JW Insider

The idea that she hoped they would learn God's Word too is never included in the story. She had obviously given up hope if she already wondered who would replace them in the New System. (At this point in the story, she is already 10 years old.) Yes. We do. Not all of course, and we don't judge specific individuals, but we definitely teach that there will be persons who will die because they didn't learn the Truth. And it's obvious that it's so common to believe this, that even a member of the Governing Body hadn't considered it wrong to tell a story that centers on exactly this idea. Note that no one is trying to correct the girl for having a misapprehension. The pull of the story is that the little girl died still "knowing" that her parents, in their current situation, would be either killed by Jehovah or forgotten forever by Jehovah. That's the point. The little girl judged her parents as worthy of death. And no part of the story, as told here, corrects that point. The story works if they were worthy of death UNTIL they learned the Truth after their daughter died. (This, by the way, is seen as child abuse in a psychological sense, which I'm sure we'd be quick to see if it was a Muslim girl with a Muslim Auntie who was being taught this same thing about her Buddhist parents.) Then you understand why she should not have judged them. I don't understand this at all. Why would her joy be very great if sadness happened?

It's a tear touching story, but it's also sad that a child learns so early to be so judgmental of her parents that she believes Jehovah will kill them at Armageddon and/or that they will not be resurrected to an opportunity to life on earth when they die. A little girl had to compartmentalize a fear and even a kind of judgmental "hatred" of her own parents in the resignation that they would be eternally destroyed by her God.

Yes. We had it made!! This book went like hotcakes. It's the expression we heard a lot, and it was true. It was the pioneer's bread and butter somedays. Also, in those days, there was no request to put the "profit" back in the contribution box, because the buyers of the book were not contributing to the Kingdom work, they were actually contributing to our ability to continue pioneering.

Over the years, I bought several hundred of these at only a nickel apiece. Placed them for 25 cents apiece. Every two placed was another gallon of gas for pioneering. Only have about 2 left. I was baptized the year before it was released. Since this came out in 1968 it pushed the 1975 date in a couple of places, as a time when the world would reach a peak of crises and catastrophes. The book was updated in 1981 to get rid of the 1975 date. This was an excellent style for studying. We didn't spend too long on any subject, and there were a lot of scriptures packed into the material that were just cited and not quoted. So a study could go long or short and still cover the material depending on the preference of the person we were studying with. Millions became Witnesses based on this book, especially former Catholics. But I think it had about equal appeal to people of many backgrounds.

I've seen the same many times. Part of it is undoubtedly based on the possible pretension that the verse speaks of a "CRY" of Peace and Security, and that exclamation point that the NWT puts at the end of it. The Bible says nothing about a "cry" of Peace and Security. There is no reason to make it a quotation or put an exclamation mark after it. If this were true, then this would be a sign of the parousia, which contradicts the fact that the parousia comes as a thief, and a thief does not give a sign before he robs a house.

