JW Insider

I thought that this was one of the best of the original songs. The singer has an authentic country-music-style voice and the guitar work is crisp, clean and simple.

I traveled with only one member of the Governing Body during the time that I was handling work assignments for him. It was only two times, and both times to Europe, so it isn't a lot of experience from which to extrapolate what other members of the Governing Body were doing. The longest trip was about 6 weeks, in 1978, during which time we visited about 12 countries, stopping at the branch offices in 10 of them and attending the "International Assembly" in the other two. After London, Paris, Madrid, Barcelona, Nice/Cannes, we split up after the assembly in Rome (in the wake of a Pope's recent death) and the GB member went to Germany, Denmark, and Sweden while I worked for a week in the branch office in Athens, and then caught up again in Hamburg after one-day stops in Bern, Innsbruck, and Wiesbaden. Then back to London, full circle. He was traveling on WTS funds that covered flights and basic hotels for both himself and his wife. His travel and accommodations were subsidized by regular gifts he had received from speaking assignments, and these were considered personal gifts which he was able to keep for himself. He did not schedule any public talks on this one particular trip since we were traveling during the summer assembly season. During another trip, I saw first-hand that such talks could result in a lot of 'green handshakes' and even an official branch-approved collection of contributions set up just for his travel and accommodations. The Branch did not assume that a GB member wanted to stay in one of the rooms in the branch office, or at a brother's home, and a couple of the smaller branches had no extra guest room anyway. This particular GB member sometimes stayed in fully gifted resort hotel accommodations instead of the branch, but it was also a chance for his wife to take a breather -- a real vacation. I don't mean to sound sexist, but my guess is that wives probably insisted on a change of pace, away from regular branch routines. I stayed in branches or homes of local witness families, while he stayed almost exclusively in nice hotels and 'resort-style hotels.' I took the train and even slept on the train a couple times (and on a ferry from Brindisi, Italy to Corfu, Greece), while he flew most places. I think that only his NYC-to-London flight was first class, -- while my flight was something called 'Freddy Laker' to London for $99, a stand-by arrangement where I had to camp out at the airport the night before. (So, although we would meet up at the Branch offices, it was not really the same as traveling with the GB, on that trip, at least. Of course, I am grateful that I got nearly 6 weeks "vacation" in Europe, which would have been impossible without the request of a GB member. I had only earned between 2 to 3 weeks on my own. But even here, there are "stickler" rules at Bethel, that required me to work at the branch in Athens to earn an extra week or so. Or perhaps it got me out of his hair during a time when this GB member was exploring a 'judicial case' centered mostly in Sweden.) I know that some of the unmarried members of the GB often stayed at the branch offices. This included Fred Franz himself, who had no problem staying in whatever extra room was available, or a local brother's home. This was apparently also true of at least half of the nearly 17-member GB at that time. Flying first class and staying at first class accommodations on WTS funds was only approved for business travel for factory representatives like Larson (non-GB), Wheelock, (non-GB), Henschel, etc., as had previously been done for Knorr, Suiter, etc. After Russel and Rutherford, life at the Bethel Home itself was only incrementally more comfortable for members of the GB, and it was apparently based on the same 'seniority' arrangement all Bethelites utilized to obtain their choice of rooms (based on years of full-time service). Of course, even though I had the same size corner room in the Towers Hotel, their extra funds allowed them to make it look like luxury for only two persons, relative to my room being shared among four of us. However, visiting and touring at Patterson, I didn't see inside any rooms, but noticed that all rooms seemed to be pretty much the same size. Just based on experience, I don't believe GB members are given special accommodations that are that much different than any other Bethelite.

Thanks. And sorry to make you repeat yourself. You have said a lot of these things before. And, of course, I have my own way of dealing with the WTS historical problems. Just as Israel went through experiences they could learn from, I think the association of Witnesses can learn from these experiences, too. In the spirit of love and forgiveness we should not rehash this history except in the context of a loving, but stern reminder, when we see a dangerous signal that some similar experience awaits us again if we haven't learned from past mistakes. It's easy to understand why someone would leave the 'organization' and say it's not for them, and they might go so far as to tell others to stay away. And some take it to a further extreme and say it's a den of false prophets and a lurking place of demons and hated birds, etc. But I don't expect any of those persons to also say that every member of the anointed remnant will be found passing through such a "despised" organization at one time or another. It makes a paradox out of the message that everyone should "get out of her" if it's also a place that all the anointed must pass through. What if your preaching keeps an anointed person from ever going through Satan's "test" organization in the first place? It's also a problematic theory, from your perspective I'd think, for those who are born into the organisation, and who leave before their anointing is sure.

You are probably white right. But there was a case about two years ago where the officer finally admitted to harassing an African-American driver because he thought he saw that the man had made eye contact with him before making a turn, and this made him suspicious. Although the driver was going under the speed limit and used his turn signal well in advance of the turn, the officer claimed that the turn signal was not turned on at least 200 feet before the turn was made. We know a (white) Witness who was former police officer in Los Angeles, under the direction of Police Chief Gates, who claims that Gates' unwritten instructions were to 'harass every black man in your precinct until they were all in the system for something.'

