assumption that the directive came from HQ.

Another perspective that I think is worth considering is this from a couple months ago: https://daniellazare.com/2018/05/03/americans-want-an-end-to-gun-violence-but-the-constitution-says-no/ Daniel Lazare's article for Harper's magazine was saying the same thing back in 1999: https://harpers.org/archive/1999/10/your-constitution-is-killing-you/

I always loved that song. Haunting and apparently based on a true story. It's on one of only three albums I ever bought for myself. What's interesting about the song, is that even after it was canonized in the album, Lightfoot looked into new evidence that had come to light, and which made Lightfoot's foot path grow brighter and brighter. He realized it was not necessarily human error that caused the sinking, so he humbly changed the words of the song for all future performances. Here's how it was stated at: https://www.thestar.com/entertainment/music/2010/03/25/gordon_lightfoot_changes_edmund_fitzgerald_lyrics.html “He’s not re-recording the song, but he has already changed a line for live performances,” a spokesperson for Lightfoot said Thursday. “He was pretty impressed by what he saw in the film, new evidence that unsecured hatch covers didn’t cause the ship to sink.” The traditional verse goes: “When supper time came the old cook came on deck /Saying ‘Fellows it’s too rough to feed ya’ /At 7 p.m. a main hatchway caved in /He said, ‘Fellas it's been good to know ya.” Lightfoot’s lyrics have now been changed to: “When supper time came the old cook came on deck /Saying ‘Fellows it’s too rough to feed ya’ /At 7 p.m. it grew dark, it was then/He said, ‘Fellas it's been good to know ya’,” Lightfoot’s spokesperson said.

This topic has been touched upon before, but I didn't take it as far as I had hoped. For me, this was largely because this was a new area of study for me which I undertook briefly, mostly for about 10 days in May 2017 and only touched on it afterwards when related topics came up on this forum. For myself, that might have been mostly my fault because I was very unsure of the strength of evidence for basing anything on Ιαω. @bruceq, a member or former member of this forum collects reference materials on the Divine Name and pointed out some related links by Pavlos Vasileiadis, which I read at that time. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Pavlos_Vasileiadis/publication/323357897_The_god_Iao_and_his_connection_with_the_Biblical_God_with_special_emphasis_on_the_manuscript_4QpapLXXLevb/links/5a8fe40da6fdccecff0075fa/The-god-Iao-and-his-connection-with-the-Biblical-God-with-special-emphasis-on-the-manuscript-4QpapLXXLevb.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273185850_Aspects_of_rendering_the_sacred_Tetragrammaton_in_Greek I'm sure you know of these resources. Most of the related topics already discussed on this forum were sidetracked or abandoned. But there have been a couple strong attempts to get somewhere on this and we have even started discussing George Howard, Nehemiah Gordon, and the Gertoux/Furuli collaboration with Fritz Poppenberg. I have access to a large library of scholarly journals through a university account, but I'm out of the country for most of July (Paris) and will still be here another week. I don't want to try logging in from here because of a potential security flag that might require a complete reset. I had hoped to discuss George Howard, of course, but that discussion never really started: (HOWARD, Biblical Archaeology Review Vol IV, No. 1). http://www.jstor.org/stable/3265328?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents The posts at https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/47810-the-name-of-god-documentary-by-fritz-poppenberg/?page=7 took too many twists and turns to be of much use to review for reference material. The topic/thread that came closest to discussing the value of IAO in the LXX is here, https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/35287-what-gives-them-the-right-to-insert-yhwh-so-that-the-the-scriptures-are-manipulated-to-suit-the-their-doctrine/?page=2and might be worth a quick look. I know that my own research on the topic was just beginning at that point, and I had quickly come to the conclusion that IAO was a problematic route that didn't require much more attention due to a supposed permanent relationship with paganism, an Egyptian god, magic, etc. But I realize a couple of points now that I hadn't really seen clearly. One is that IAO was NOT really a Greek transliteration of the Hebrew YHWH (as the NWT Appendix states). And the other is that IAO was the only LXX Divine Name that was meant to be pronounceable. The work by Shaw appears to be important, and I would have looked up his ideas anyway, just based on his excellent critique of Wilkinson. [And, or course, Furuli had mentioned his book in "Bias in Translation."] Although as I mentioned above, I have limited access to my "armchair" resources at the moment. When I get back home, I'll see if Shaw is affordable, or get the NYPL to find me a copy.