Don't know whether it's right, but there is a completely different way to understand this verse. You get an idea of it by looking at 1 Thess 5:3 in some other translations: NLT: When people are saying, “Everything is peaceful and secure,” then disaster will fall on them as suddenly as a pregnant woman’s labor pains begin. And there will be no escape. ESV: While people are saying, “There is peace and security,” then sudden destruction will come upon them as labor pains come upon a pregnant woman, and they will not escape. NET: Now when they are saying, "There is peace and security," then sudden destruction comes on them, like labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will surely not escape. I think we sometimes get this impression that the final generation of the last days will see almost constant wars and rumors of wars in various places in the world, with very few days of real peace. But then, we seem to figure, that the UN or some political institution or coalition of governments will, for some reason, cry out something to the effect of "Peace and Security!" as if they would like some attention for have finally been instrumental at creating a few weeks of peace amidst the near daily wars around the world. But it seems just as likely that the actual meaning, or even the actual translation of the verse should be closer to: While some people are talking about how everything seems to be peaceful and secure, they will find themselves undergoing sudden disaster, just as unexpectedly as the beginning of a pregnant woman's labor pains. And they won't be able to escape. This is not necessarily a quotation of what they will be saying out loud anywhere. The expression is just one symbolic way of telling us what some people will no doubt be saying and thinking just before the time when Jehovah's judgment day comes upon them just as surprisingly as a thief in the night could come upon them. In context, this is what it seems to be saying. It's about the "PAROUSIA," which is sometimes called the "Day of the Lord" or the "Day of Jehovah." In context, it's about WHAT to expect about the PAROUSIA (presence) and WHEN to expect the PAROUSIA (presence): (1 Thessalonians 4:15-5:5) . . .For this is what we tell you by Jehovah’s word, that we the living who survive to the presence [PAROUSIA] of the Lord will in no way precede those who have fallen asleep in death [before the PAROUSIA]; 16 because [AT THE PAROUSIA] the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first. 17 Afterward [or, THEN] we the living who are surviving will, together with them [or Greek, AT THE SAME TIME], be caught away in clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and thus we will always be with the Lord. 18 So keep comforting one another with these words. 5:1 Now as for the times and the seasons [of the PAROUSIA], brothers, you need nothing to be written to you. 2 For you yourselves know very well that Jehovah’s day [the PAROUSIA] is coming exactly as a thief in the night. 3 Whenever it is that they are saying, “Peace and security!” then sudden destruction is to be instantly on them, just like birth pains on a pregnant woman, and they will by no means escape. 4 But you, brothers, you are not in darkness, so that the day should overtake you as it would thieves, 5 for you are all sons of light and sons of day. We belong neither to night nor to darkness. Granted, this isn't the way we currently understand it officially, but it fits all the other scriptures just as well. The expression about saying there is peace and security is a parallel to the idea that the Parousia will come as a thief in the night. It will be surprising, and even painful and disastrous. There will be no way to predict it (by pointing out increasing wars and earthquakes and disasters, for example). Therefore Paul had nothing to say to them about the timing of the Parousia (the times and seasons) -- 1 Thess 5:1. This matches the idea that Jesus gave when he said that people would be going on about their daily routines, two men in a field, two women at a grinding mill, eating and drinking, men marrying and women being given in marriage just as they were in Noah's day. Until suddenly the judgment event (parousia) came upon them as if without any warning. Peter was saying the same thing when he said that people would ridicule the belief that the Parousia was coming, because things seemed to be going on as they always had been. Peter didn't say that the answer would be that the Parousia was really there all along but just invisible. Instead Peter said: (2 Peter 3:5-7) 5 For they deliberately ignore this fact, that long ago there were heavens and an earth standing firmly out of water and in the midst of water by the word of God; 6 and that by those means the world of that time suffered destruction when it was flooded with water. 7 But by the same word the heavens and the earth that now exist are reserved for fire and are being kept until the day of judgment and of destruction of the ungodly people. In other words, they are ignoring the fact that just like in Noah's generation, people also likely ridiculed the fact that there was no evidence of an imminent judgment day, yet that judgment event (parousia) came upon them as quickly as Jehovah released the waters upon them. In the same way the current heavens and earth will exist as they are being kept just as they now exist UNTIL THE DAY OF JUDGMENT (until the Parousia).

I know that a few of us have probably "snuck" a listen or two to the televangelists and radio preachers who so often ask (beg) for money. This doesn't bother me as much as those who try to ask for money in more subtle ways like the way they comment on a scripture and repeatedly throw in a phrase like "showing our appreciation for Him by giving to Him in every way possible." Even more irritating are prayers that are supposed to be to God, but really just continue to preach and obliquely request money through similar ruses: "Oh God, I just know that everyone who can hear this prayer today through this broadcast is ready and willing to show their appreciation for you by giving, in every way possible." So I kind of cringe when I hear a song (or prayer) to Jehovah that gives the impression that we are bragging to Jehovah about how much money and time we are giving to the building of Kingdom Halls and Assembly Halls. "Jehovah . . . from your own hand, we've given all that we offer you . . . . we are grateful . . . you knew what we wanted . . . . So we offer the best of our time and possessions." I'm not saying there is anything wrong with these words. I'm as happy as anyone to give to the ministry in every way possible. It's just that I'm sensitive to the way that others might take some of our songs and see a kind of solicitation in them, in the same way that I have seen it in televangelists. The very song makes me start wondering if we are trying to emphasize "Temple" giving rather than "people" giving. I start thinking of what it means that we walk by faith not by sight, when I hear a song that says: "For you’ve made our hope reality With this place." And when it says: ". . . But your spirit can here remain. Adorning this center of worship are people who walk in your light." it also reminds me of: (John 4:21-24) . . . the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. . . . 23 Nevertheless, the hour is coming, and it is now, when the true worshippers will worship the Father with spirit and truth, for indeed, the Father is looking for ones like these to worship him. 24 God is a Spirit, and those worshipping him must worship with spirit and truth. Of course, this doesn't mean that any of the words are wrong. We can worship in spirit and truth inside a physical place just as we can worship in spirit and truth when we are at home or at work or on vacation. Having a physical place is wonderful, but emphasis on one as "making our hope reality" or "what we wanted" can reach a point where we begin walking by sight, not by faith.