You only consider 25% of Witnesses today to be your spiritual brothers? A bit harsh, no?

There is no included "assimilate" definition. "Influence" and "assimilate" are two different words, according to your own dictionary evidence. (And according to common sense, too, for that matter.) What you did there is sometimes called "moving the goal posts." When you see that you are losing, you just change the goal. So now you are again resorting to the very powerful Pee-Wee Herman-esque argument: "I know you are but what am I?" (see I know you are but what am I - YouTube) You keep twisting and flailing because you want to change the topic from "influence" to "direct influence" then to "direct, positive influence" then to "assimilate." To me, this is an indication that you only wanted to win an argument, no matter what it cost you in terms of your credibility. You didn't care whether you kept it honest. In your typical blame-shifting fashion you do exactly what you try to blame on others. Notice what you yourself said a few posts back: As I said before, you have often proven yourself to be merely contentious, divisive, sniping, etc. As I said a few posts back: However, I don't mind at all having a conversation with you or anyone who can add value to a discussion. You are obviously capable of adding a lot of value to any discussion about Russell and other Bible Students. It's possible that no one here knows as much about the Bible Students as you do. Most of the Bible Student material that I have read came through the Watch Tower Society, and only a couple of additional sources (the Brothers Edgar, and some "Herald of the Morning" issues by Barbour, etc.). But most of what I read was back in 1976-1982 while researching at Bethel. I took a lot of notes, but I've forgotten a lot. Also, I was mostly looking for specific things that would be useful for quoting, which means I know I must have missed quite a few things, too. I love the discussions. I'm just trying to keep them honest.

It seems that I believe Russell was influenced by Adventists ex-Adventists and others, and you believe he wasn't. I don't think we can get much further in the discussion because you don't seem willing to accept your own dictionary definition. It turns this whole discussion into a semantic game for you instead of a search for the truth, in my opinion. The definition of "influence" that you yourself offered from a dictionary source, included concepts like: The capacity to have an effect on the character, development, or behavior of someone or something, or the effect itself. You included synonyms like: "effect," "guidance," "direction" "have an impact on" "sway" and "put ideas into one's head." Every one of these items shows up in Russell's own discussions of what happened between himself and Wendell, Storrs and Barbour for instance. I grant you that Russell was very careful not to admit dependence on anyone else during almost all his recountings of his own early history. Note this piece of the July 15, 1906 Watch Tower: Among other theories, I stumbled upon Adventism. Seemingly by accident, one evening I dropped into a dusty, dingy hall, where I had heard religious services were held, to see if the handful who met there had anything more sensible to offer than the creeds of the great churches. There, for the first time, I heard something of the views of Second Adventists, the preacher being Mr. Jonas Wendell, long since deceased. Thus, I confess indebtedness to Adventists as well as to other denominations. Though his Scripture exposition was not entirely clear, and though it was very far from what we now rejoice in, it was sufficient, under God, to re-establish my wavering faith in the divine inspiration of the Bible, and to show that the records of the apostles and prophets are indissolubly linked. What I heard sent me to my Bible to study with more zeal and care than ever before, and I shall ever thank the Lord for that leading; for though Adventism helped me to no single truth, it did help me greatly in the unlearning of errors, and thus prepared me for the Truth." It's better, as you say, to read more of the relevant Bible Student literature, to see what Russell was saying especially during times that he wanted to distinguish himself as independent from Barbour, and again, especially after he began cultivating the idea that he was personally and individually the only person on earth who held the office of the "faithful and discreet slave." Russell's wording of his own history is itself influenced by his goals. In "Separate Identity," p. 136, B. W. Schulz reads the information about Storrs to mean the that the Russells relied heavily on him: The Russells and their associates relied heavily on Storrs: “The Lord gave us many helps in the study of His word, among whom stood prominently, our dearly beloved and aged brother, George Storrs, who, both by word and pen, gave us much assistance; Schulz, as you know, speaks often of the various people who influenced Russell. It's obvious too that, just as Grew influenced Storrs (ex-Millerite Adventist), that Joseph Seiss influenced many Adventists. Seiss' influence on Russell is well documented by Russell himself. Paton was also a very influential Bible Student before he became friends with Russell and a contributor to the Watch Tower until 1881. And then, of course, we have the Watchtower publications, which I'm sure you have seen: The October 15, 2000 Watchtower, p.31, includes beliefs of Henry Grew and George Storrs, for example: ------begin quote from https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2000766#h=50 ------------ What Henry Grew Believed JehovahÂ’s name has been reproached, and it needs to be sanctified. The Trinity, immortality of the soul, and hellfire are fraudulent doctrines. The Christian congregation must be separate from the world. Christians should have no part in wars of the nations. Christians are not under a Saturday or Sunday Sabbath law. Christians should not belong to secret societies, such as the Freemasons. There are to be no clergy and laity classes among Christians. Religious titles are from the antichrist. All congregations are to have a body of elders. Elders must be holy in all their conduct, above reproach. All Christians must preach the good news. There will be people living forever in Paradise on earth. Christian song should be praises to Jehovah and Christ. What George Storrs Believed Jesus paid his life as the ransom price for mankind. The preaching of the good news has not yet been done (in 1871). Because of that, the end could not be near at that time (in 1871). There would have to be a future age in which the preaching would be done. There will be people who inherit everlasting life on earth. There is to be a resurrection of all who died in ignorance. Those accepting the ransom sacrifice of Christ will receive eternal life on earth. Those rejecting it will be destroyed. Immortality of the soul and hellfire are false doctrines that dishonor God. The LordÂ’s Evening Meal is an annual observance on Nisan 14. -------------end of quote from jw.org---------------- And, of course, the "Proclaimers" book, includes the following wording on page 45: But did Russell and his spiritually-minded associates gain these truths from the Bible unaided by others? Influence of Others Russell referred quite openly to the assistance in Bible study he had received from others. Not only did he acknowledge his indebtedness to Second Adventist Jonas Wendell but he also spoke with affection about two other individuals who had aided him in Bible study. . . . . One, George W. Stetson, was an earnest student of the Bible and pastor of the Advent Christian Church in Edinboro, Pennsylvania.    The other, George Storrs, . . . Without a doubt, StorrsÂ’ strong Bible-based views on the mortality of the soul as well as the atonement and restitution (restoration of what was lost due to Adamic sin; Acts 3:21) had a strong, positive influence on young Charles T. Russell.  Yet, another man who had a profound effect on RussellÂ’s life also caused his loyalty to Scriptural truth to be put to the test. Have you written to the Watchtower Society to tell them they are wrong to use the word "influence" here? Â