I agree that John 17:26 must have been one of the literal ways in which John 1:19 was fulfilled. With the Hebrew Scriptures as the entire foundation upon which Jewish faith should have come to include faith in Jesus Christ, there were constant references to OT fulfillments that were known to have contained the Divine Name. Hundreds of references to the OT are found in the NT and it would have still been common knowledge that these included direct references to the Divine Name, even for those who would not themselves pronounce it (assuming that kyrios and theos, etc., were already contained in some of the first century manuscripts of the LXX from which Jesus may have read.) But we can't forget that one of the arguments some scholars will throw back at us is the idea that goes in reverse of the above: that John 17:26 was fulfilled by John 1:19. In other words, that the term "your name" with reference to God was just another way to reference God. (So that Jesus made God's name known by making God known.) We already use the argument ourselves that "name" can mean the person, or the person's reputation, or the person's representation, when we come across verses like: (John 17:6-12) 6 “I have made your name manifest to the men whom you gave me out of the world. . . . 8 because I have given them the sayings that you gave me, and they have accepted them and have certainly come to know that I came as your representative, and they have believed that you sent me. . . . Holy Father, watch over them on account of your own name, which you have given me, so that they may be one just as we are one. 12 When I was with them, I used to watch over them on account of your own name, which you have given me. . . (John 16:23, 24) . . .Most truly I say to you, if you ask the Father for anything, he will give it to you in my name. 24 Until now you have not asked for a single thing in my name. Ask and you will receive, so that your joy may be complete. (Matthew 28:19) . . .Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and [in the name] of the Son and [in the name] of the holy spirit, (Acts 3:15, 16) . . .the Chief Agent of life. But God raised him up from the dead, of which fact we are witnesses. 16 And through his name, and by our faith in his name, this man whom you see and know has been made strong.. . . We don't have faith in the pronunciation of the consonants and vowels of the name "J-E-S-U-S" but we have faith in the person, the representation, and the reputation of Jesus. With reference to God, this argument could be doubled as God himself was already known as "The NAME" (Ha-Shem) even prior to the first century. See a possible Biblical example in Lev 24:11. (Leviticus 24:11) The son of the Israelite woman began to abuse the Name and to curse it. And of course, this idea might have a bearing on our understanding of the following: (Acts 4:6-18) . . ., 7 and they stood them in their midst and began to inquire: “By what power or in whose name did YOU do this?” 8 Then Peter, filled with holy spirit, said to them: “ . . .10 in the name of Jesus Christ the Naz·a·reneʹ, . . . whom God raised up from the dead, by this one [footnote shows that the Greek actually says "by this name"] does this man stand here sound in front of YOU. 12 Furthermore, there is no salvation in anyone else, for there is not another name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must get saved.” . . . 17 Nevertheless, in order that it may not be spread abroad further among the people, let us tell them with threats not to speak anymore upon the basis of this name to any man at all.” 18 With that they called them and charged them, nowhere to make any utterance or to teach upon the basis of the name of Jesus. (Acts 8:14-17) . . .they dispatched Peter and John to them; 15 and these went down and prayed for them to get holy spirit. 16 For it had not yet fallen upon any one of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they went laying their hands upon them, and they began to receive holy spirit. (Acts 9:14-21) 14 And here he has authority from the chief priests to put in bonds all those calling upon your name.” [Jesus] 15 But the Lord [Jesus] said to him: “Be on your way, because this man [Paul] is a chosen vessel to me to bear my name to the nations as well as to kings and the sons of Israel. 16 For I shall show him plainly how many things he must suffer for my name.” [Jesus] 17 So An·a·niʹas went off and entered into the house, and he laid his hands upon him and said: “Saul, brother, the Lord, the Jesus that appeared to you on the road over which you were coming, has sent me forth, in order that you may recover sight and be filled with holy spirit.” . . . 20 and immediately in the synagogues he began to preach Jesus, that this One is the Son of God. 21 But all those hearing him gave way to astonishment and would say: “Is this not the man that ravaged those in Jerusalem who call upon this name, and that had come here for this very purpose. . . And of course: (Ephesians 1:20, 21) . . .in the case of the Christ when he raised him up from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above every government and authority and power and lordship and every name named, not only in this system of things, but also in that to come. (Philippians 2:9-11) . . .For this very reason also God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every [other] name, [Greek just says "the name above every name"] 10 so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground, 11 and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord. . . (2 Thessalonians 1:12) 12 in order that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in YOU, . . . (Hebrews 1:4) . . .So he has become better than the angels, to the extent that he has inherited a name more excellent than theirs. (Revelation 2:17) . . .and I will give him a white pebble, and upon the pebble a new name written which no one knows except the one receiving it.’ (Revelation 3:12) “‘The one that conquers—I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God, and he will by no means go out [from it] anymore, and I will write upon him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem which descends out of heaven from my God, and that new name of mine. There are plenty of other and better examples showing that "name" clearly means "reputation" (Revelation 3:1, etc) but I wanted to include especially those that would become difficult to explain about "the name of Jesus" if it were literally the term "Jesus" (or a variation) that was meant. To be consistent, then, some of the references to the "name of Jehovah" in both OT and NT cannot simply mean the term "Jehovah" or another variation of it.