I don't see how we would ever know when such a new period of time started. As far as we can tell it started immediately after the tribulation in those days. (i.e., immediately after the tribulation on Jerusalem and its final parousia/synteleia in 70 C.E.)

True, but not about the people in the picture. It was true of the number of generations in Matthew chapter 1. 14+14+14=42 (Unless these three people are galaxy hitchhikers.)

Of course, Jesus never said anything about these things happening either in greater, more terrifying, or more "concentrated measure." So even if earthquakes, for example, really had started to happen in "concentrated measure" in 1914 (they didn't!) this would still have nothing to do with the sign of Matthew 24. All Jesus said was that great earthquakes, for example, would happen and therefore not to be misled by them, because these are not signs that the end is imminent. ("Do not be misled . . . the end is not yet!"). Of course, what you are talking about would still be the common reasoning, even if we somehow found a way to restart the generation with the start of the Governing Body around 1972, or the apostasy in 1980, or AIDS, or cart witnessing, or the re-assignment of the Governing Body as "guardians of doctrine" around 2000, or even some brand new unexpected event in 2018. So I brought up the point about the sign in Matthew 24 to propose that we would still be wrong to try to find new reasons to claim that earthquakes and wars were somehow more "concentrated" after a new starting date -- even if they WERE!

I think I've presented the following alternative suggestion before (a couple of times): It makes sense that when Jesus refers to "all these things" he is referring to the same "all these things" that the disciples asked him about: (Mark 13:4) 4 “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are to come to a conclusion?” In context, of course, "all these things" referred to the judgment on Jerusalem and therefore the toppling of the Temple buildings. (Mark 13:1-4) As he was going out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him: “Teacher, see! what wonderful stones and buildings!” 2 However, Jesus said to him: “Do you see these great buildings? By no means will a stone be left here upon a stone and not be thrown down.” 3 As he was sitting on the Mount of Olives with the temple in view, Peter, James, John, and Andrew asked him privately: 4 “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are to come to a conclusion?” Since the word "synteleia" can refer to a final destruction and the word "parousia" can refer to a final judgment event, the disciples no doubt thought that these events were part of the final parousia/synteleia on the whole world. After all, Jerusalem represented the whole world to them. Therefore, Jesus' words to them started out "Do not be misled." or "Look out that nobody misleads you." For you are going to see a lot of things in this generation that you might think will be a sign of that final end, but remember that all these things are going to take place. A lot of things might fool you into thinking you are seeing that final sign. You will go through a lot of trials and tribulations. But don't be misled. The final end cannot happen until AFTER the only sign, which is what you will see come upon Jerusalem. Jesus' prophecy about Jerusalem, of course, also contains a lot of good counsel about how easy it would be to also be fooled into thinking that this or that is a sign for the final parousia too. It's also easy for us to be fooled into thinking that wars, and earthquakes, and famines are a "sign" of the final parousia, when really we know that, even though all these things will take place, people will also be talking about peace and security right up to the end. People will be eating and drinking and marrying and going on with their lives right up to the end. People will be ridiculing the fact that all things are still going on just like they have been from the beginning, right up until the final end.