It's not a deflection when I can provide evidence. It's deflection when you make an empty assertion without evidence. It shouldn't surprise you to see some of your typical methods and claims be challenged. I see no reason to let you get away with empty claims all the time. Most of the time, yes, I'm sure you can get away with it. Just because I've let hundreds of these bickering, sniping, divisive, contentious, snide remarks go unchallenged, it doesn't mean it should always be so. Now and then you should expect false or empty claims to be exposed for what they are.  True. That's exactly what I was complaining about. You are giving a meaningless meaning to the word "influence" because you don't like the idea that Russell could have been influenced by anything except "to fully understand scripture . . . by his own understanding." Although this would surely sound ridiculous to anyone who reads all of Russell's publications, that's how you put it: [emphasis mine] Russell clearly admitted that he was influenced by others, especially in the area of Biblical Chronology. Are you saying he was lying? And because you claim an awareness of all he wrote, I'm sure I don't have to point out the references for you. That is a completely illogical non sequitur, bordering on word salad. Another non sequitur. What does it matter how great you might think the University of Cambridge is? You showed a couple of book covers. If you had looked inside you would have seen that one was irrelevant and one provided multiple ways to understand how Russell had been influenced by others. Actually, you're the one who found the good definition. The dictionary definition. I'm not arrogant for accepting the dictionary definition. You're the one who doesn't utilize the very definition you provided. Indeed. Sounds arrogant. Just sayin'. That sounds good. The only problem is that when you simply present the facts straightforward, you often pick facts that are irrelevant to the topic. What Russell thought of Miller for example and what he thought Miller did wrong, was lifted nearly verbatim from Barbour's words about Barbour's own "epiphany" of sorts when he figured out what Miller had done wrong with the starting dates. You really thought that Russell came up with this by "his own understanding of Bible Chronology"? And what would be the point of such a claim? You are saying that, on his own, Russell came up with exactly the same foolishness that Barbour came up with, which the Watchtower has now dropped completely as false doctrine. Russell claims that initially he didn't understand the chronology issues, he even expressed some disdain for them, and rejection of them. But after spending some time, especially with Barbour, he was convinced that he should join Barbour's campaign to announce the great events of 1878. He ended up accepting all of Barbour's false doctrines about 1874 and 1878 which were based on Barbour's starting dates for the 1260, 1290, 1335, etc. You are claiming that Russell came up with Barbour's exact same false doctrine with no influence from Barbour? It's not possible to make such a claim without manipulating the meaning of the word "influence." I have no need of a cheering section. This is why I don't create any alternate accounts. I think you have created about a dozen alternate accounts that you have utilized in order to provide a voting bloc that up-votes your own posts to cheer them on. And you have also used your alternate accounts to down-vote or laugh at posts with evidence you aren't able to respond to. So who's the one who apparently thinks you need a cheering section? I'm not concerned here with some of the ways in which he was not influenced. We already covered the idea that many people think Russell was influenced in more ways than he actually was. I'm still stating the obvious, by Russell's own admissions, that there were ways in which he was influenced. Two of the topics that have come up here, for example, are teachings about the "Great Pyramid of Giza" and it's relationship to the chronology teachings Russell got from Barbour. Those are a couple of the more obvious examples, although there is evidence for a couple others, too. I'm not going to worry about what other people are doing, unless they'd like to come to the forum and ask. I know who Barbara Anderson is, of course, but I haven't read what she says about "influence." (I notice that you also mentioned a Commodus in an earlier post. I have no idea who this is.) I am not here concerned about influences among and between Storrs, Grew, and competing religious ideologies or phrenology reports. I noticed that what you quoted directly followed from Storr's phrenology report. Phrenology, of course, is based on the conclusions of an "expert" (usually a racist) who feels the bumps on your skull, especially around the brain area: A Phrenological description of Mr. Storrs, given in 1849, may conclude this account of the author of the Six Sermons. It is as follows: [And what followed was the report that you just quoted!] Was Russell influenced by this debunked and false teaching about phrenology because Storrs evidently believed in it? Note this about Russell, based on Russell's visitation with His Majesty's Phrenologist, Professor Dall: I have much pleasure in giving a sketch of the genial and fatherly head and physiognomy of Pastor Russell. He is just one of those men whose appearance, suavity, wit, goodness of heart and soundness of head do credit to his profession. Well up in years, he has a youthful, kindly, and sympathetic nature, fatherly and benign in counsel, moral and spiritual in his influence. In religion his "doxy" is broadened by the effulgent light of Bible study. His temperamental development is very even. If there is a predominance of either, it is found in the motive, which supports an intense energy of mind that cannot dream life away, but must be practical. I find the head of Pastor Russell to be a large one, and the brain gifted with an uncommon degree of activity. A full basilar region is accompanied by the powerful endowment of the moral, intellectual, and spiritual natures. ... Did Russell decide on his own that this false teaching about reading the bumps on one's head was worthwhile? Is it possible that others influenced Russell to believe that phrenology was useful? Â