And in this particular case there could even have been a lack of knowing the correct consonants. Although this problem is mostly solvable, but not easily, and not with 100% confidence. Of course, this has nothing to do with the difference in J, or Y, or I when used as the initial consonant, nor anything to do with the difference between W or V. I would consider initial I,J,Y to be completely equivalent, and W and V to be completely equivalent, too. Jahve, Jahweh, Yahwe, Yahveh, Yahweh are all exactly the same word for purposes of this discussion (imo), just as Yehowah and Jehovah would be exactly the same word. In truth, there would have been correct and proper differences in the pronunciations of vowels, too, even among Hebrew speakers in the first century. For example, a Galilean's accent (NWT fn) would give him away in Jerusalem. (Matthew 26:73) 73 After a little while, those standing around came up and said to Peter: “Certainly you are also one of them, for in fact, your [ACCENT] dialect gives you away.”

True. Although I never heard anyone specifically argue that the divine name would have been unpronounceable due to lack of written vowels. Most people learn to pronounce a language almost perfectly before they learn to read and spell most of the words in that language. Therefore pronunciation is possible not only without vowels, but even without consonants. I think we are dealing with an argument that a specific word, the Divine Name, might have become unpronounceable through edict and superstitious practice. When a name is made holy, to some this would mean it is not touched. Just as holy ground was not to be touched. Just as a mundane use or function of the body would make Jewish individuals unsanctified to be near the presence of holiness. This idea is repeated often: (Exodus 19:21-23) . . .Jehovah now said to Moses: “Go down and warn the people not to try to force their way through to look at Jehovah, or many of them will perish. 22 And let the priests who regularly come near to Jehovah sanctify themselves, so that Jehovah may not strike them.” 23 Moses then said to Jehovah: “The people are not able to come up to Mount Siʹnai because you already warned us, saying, ‘Set boundaries around the mountain, and make it sacred.’” The following was still the proper practice of the Jewish rituals even in Jesus' day: (Leviticus 22:2, 3) 2 “Tell Aaron and his sons that they should be careful how they handle the holy things of the Israelites and not profane my holy name regarding the things they are sanctifying to me. I am Jehovah. 3 Say to them, ‘Throughout your generations, any of your offspring who, while he is unclean, comes near to the holy things that the Israelites sanctify to Jehovah, that person will be cut off from before me. . . . If this general idea were ever combined with the idea that the Name YHWH was a holy thing, not to be profaned, then it could be understood why such a superstition arose. (Exodus 20:7) 7 “You must not take up the name of Jehovah your God in a worthless way, for Jehovah will not leave unpunished the one who takes up His name in a worthless way. So, I'd think that, as you already know, the timing of this superstition and practice would still be very important to the claim that a lack of controversy argues that Jesus used the name. Your argument could end up with "circular" overtones, in some circles: Of course, you already deal with the idea that the complete prohibition must post date this period of Jesus' ministry. I am also counting on the fact that it did. But it would be good to lay out the evidence that this is true, else the argument doesn't work very well. What complicates the question even more is the fact that while Masoretic vowel pointing didn't really come into existence until perhaps 600 CE, it wasn't necessarily accurate for a period that was half-a-millennium prior to that. We hardly pronounce English the same as Shakespeare would have in any English-speaking country, and the wide variations exist in spite of many written rules about English since 1600, inter-generationally connected populations, and a lot of scribes and a high percentage of literate people in these countries. Hebrew, after every Jewish diaspora, had strikes against stable pronunciation at every turn. (As the Shibboleth incident points out, there were striking pronunciation differences between at least a couple of Israel's tribes just a few short years after they settled the land together?!?!?!) But there was a kind of vowel pointing that had already been in use prior to the earliest of any extant Hebrew manuscript (DSS), and that's the vowel pointing that was done with added consonants (consonants reused to represent vowels). And those dual-use consonants were primarily Y,H,W. Another area of inconsistency that had already developed prior to any of our extant manuscripts is the final H sound. Therefore, it looks like one could reasonably argue that if one had to recreate a lost or unknown pronunciation, that one of the most ambiguous of such words in the entire Hebrew would be YHW-H. Still there is hope. Gertoux, for example, deals directly with the fact that these could all represent vowels, not consonants. He, and others, also deal with the earliest possible history of comments about the Name after the NT Bible manuscripts themselves. And, although I never heard anyone make a point of it, we know that several priests and even Pharisees became believers in the first century. If anyone would know how the name was pronounced, it would have been people from this group, even if there already was a superstition about pronunciation by the average Joseph on the street.