That's actually very simple. Jesus used similar expressions a few times. They even matched the context of Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21. (Matthew 23:36-38) 36 Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation. 37 “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the killer of the prophets and stoner of those sent to her—how often I wanted to gather your children together the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings! But you did not want it. 38 Look! Your house is abandoned to you. So a judgment day was coming upon Jerusalem, and it would come during the same time period in the lives of people who were contemporaries of Jesus, during the lives of the very same audience he was speaking with, the people who were alive at the same time as Jesus. We know that Jesus said this in about 33 CE and that "all these things" came about just as predicted. Jerusalem's judgment day came in 70 C.E. (which was about 37 years later). A great tribulation for many Christians in Jerusalem started around 66 C.E., which was 33 years later. The same idea can be seen in the expressions: (Matthew 16:28) 28 Truly I say to you that there are some of those standing here who will not taste death at all until first they see the Son of man coming in his Kingdom.” (Mark 9:1) Furthermore, he said to them: “Truly I say to you that there are some of those standing here who will not taste death at all until first they see the Kingdom of God already having come in power.” (Luke 9:27) 27 But I tell you truly, there are some of those standing here who will not taste death at all until first they see the Kingdom of God.” (Matthew 10:23) 23 When they persecute you in one city, flee to another; for truly I say to you, you will by no means complete the circuit of the cities of Israel until the Son of man arrives. So the idea was that when people who were contemporaries of Jesus heard him make a promise, they would know it would happen in their lifetime, and they could therefore be happy and lift their heads up, knowing that the promise was close enough that most of them would live to see it. In the case of the promise that "some" would live to see Jesus coming in FULL kingdom power, Jesus made this come true for them just a week later through a vision on the "Mount of Transfiguration." But it proves the same point -- that it had to happen within the lifetime of the contemporaries within Jesus audience. And that's exactly what happened with the promise in Matthew 24 and Luke 21, etc, when the disciples asked about when all these things related to Jerusalem's judgment day would occur. (Every one of the temple buildings' stones being toppled!) They could be happy that it was close enough to be within the lifetime of at least some of those standing there. Of course, it would have been some kind of a cruel joke if the prophecy had meant that it would finally get down to just the last few survivors before anyone could see the fulfillment. How could Jesus have said that "when you see these things, lift your heads up because you know that your deliverance is getting near" if he really meant something like this: I know I said you should lift up your heads, but what I really meant is that almost all of you listeners are going to die first, and perhaps only a couple of people might still be alive when this generation is just about to finally die out. In about 50 years, if Jerusalem has not seen her judgment day by that time, you might want to remember who were the youngest persons in the audience when I made the uplifting promise, and then figure out about how much longer those young persons might live. Let's say there were a couple of 15 year-olds and they might survive until about age 80, which is 65 years after I am making this encouraging and uplifting promise that your deliverance is getting near. This means that, not you, but people who are alive 65 years from now might want to start watching these youngsters very closely in 65 years, when they will be 80 year old, to see just how long they are going to live. When the last one is about to die, you will know that I am just about to bring Jerusalem's judgment day. If the last one starts to die, you will even at that point know the day and the hour, too! Even though this is ludicrous, for those who might have thought that the words about Jerusalem's judgment day also applied to his full and complete judgment day on the whole world, this could have resulted in something very much like that scenario. In fact, there is a kind of warning not to fall for this kind of thinking. It's at the end of John's gospel: (John 21:21-23) . . .“Lord, what about this man?” 22 Jesus said to him: “If it is my will for him to remain until I come, of what concern is that to you? You continue following me.” 23 So the saying went out among the brothers that this disciple would not die. However, Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but he said: “If it is my will for him to remain until I come, of what concern is that to you?” Jesus had already implied that "this generation" could die out completely before the final judgment day on the world. Note: (Matthew 12:41, 42) 41 Men of Ninʹe·veh will rise up in the judgment with this generation and will condemn it, because they repented at what Joʹnah preached. But look! something more than Joʹnah is here. 42 The queen of the south will beraised up in the judgment with this generation and will condemn it, for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solʹo·mon. But look! something more than Solʹo·mon is here. Notice the brilliant way in which Jesus would not tell them that the final judgment would NOT also come in their same generation, but had still been clear that the judgment day on Jerusalem would come within their generation.

At least it looks like you are getting some of your hair back.