I'll start with the conclusion of your post. I looked over the two books. Both books can easily be found in their entirety although possibly copyright-infringed, so I won't share the links. I have access to one of the complete books through a college library account. And both books are previewed in Google Books. So, after looking them over, I don't make assumptions with your writing, that it is somehow in agreement with what I am saying. However, these books that look scholarly and have the word "influence" in the title are very much in agreement with what I am saying. And they are very much in disagreement with how you are evidently trying to twist the meaning of the word "influence." This shouldn't have surprised anyone. You've tried this dozens of time with me, and rarely have you ever responded to an argument with a book cover where the conent of the book actually supported your theories. (Even when you sometimes have pulled long quotes from the books, those quotes have often hurt your argument.) So I can see why you might be concerned with the exposure of "trickery." But the books don't matter. It turns out that just because they both had the word "influence" in the title, that neither book has much relationship to this context . The dictionary definitions you supplied, on the other hand, are exactly in line with the correct usage of the word "influence." And yes, unfortunately, it completely demolishes your theory, because none of the definitions would allow you to avoid the obvious -- that Russell was "influenced" by Second Adventists. But you did go to a lot of trouble to respond, and I appreciate that, even though your claim suggests one thing and the only evidence you have provided indicates that your claim is wrong. This suggests that you might have had some other prejudicial reason to avoid the word "influence" with respect to Russell. I think that this might be the best place to start, then, in order to understand what you are trying to say. In other words, the new question, is as follows: Why would anyone provide evidence that Russell was influenced by Second Adventists while at the same time claiming he was not influenced by Second Adventists? This is just a guess, but my theory is that you won't realize the cognitive dissonance due to the strength of your overriding belief that Russell was somehow too good to be influenced by ideas and people who turned out to be wrong. You evidently hold to an ideology that Russell was above influence by anything or anyone that could be wrong or false. And you do give several evidences from your own words that this is your belief. Just as no one would ever say that Jesus was "influenced" by any man or group of men, you also can't abide an ideology that Russell could have been influenced by Second Adventists. Since this appeared to be the same reasoning behind previous attempts that you have made, you can probably see why I went to the trouble of discussing the dangers of creature worship, personality cults, false claims, and historical revisionism that invariably results from elevating the status of a man as if he were some kind of "prophetic figure." Note the implication of the references here on jw.org: [emphasis mine] https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102014241 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? . . . . Those taking the lead among them—Charles T. Russell and his close associates—did, indeed, act as the foretold “messenger” . . . . Can you name one of the other persons "in the decades before 1914" (i.e. prior to 1895) who would have to be included in that "prophetic figure"? Anyone?