Great article! I agree completely with the author of the article. At first it never occurred to me that Hebrew students should not to learn these rules, and I had often heard that the Masoretes were so superstitiously careful about the copying of texts that not a letter would be lost from text to text due to letter counting and the care given to every 'jot and tittle.' So they seemed sacrosanct. One point struck me as incomplete: 6) Once again, the Tiberian pointing in the MT is only one of three pointing systems (which indicates that there was disagreement over what was the "correct" pronunciation). Just because it happened to win broad acceptance does not mean that it should be uncritically accepted as authoritative.[21] There were disagreements about pronunciation, but without more information about the interactions between the proponents of the three pointing systems, you could hardly say that the existence of three shows there were disagreements. You can have three systems that all look different but are just three different ways to say the same thing. And for various historical reasons, the three pointing systems could have all naturally evolved at about the same time, semi-independently, not strictly because there was disagreement over the correct pronunciation.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/308608/ Reagan's words were as Republican Governor of California in 1967. He was definitely in favor of a Republican-sponsored bill repealing gun rights. The problem was that the framers of the U.S. constitution thought of guns not as an item that all people should have, not especially for hunting and protecting their homes/family/property from just anyone, although that would be their primary use. The constitution only addressed the right for all citizens to carry guns in order to form militias in the event that tyranny reared its ugly head, within US Government agencies. But the real problem is that there really were forms of tyranny that had been rearing their head in America for many years against blacks, American "Indians" and poor whites who could not pay their debts. The most violent tyranny was against the native American "Indians" but the most insidious was against blacks. And then after the constitution allowed more than just land-owners to become citizens they allowed blacks to become citizens, while they were still being tyrannized by tyrants in their own government. That created a problem for the hypocrites running the US Government. A group of black citizens began watching some of the most tyrannical agents of the US government, the white-sponsored police in economically abandoned urban centers. What they were doing was called "copwatchting." But they were watching while armed with guns and, what's even worse for some, cameras. See Mulford Act in Wikipedia, for example. Organized copwatching groups emerged as early as the 1960s in urban areas in the United States when the Black Panthers famously patrolled city streets with firearms and cameras, and other civil rights organizations conducted unarmed patrols in groups. Obviously, Reagan, a rather dullard hypocrite, realized he didn't really believe in the constitution. In this situation it was easy to get both Democratic and Republican support. (Especially "Dixie Democrats" [in the Southern United States], most of whom would later become Republicans as soon as Northern Democrats began to associate the "Democratic" agenda with civil rights toward blacks.)