I'm not speaking for any of the other persons who have questioned it, but the only scripture that was used is this: (Exodus 1:6) 6 Joseph eventually died, and also all his brothers and all that generation. The problem is that this scripture does not support what Brother Splane is saying. In fact, it more likely says exactly the opposite. Just look at the context to see that "all that generation" refers to Joseph and his brothers and all those who were alive at the same time as all of Joseph's brothers. It did not include all of Joseph's parent's generation, or his children's generation, or his grandchildren's generation. In fact, if you back up just 10 verses in the Pentateuch, you read in Genesis 50:23: (Genesis 50:23) Joseph saw the third generation of Eʹphra·im’s sons, also the sons of Maʹchir, Ma·nasʹseh’s son. They were born upon Joseph’s knees. The third generation was contemporary with Joseph "born upon Joseph's knees, in fact. But they were not in the same generation as Joseph. They were, just as it says, the "third generation." But first there is an even clearer reason to see that this explanation is wrong. In fact, Brother Splane accidentally ruined his entire explanation using his own words in the talk. Listen closely to the video above from the point marked 2m:38s to 2m:53s. These fifteen seconds prove that his reasoning is false. He says: But now what did Joseph and his brothers all have in common? They were all contemporaries. They had all lived at the same time. They were part of the same generation. So a quick test: Was Joseph Rutherford part of that first group? Was A. H. MacMillan? Was W. E. Van Amburgh? The answer is YES, according to Brother Splane, at the point from 7m:38s to 7m:54s in the video above. Who else was part of that second group? At 11m:16s to 11m:28s, he adds: "...in addition, there are Karl Klein, John Barr, Albert Schroeder. All the current members of the Governing Body are also part of 'this generation.'" Now it's easy to see what's wrong with this picture, and why Exodus 1:6 actually disproves the currently proposed theory: Were the current members of the Governing Body contemporaries of Rutherford, MacMillan and Van Amburgh? NO!! Of course, not! Rutherford died in 1942 Brother Sanderson was born February 4, 1965. He was baptized just days after he turned 10, on February 9, 1975. So it's not likely that he became "anointed" (a requirement to be in the second group) until 1975 or after. That's 33 years after Rutherford died! So this alone proves that they were not all contemporaries. The same is true of all members of the current Governing Body. They were not all contemporaries with the persons in the first group. We could paraphrase what Brother Splane said about Exodus 1:6: But now what did the members of this first and second group of brothers all have in common? They were NOT all contemporaries. They had NOT all lived at the same time. So they were NOT part of the same generation. In order get this flaw in the logic past us without too many people noticing, some "sleight of hand" was necessary. It was important to interrupt the identification of the first group with their obvious contemporaries while still under the definition based on Exodus 1:6 that they ALL had to be contemporaries. Then the word "all" was changed to "some" and was slipped in quickly without any emphasis on the word "some" at the 8m:20s mark. Then the word "some" was slipped in again with just slightly more emphasis at around the 9m:40s mark. Here's how: He does OK up to 7m:54s while still speaking of real and actual contemporaries in the "first group." Then, at 8m:20s into the video Brother Splane gives away the first clue that shows where the reasoning went wrong. In speaking of the second group and mentioning Knorr, Swingle, Suiter, Henschel and Gangas, he says that "They were anointed contemporaries of some in the first group." He does it again at 9m:40s to 9m:54s, where he says: "In order to be part of this generation, someone would have had to have been anointed before 1992, because he would have to have been a contemporary of some of the first group."

I love what both of you are doing. Very positive attitude and a lot of good work that many people can enjoy. I think it's great that some people post as much as they can. All of us make mistakes, but there is always more that's right compared to what's sometimes wrong.

I haven't seen the original of this, which I assume is in Spanish, but I suspect that the word "estimates" here is actually an error based on the word "estimado" or a related word which in this context would have referred to "holding dear" or "esteeming." (In other words, the Lord esteems [dearly appreciates] even a small donation.)