You must think you defined what "influence" really is, in the post that starts out: I can't see it in that post or anywhere else in your previous comments. Perhaps others can see it. If you can create a sentence or two, or even a single paragraph that defines what meaning you are giving to the word "influence" then perhaps this would help, especially if no one else can see it either. Of course, if you can't produce a definition of the word, then you might find that this is the reason that you think Russell wasn't influenced as stated. Of course, it's always easy to claim anything you want if you think you can arbitrarily change the meaning of words to whatever you prefer them to mean. Perhaps that explains why you have made multiple previous claims in this thread that seem absolutely absurd when compared with the evidence. Perhaps these claims aren't absurd to you because you have redefined the terms so that dictionaries and language don't matter to you?

Can you give an example of what initial truth is presented by the organization which you call "bait"? It just seems to me that if there is sufficient initial truth to bring in the anointed ones, then why are you treating this organization as something that everyone should leave? I'm sure it's clear to you, so I'm not asking for further clarification. It's just that I have trouble with the concept of an organization set up by Satan I guess, that all the anointed remnant appear to be required to get trapped into, which makes it part of Jehovah's plan for all the anointed to get baited into it. It's like you are saying that there is this "bad" thing out there that all the holy saints must participate in.

Done! Sorry, it's just as clear to me as before. So I must be missing something. Are you willing to provide a definition of the concept that you think should be applied to Russell? If you are serious, you should be able to do this.

I wasn't stating it that way to complain that I had corrected you before. After all, no matter how strongly worded anything comes out in a discussion, these are all just our opinions. What I was saying was that when I gave my previous opinion, I was stating that Russell absolutely did not get the date 1914 from the pyramid. The reason I revisited the topic was that I didn't provide much evidence for my opinion that last time. It was just an assertion, mostly. This time I wanted to offer some of the evidence for that position, but also to soften it somewhat by noting that there could have been a little more to Russell's thinking than what shows up in the usual evidence. That's why I wanted to bring Seiss's influence back into it, because we can't know for sure how much Seiss influenced Russell to solidify his view of 1914. Of course, it was possible to see a number extending out past 1874 in Seiss's charts, but for a while Russell still used the pyramid only to point to 1874, not 1914. You can see this from the link already mentioned above: https://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/davinci-freemason.php Thy Kingdom Come p.342 1891 Edition Thy Kingdom Come p.342 1911 Edition "We find it to be 3416 inches, symbolizing 3416 years from the above date, B. C. 1542. This calculation shows A.D. 1874 as marking the beginning of the period of trouble; for 1542 years B.C. plus 1874 years A.D. equals 3416 years. Thus the Pyramid witnesses that the close of 1874 was the chronological beginning of the time of trouble such as was not since there was a nation-no, nor ever shall be afterward." "We find it to be 3457 inches, symbolizing 3457 years from the above date, B. C. 1542. This calculation shows A.D. 1915 as marking the beginning of the period of trouble; for 1542 years B.C. plus 1915 years A.D. equals 3457 years. Thus the Pyramid witnesses that the close of 1914 will be the beginning of the time of trouble such as was not since there was a nation-no, nor ever shall be afterward."

LOL! What is a "Nebuchadnezzar IV member of the Watchtower"? It's a good point that a lot of JWs and non-JWs alike just sort of assume that Russell was under the complete influence of Second Adventists, or they even assume that all of Russell's close associates were Second Adventists. I think several of the major influences on Russell came throught the writings of Joseph A Seiss, who was not a Second Adventist, nor were several of the other people who clearly influenced Russell. Russell himself had never been a Second Adventist either. He understood that there was a lot of shame among Second Adventists (especially because of the "great disappointment" of 1843 and 1844). Russell spoke about that shame. He did not want to be associated with it and sometimes spoke of his disdain of their chronology. Yet, in spite of his progress in some doctrinal areas that progressed beyond the doctrines of Second Adventists, he never totally gave up on their chronology. Whenever there is a tendency to elevate a man for the purpose of elevating a religion or a body of men who claim to be his "legacy," there will likely be: "creature worship," a personality cult, cover-ups, false claims by the contemporary followers, false claims and presumptuous behavior by the leader himself, and dishonest historical revisionism by later followers. To avoid this dangerous and unscriptural tendency, an honest assessment of the man himself should be promoted. To the extent that a man is elevated above what faithfulness and discretion would call for, it's a good thing when people tell the unvarnished truth about the man himself. This is no doubt why we know the unvarnished truth about the guilt of King David: a murderer, adulterer, and a man whose actions resulted in the unnecessary deaths of thousands of his own people. If someone knows that Russell was dishonest at times, or manipulative, or haughty, or egotistical or unfaithful, then this would normally not be important, since love covers a multitude of sins. But if he is being promoted as the primary fulfillment of a Bible prophecy such as the "angel to Laodicea" or "the messenger" of Malachi 3:1, then it becomes proper to consider the Bible's priority here: (Romans 2:29-3:4) . . .That person’s praise comes from God, not from people. . . . 3 What, then, is the case? If some lacked faith, will their lack of faith invalidate the faithfulness of God? 4 Certainly not! But let God be found true, even if every man be found a liar. . . Rather than a smearing campaign, I would recommend a historical honesty campaign. It's false, in my opinion, to take it that far. Russell was highly influenced by Adventism, just as he was also highly influenced by persons who were not Adventists. But there were more Adventists among his formative associates than non-Adventists. His own views adjusted somewhat over time, too, which creates a complexity here. Also, Russell wasn't completely honest about his own avoidance of Adventism. It was apparently wishful thinking on Russell's part that he would differentiate himself far enough from the shame of Second Adventism. It's also my opinion that even careful historians like, B. W. Schulz, have gone too far in positioning Russell's doctrinal eclecticism as far away from Adventism as possible. I think it's partly in order to hold a more unique contrary position that Schulz emphasizes the differences instead of the similarities. Pre-1876, and post-1909, one could argue with some good evidence that Russell held more non-Adventist positions than Adventist ones. But he continued to give great importance to the teachings that were most influenced by Adventists, until his death. Also, from 1877 to nearly 1909 he was constantly working through (and sometimes out of) these Adventist influences.

@Space Merchant, I hate to admit it, but I have never really read any of your comments on the forum until this morning. Now and then I read some of the posts by @Witness, but the only reason I ended up in this thread was because JTR is one of the persons I follow, and a notification came up, when he asked a question about the Masonic-related speech. I immediately pointed him to a link that debunks the Freemason membership. I hadn't seen that Witness already gave a link to the entire sermon/talk. I knew that the pdf on my hard drive had the talk, but it was a large pdf to post for just a few pages inside it. So I wanted to apologise for not taking note of your previous posts. I ended up overlapping a bit with yours, mostly on the Great Pyramid. I just wanted to say, too, now that I have read many of your posts, I really liked them. I found them to be well-informed and relevant. Thanks.

@Witness, I know I've asked you this before and I have read your answer, but this still doesn't make sense. You are saying that God had nothing to do with setting up the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses, YET somehow the same organization is Satan's testing ground for all the remaining anointed? (Note that I added the word all, to see if this is where I needed clarification.) So, are you saying that God had nothing to do with setting it up? Or is it that God had nothing to do with setting it up to restore true worship, but set it up as Satan's testing ground? If Satan set it up, how is it that every one of the remaining anointed ended up in Satan's organization? What is it in the organization that drives all the anointed into the organization? And assuming you were somehow correct on this point, then all the anointed remnant would somehow recognize this and leave the organization. So none of the anointed remnant is allowed to recognize this in advance of being baptized into this organization, but all of them can only recognize the need to leave after they are blinded in order to get in?

You said this in the past, Witness, and I flatly denied then that Russell established 1914 on the measurements of the Pyramid of Giza. This is because it was clear that Nelson H. Barbour, a Second Adventist and former "Millerite" had already become convinced of the 1914 date even before Russell began working with him to help promote Barbour's work. The chronology that Barbour utilized to come up with 1914 was not based on the Pyramid at that time, but mostly on some now obsolete ideas about parallel dispensations with Israel. Several other commentators on Bible prophecy --even before Russell was born-- had already toyed with dates that came close to 1914, and these other commentators also did not base their chronology on the Pyramid. Russell's first known writing about the year 1914 made use of the 2,520 years of Israel's punishment found in Leviticus (7 times) Russell also considered this 2,520 years of Leviticus to run parallel with another period of 7 times which were represented by the period of "insanity" suffered by King Nebuchadnezzar based on Daniel 4. Both these periods were eventually merged into one period called, in effect, the "7 Gentile Times." But even at that time, Russell indicated that there were better and clearer methods of getting to this 1914 date. That was back in 1876, before Russell had said anything about Pyramids -- and the better and clearer methods were likely based directly Russell's knowledge of the adjustment to Millerite chronology that Barbour and several other Second Adventists had accepted. Joseph Seiss didn't write about the Pyramid until 1877. It had been written about (with a view toward "pyramidology") before, by John Taylor in 1859, by St.John Vincent Day in 1870, and Prof. C. Piazzi Smyth between 1864 and 1874 when he produced the first two versions of "Our Inheritance in the Great Pyramid" respectively. From comments that Russell made in the Watch Tower and from the the fact that the subject wasn't treated in Russell's works until the 1880's, shows that Russell had not used the Pyramid to obtain the date 1914. The "Plan of the Ages" book has indications that Russell was already interested in the Pyramid, but it didn't come out until 1886. The first real treatment of the Pyramid was clearly "plagiarized" from Joseph Seiss' book: "Miracle in Stone" (1877) but Russell didn't copy these ideas from Seiss until he added them to the book "Thy Kingdom Come" in 1891. However, I have just completed "Miracle in Stone" for the first time a few weeks ago, and I realize now that Russell probably did use it as if it were an important, independent verification for 1914. This is because Seiss played a "teasing" game as if he had learned something from the Pyramid that he was holding back because it would come across like a prediction of the "end." He teased his readers by showing a picture of the pyramid passages he had measured, but then avoided explicitly telling the readers what that last measurement really was, because of the implication that it revealed knowledge of the actual "end." It was the same as saying, "I know something and you don't, but wisdom and prudence is keeping me from telling you, even though you could easily make a guess for yourselves by looking at the chart." Of course what he actually said was worded differently: And because of this strangely feverish disability to deal with ordinary soberness respecting even the most guarded presentations on this subject of the time, when the length of the Pyramid's Grand Gallery, viewed as a symbol of our dispensation, was touched in the preceding Lectures, I purposely left the figures far in the background, couching the statement in indefinite terms . . . Russell, of course, presented all the same information but tried to measure out those last "guarded" "indefinite" time periods as a method of trying to predict the end in 1914 and 1915. Just how much importance Russell actually gave to the evidence is not possible to say. He never acted like the Pyramids were one of the most important pieces of evidence for 1914/1915, but he did go back to previous arguments he had made about chronology, and he began to add the Pyramid evidence as if definitive, or as if it made other arguments more sure.