As was already mentioned by others, the book A&W has a Foreword that might seem a bit confusing. The Foreword contains the following apparent strain of "logic:" "Truth is stranger than fiction". . . . There was a time when all angels were good. The time came when many of them allied themselves with Satan and became evil, hence called "fallen angels." Woman possesses finer sensibilities than man. She is more susceptible to seductive influences. Satan and his allies have taken advantage of this fact in overreaching woman . . . . Evil angels and bad women have made countless millions mourn. The Bible story of fallen angels or evil spirits is briefly told as follows: . . . God had permitted the angels, prior to the flood, to have supervision of the peoples of earth. (Hebrews 2 :3.) These angels had power to materialize in human form and mingle amongst the human race. Satan seduced many of these angels and caused them to become wicked or fallen ones. They in tum debauched the women descendants of Adam. The materialized angels, called "'sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose." (Genesis 6 :2.) A mongrel race resulted from these fallen angels with the offspring of Adam. . . . The fallen angels or evil spirits were not destroyed in the flood, but imprisoned in the darkness of the atmosphere near the earth. . . . Since the flood these evil angels have had no power to materialize, yet they have had the power and exercised it, of communicating with human beings through willing dupes known as spirit mediums. Thus have been deceived hundreds of thousands of honest people into believing that their dead friends are alive and that the living can talk with the dead. All students, familiar with the Bible teaching concerning spiritism, will read this book with the keenest interest because it shows the method employed by Satan and the wicked angels to debauch and overthrow the human race. The reviser of this book is of the opinion that the original manuscript was dictated to the woman who wrote it by one of the fallen angels who desired to return to divine favor. It is believed that reverential persons now examining the revised edition of this book will have a better understanding of the evil influence about us and be better fortified in the Lord's word and grace to shield and protect themselves from these evil influences. Spiritism, otherwise named demonism, is working great evil amongst men. It should be studiously avoided. To be forewarned is to be forearmed. Hence this publication. Let's break that down a little more simply: Woman . . . is more susceptible to seductive influences [of fallen angels]. Satan and his allies have taken advantage of this fact in overreaching woman . . . . Since the flood these evil angels have had no power to materialize, yet they have had the power and exercised it, of communicating with human beings through willing dupes known as spirit mediums. . . . . The reviser of this book is of the opinion that the original manuscript was dictated to the woman who wrote it by one of the fallen angels who desired to return to divine favor. . . . Spiritism, otherwise named demonism, is working great evil amongst men. It should be studiously avoided. To be forewarned is to be forearmed. Hence this publication. Was this strain of logic part of the reason that the book is called "Angels and Women"? Was it implied that the author, a woman, might have been more susceptible to the dictation of a book from a fallen angel? Or was it that the woman author had a book dictated to her by a fallen angel and never noticed that this is what was happening? The person promoting the book through the Watch Tower Society's publication "Golden Age" had said that "even demons sometimes tell the truth." But how did they know that this particular fallen angel was always telling the truth? And if he was always telling the truth, why did the book have to be revised in literally HUNDREDS of places. Why is it that the book didn't know about the version of the doctrine Russell had accepted about the earth's "water canopy"? Why did it have to be revised to remove the race of black dwarfs? It's almost always possible to figure out the reasons for the updates in terms of special doctrines that Russell believed in, that the author had accidentally contradicted by not being aware of Russell's doctrines. It's important to notice, I think, that the reasoning about being dictated by a fallen angel is circular, and proven even more so by later statements. The author of the book never claims or hints that the book was dictated by a fallen angel. Why did the promoters of A&W think it was dictated this way? Because they believed that angels could communicate this way, and that the book had many things correct from their own point of view, which must therefore have come from a fallen angel. The fallen angel was just another character that the author had created in her book. People have written novels where Judas is a more fully developed character whom we are supposed to sympathize with. Gnostics wrote books 2,100 years ago that created sympathy for the Devil and made Jehovah look like the bad guy (the arbitrary trickster). It's common to create an unlikely hero in modern books and movies, so that we are meant to root for a mobster or an assassin. The original author here only did what many authors do in order to make a story compelling and interesting. I think we can easily assume that the "dictation" part was simply made up out of whole cloth by the promoters of the revised version. But the revisions make me wonder if even they believed it was true. There are really a lot of problems with this Foreword. I skipped the part where it says that: A number of years ago Mrs. J. G. Smith published a novel entitled Seola. She claims to have been impelled to write it after listening to beautiful music. She made no pretense of a knowledge of the Bible. Yet many of her sayings are so thoroughly in accord with the correct understanding of certain scriptures that the novel is exceedingly interesting and sometimes thrilling. Parts of this have already been commented upon. "She claims to have been impelled to write it after listening to beautiful music." This is not a claim about anything more than any common writer might claim. Some authors use silence, others use jazz or classical music. The word "impelled" is thrown in just to sound a bit more mysterious. "She made no pretense of a knowledge of the Bible." This, too, was just made up as a way to make it more mysterious sounding. It's like saying that some anonymous Bible translators made no pretense of having any knowledge of the Biblical languages, and that this must prove that the translation is superior in some mysterious way. The author may have done a lot of homework on the Biblical subject and obviously used a lot of imagination too. But the main thing to notice is that no one says that the author claimed NOT to have a lot of knowledge of the Bible accounts. This is quite different than merely noting that the author never bragged about her knowledge. So there is nothing "exceedingly interesting" or "sometimes thrilling" unless the promoters actually believed they were reading "secret knowledge" or "new light" that they thought was coming from a true source. The Foreword next contains the words: The greatest Bible scholar of modem times read this book shortly before his death. To a close personal friend he said: "This book, if revised according to the facts we now know concerning spiritism, would he instructive and helpful." This does not say that Russell ever thought the book was dictated. If he had, this would have been an important point to the promoters. Instead, it only says that it was the opinion of the "reviser." But calling the unnamed "Russell" the greatest Bible scholar of modern times is probably at least partially intended to compare the complete lack of Bible knowledge imputed to the woman author. Also, Russell apparently discovered or at least finally read the book as late as 1916 or shortly before. This would explain the 1924 publishing date of the revision. I read somewhere where a Bible Student thought he read it back in 1878 but that was probably a misunderstanding about whether Russell was a friend of the original author. (Another Bible Student does not think Russell ever had anything to do with the book.) But it should also be noticed that the book was supposed to be revised "according to the facts we now know about spiritism." This does not seem to have anyhing to do with the actual revisions, which were apparently only made to avoid distracting from OTHER Watch Tower teachings. None of the revisions had anything to do with an undestanding of spiritism. And as said above, any changes to the "dictation" would only indicate that they never really believed it was dictated by a completely honest fallen angel anyway. After looking at a lot of the revisions, I think I can guess what was behind them and behind the whole idea of the "dictation" angle. But I've said enough on this part of the topic.