You say that the symbolism of the Bible Students included the pyramid [Great Pyramid of Giza]. You say that this symbolism has nothing to do with JWs You say that meticulously proving 2,520 was the basis for the pyramid I daresay that meticulously proving 2,520 does have something to do with the JWs. However, you are completely wrong about proving "2,520" as the basis for the pyramid anyway. The pyramid calculations had nothing to do with 2,520 or 607 (606) or 7 times, or even the Times of the Gentiles. Yes, it was utilized to focus attention on 1915 and 1914, and 1874 but it never had anything to do with 2520.

Goodness. You think you can backpedal full circle and get right back where you started? That's almost always a sign of dishonesty. I said that you implied jwfacts was lying about Russell and Free Masons. So I pointed out that you were wrong and that jwfacts. In fact, I said: So, this is still absolutely true. jwfacts.com is an excellent site for debunking this particular idea. You see how that might be different from saying that jwfacts.com is simply a good source for debunking? You left off the only important part no doubt to imply that I thought the sight was good for debunking anything. It seems that you must have understood this, otherwise you wouldn't have said it. Then you prove that you understood that this logical fallacy needed just one more little piece to be fully dishonest. You made the fallacy explicit when you said: Would you? Is that really how you think? That if something is good for one thing, then it's not good for anything? (Philippians 4:5) . . .Let your reasonableness become known to all men.. . . That's correct as a general statement, although I have no idea if the person(s) responsible for the jwfacts.com site ever had this wrong. It seems to me that the site treats a lot of areas of controversy, and that this is not the only controversy over which the correct and reasonable approach is taken to a particular criticism. I think you are probably wrong in your claim that "they got caught." I also suspect that Barbara Anderson would have learned this at Bethel while she worked on the "Proclaimers" book, unless she says otherwise somewhere. It's also possible that the first ones to claim that Russell was a Mason were not outsiders, but Witnesses skimming through old books and looking at the pyramids and symbols. When I was about 8, I remember looking at the pictures of pyramids in the old books in our KH Library and wondering why Russell marked various stone levels of the pyramid along an angle like 20th, 30th, 36th, 40th, and 60th -- with the word MASONRY next to the 50th. Later, of course, I heard people out in service mention that so-and-so at this or that door was a 40th degree Mason or a 50th degree Mason related to the "90 Degrees of Egyptian Freemasonry." http://exposemasonic.blogspot.com/2011/08/freemasonry-above-33-degree-to-90.html That made sense, but it didn't bother me any more than the pictures of the Pyramids themselves bothered me (which they did at the time, less so now).

Yes, you should have been clearer. You should have been honest. And you should not have put yourself in a situation where you have to backpedal. By the way, this is about the closest thing I've ever seen to an apology from you. I'm impressed. I do think you kind of ruin it later, by claiming that I'm the one doing the backpedaling, however. I didn't have to backpedal at all because I still stand by exactly what I have always said about it, since 1977. True. I don't know for how long the claim has been so common, but I agree that it's nonsense to think this Free Mason idea is true. He wasn't one, but so what if he had been? He had obviously found a new set of teachings to live by. Turns out it was likely through his mother's brother that he could easily learn about them, and I'm sure Russell was the kind who would have been curious to learn. You're right, that's always the first and most important place to start. Personally I learned that the Mason claim wasn't true because the Convention Reports were included in the material I read from 1977 through 1982 which finally included just about everything Russell, Bible Students and the WTS published from 1876 to the present. The actual source is the real foundation of truth, but I didn't know at the time that this particular question or claim had ever come up. So for me it was already pre-debunked by Russell's own words. But, on the other hand, a good researcher, I would think, could also take note of what persons admit about someone when they would otherwise love to find fault with that person. The same goes for either side of an argument. If you were an Israelite in David's day and heard that David had a man murdered so he could steal his wife you might be inclined to defend David against an "apostate" lie. But if your own prophets and holy books admitted it, then there was a good chance it was true. If only your enemies admitted it, you would need more evidence. If, in the days of Jesus, his enemies claimed many false things about him, but also claimed that they couldn't understand why such a "false prophet" was able to perform wonderful miracles, then this provides some evidence about Jesus' miracles to others critics who might not accept a Christians word for it. No need for backpedaling. That's why I have never needed to backpedal. I still stand by exactly what I said. But you implied that the jwfacts.com site said the opposite of what it really says, and now you have backpedaled regarding that claim. This is at least a measure of progress. Normally you merely claim that you were right all along, and that it was the person who was right who was really wrong. So for your own case, I applaud that you at least had the decency to backpedal.