These are all good questions. I don't know the answer. We know which ones Peter was speaking about because he told us. But these are still good questions. I don't think I have anything to add at the moment on that subject though because I always give the Watch Tower publications the benefit of the doubt unless the ideas create a difficulty harmonizing with the scriptures or a contradiction with other scriptures on the same subject.

I'm not sure why you are still so concerned about this part of the discussion. I don't know if you ever noticed that I still have never accused Russell of universalism. All I said was: Russell apparently came pretty close to believing in "universal salvation" and this would include a number of fallen angels according to his thinking. He seemed sure that Adam, although perfect, would be resurrected to an opportunity to eternal life I'd be happy to change the words "pretty close" to "Russell apparently came a little closer than most of us realize to believing in universal salvation, even though he was still not a true and complete believer in universal salvation." By this I mean that some of us would probably be surprised that Russell ever made statements claiming that fallen angels might be redeemed, or even that Adam himself would be brought back to life on earth. I do think these ideas are related to the ideas of "universal salvation.' Perhaps you think there is no relationship. That's OK too. I just thought that the point should be made. I appreciate that you would have used different words to make the point. Of course, you might not agree with the point, and that's OK, too. Remember that just about everything said here is just an opinion. The point I'm trying to figure out is how and why a book of fiction was able to confirm Bible history. Could Mark Twain have written a really good story about lepers in Jesus' day that somehow confirmed that the Bible was right about Jesus curing lepers? If Russell or Brenneisen or Woodworth or someone else had read Mark Twain's book and promoted it, would that have somehow meant that it had confrmed the Bible's accounts? Why would I do that? I still don't believe it's even likely that Russell accepted spiritism in any form. I don't believe he realized that the influence from pyramidologist became a form of divination. I'm not even sure that Russell thought this book was dictated by a fallen angel. I certainly never thought it was, no matter what the Watch Tower publications claimed about it in 1924. Not sure where or why you would get that either. I think that authors often come up with interesting angles most of us would never think of, and a lot of these ideas could make the Bible accounts make more sense. These extra-Biblical authors aren't necessarily right, but their speculations might just allow us to see something in the original account we hadn't seen before. But no extra-Biblical speculations -- yours, mine, or even some brilliant author's -- should be given special "credence" just because we think they got their information from some spirit or some claimed source of inspiration. You can go on all you want about Russell rejecting Universalism. It has nothing to do with my point, which is based on what Russell claimed to believe, not the label you are arguing about. I've known for 40 years that Russell rejected Universalism several times. This is why I never claimed that he accepted Universalism. My point was about how he had accepeted something pretty close to universalism, in my opinion. At least your statement above shows that you are aware that this has nothing to do with present JW understanding. No. That's still false. My argument was that Russell made clear statements that he thought fallen angels could repent and get back into Jehovah's favor. My secondary, supporting argument was Russell also made clear statements that Adam would be brought back to life on earth for an opportunity for everlasting life. Labels we might or might not put on such types of argumentation are still irrelevant.

You are right. It's a fascinating question. I can't say that you are wrong, but the Watch Tower publications now say that his reason for preaching was not "good news" but a proclamation of his victory which would be about the same as an announcement of their impending adverse judgment. *** it-2 p. 674 Preacher, Preaching *** What was the objective of Jesus’ preaching “to the spirits in prison”? At 1 Peter 3:19, 20, after describing Jesus’ resurrection to spirit life, the apostle says: “In this state also he went his way and preached to the spirits in prison, who had once been disobedient when the patience of God was waiting in Noah’s days, while the ark was being constructed.” Commenting on this text, Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words says: “In I Pet. 3:19 the probable reference is, not to glad tidings (which there is no real evidence that Noah preached, nor is there evidence that the spirits of antediluvian people are actually ‘in prison’), but to the act of Christ after His resurrection in proclaiming His victory to fallen angelic spirits.” (1981, Vol. 3, p. 201) As has been noted, ke·rysʹso refers to a proclamation that may be not only of something good but also of something bad, as when Jonah proclaimed Nineveh’s coming destruction. The only imprisoned spirits referred to in the Scriptures are those angels of Noah’s day who were ‘delivered into pits of dense darkness’ (2Pe 2:4, 5) and “reserved with eternal bonds under dense darkness for the judgment of the great day.” (Jude 6) Therefore the preaching by the resurrected Jesus to such unrighteous angels could only have been a preaching of judgment. It may be noted that the book of Revelation transmitted in vision to John by Christ Jesus toward the close of the first century C.E. contains much about Satan the Devil and his demons as well as their ultimate destruction, hence, a preaching of judgment. (Re 12-20) Peter’s use of the past tense (“preached”) indicates that such preaching had been done prior to the writing of his first letter. I don't see anything specifically problematic about the current explanation, but as I said I can't say that you're wrong either.