You are not telling the truth here. Again. What you are implying appears dishonest or appears to show a complete inability to do research -- or perhaps you can explain if there was some other reason you are reporting this idea incorrectly. The jwfacts.com site is actually another excellent site for debunking the idea that Russell was a Freemason. An important statement from the page on the subject is here: Whilst these symbols are used by Freemasonry, Russell's usage is not evidence he was a member. These symbols are not exclusive to Freemasonry, and were in common usage amongst a number of nineteenth century Christian groups, such as the Adventist movement from which Russell drew many of his teachings. The conclusion presented on the site includes this as one of the final statements: To believe Russell was a Freemason implies a conspiracy to hide his involvement that is both pointless and devoid of any evidence. Russell was neither a Mason, pagan or Satanist, but simply a religious leader stealing ideas from those around him to found his own religion. What should have given it away is the very title of the page, which I assume you somehow misread: https://www.jwfacts.com/watchtower/blog/russell-not-a-freemason.php

What happened to you AllenSmith? No, I did not ever say I was a good researcher. I said I was a researcher because that was my assignment. Also, I already debunked this same claim to my own satisfaction years ago, while I was still in Bethel. If you recall, I was the one on jw-archive who not only pointed to debunking material about this topic, but if you recall, I even found the original photo from which the photoshopped picture came from of Russell as a supposed Mason. (See another post by The Librarian on this subject.) I was the one who quoted the 1913 convention report as a primary source in debunking the theory, the same as you do above. Also, in my post above I pointed to a very fair treatment of the subject that also claims the same primary thing you are claiming.

From what I could gather the writers at the "survey" blog seem to say that there are 7 specific issues that the WTS is opposing in the book. I count 6 from the linked article. Perhaps there are more details in the author's own blog about what's happening with his book. So far it looks like the following items are part of the suit: Privacy issue related to collection of data on persons who are studying with JWs Privacy issue related to collection of data on the activities of JWs (voluntarily reported hours, placements, etc.) and the use of that information to review the potential congregational status of the JW Portrayal of the Governing Body as having any type of control over the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society Research quoted from Marvin Shilmer where he claims that more than 50,000 Witnesses have died over blood transfusion issues The suggestion that the WTS might try to control the type of music a Witness listens to That Witnesses believe and share potentially embellished experiences as fact Did I miss one that someone else saw?

I have it somewhere. Hopefully someone has a link to it online. It's from a speech by Russell, as reported in the 1913 Convention Report of the International Bible Students. The commentary here: https://mmoutreachinc.com/jehovahs_witnesses/russell_mason/wasrussellmason.html is as good a place as any to start. The portion above is Russell's long, drawn-out analogy and comparison to show how true Christians are really "Masons" only in a scriptural sense even though they don't belong to any Masonic Order. It's curious that he spent so much time accommodating the Masonic philosophy into his speech. I'm assuming he knew that Masons were in the audience, or he had been recently questioned about his choice of Masonic symbols and language.

Then you and I agree completely. I don't think anyone should make a habit of advocating that someone abuse copyright material. And I agree that many people abuse "fair use" guidelines, or don't understand them. It's fairly easy to comply, although it requires a bit more work than a lot of people want to put into their posts. It's easy to get lazy or in a hurry, and I've done this too. I've seen whole articles posted many times. A good rule of thumb is to keep quotes under 3 lines at a time from any article, and keep excerpts down to less than a paragraph or two from longer works. If anyone thinks I have advocated for abuse of the law, they are mistaken either about what I said, or about the law. You are misrepresenting me again. I agree that JTR made an error. I almost pointed it out before you did, but had to go somewhere and didn't see any notifications from the forum pop up for a couple hours. The rules should be kept MORE strictly if this were an academic site. This is NOT an academic site. But there are parts of the site that tend toward being academic in the sense that they are about religious doctrine and they discuss and quote from the academic or scholarly research of others. They are often discussions and critique of doctrine. Doctrine means teaching. Discussions about teachings and critique of teachings is essentially going to categorized as "academic." When you quote from sources to open up a discussion or refute another persons opinion about copyright law, you are teaching something about copyright law. The person presenting material need not be correct in all aspects, but that's the nature of a forum. It's a mix of teaching and questioning and learning and discussion and controversy and disagreement and social banter and parody and jokes and entertainment. But we should still be able to LEARN from anyone who offers a point of view.