This is the final part of the discussion of the December 3, 1924 advertisement for the "Angels and Women" book where the Golden Age responds to the two letters: One letter showed concerns about the spiritistic origin of the book and one whole-heartedly endorsed it. The reply is shown in full: Angels and Women . . . Reply TO BOTH above letters we reply as follows: When Pastor Russell was here, he read a book dealing with conditions that obtained prior to the flood. He requested some other brethren to read it. It was so much in harmony with the Bible account of the fallen angels that he regarded the book as remarkable. Under his supervision it was revised, and later published by one who was formerly his confidential associate. The new book is published under the title "Angels and Women". Scriptural citations are given. An appendix is added. Pastor Russell remarked that at some opportune time the book, revised, should be published. As to its being a violation of the Vow to read this book, such an idea is not worthy of consideration. It would be no more wrong to read it than to read "What Say the Scriptures about Spiritism" or "Talking With the Dead"; for both these books quote much as to what the evil spirits do. Many have derived much benefit from reading "Angels and Women" because it aids in getting a clearer vision of how Satan overreached the angels and overreached the human race, and caused all the havoc amongst men and angels. It helps one to a better understanding of the devil's organization. The book is published by the A. B. Abac Company, Madison Square, P.O. Box 101, New York City, N. Y. THE GOLDEN AGE does not handle this publication; but all who desire it should write directly to the publisher at the above address. As expected by the order and content of the letters, the Society was going to repeat its current stance and offer a small (dismissive) defense to take care of the slight objection. We do apparently learn that it was revised under Russell's supervision, but Woodworth (the Golden Age) editor has also claimed that Russell was supervising every aspect of the work since 1916 from beyond the grave (beyond the vail/veil). So we don't really know if Brenisen (Brenneisen) started work on this before 1916 or not. (Later we'll see a reason to believe that Woodworth is referring to Russell supervising the revision after he died: 1916 through 1924.) The connection to "The Vow" would seem to be obvious. But note that the answer is that this book is no more wrong than to read books by the "faithful and discreet slave" on the subject of spiritism. Perhaps it was the added appendix with scriptural citations that made this rationalization possible. The book is claimed to have provided "new light" in that it gives a better understanding of the Devil's organization, and gives a clearer vision of "how" Satan overreached the angels and humans. The street address is not given, just a post office number. This is thought to be Brenisen's publishing company.

In the timeline, the initial announcement and promotion in July 1924, was covered, and now have begun to discuss the response to the book starting in the December 3, 1924 issue of Golden Age. Next is the positive response. (Again don't miss the signs of marketing within the letter itself.) Angels and Women . . . TO THE GOLDEN AGE: With much pleasure and profit has the book, "Angels and Women" been read by Truth friends. It contains much to encourage one to loyalty and faith in God. Do you think that it would be a real service to purchase these books in quantities of ten or more copies at a time so as to get the special $1 per copy rate that you have so kindly secured for us, and thus to have them on hand as Christmas and birthday presents or for other gift occasions to give to our relatives and friends, whom we have been unable to otherwise interest in Present Truth or only slightly so? Would not some be disposed to read a fascinating novel of this kind, who might not be able to get first interested in "The Harp" or STUDIES? Would this not be considered one way of instructing the people about matters concerning which there is so much ignorance, and direct them to the real Bible keys, the WATCH TOWER publications? Should we send such orders to THE GOLDEN AGE? If not, will you kindly give us the complete address of the A. B. Abac Company? There are many who would like to get a little more information regarding these items. An Appreciative Reader The first sentence by one appreciative reader somehow speaks for how much pleasure and profit this book has provided to "Truth friends." It's about loyalty and faith in God. But notice that the second paragraph, highlighted in red above, looks completely like a common marketing ploy. It's merely a rewording and reminder of the original advertisement. And a new reminder that this would make a great Christmas gift, just in time. It's partly rhetorical in that there is no such thing as No for an answer. It's just like those radio ads or cheap TV ads where two persons converse: Mary: Can you give me some advice John? I have Problem X (x=hair loss, loose gums, 12 toes, etc) John: You are in luck, Mary. There is a wonderful new product that takes care of "Problem X" -- perfect for you! Mary: That's great, and I also love the fact that it's on sale now at my favorite pharmacy for buy 2 get one free! [Fake knowledge that Mary didn't really have, but the ad writers thought sounded better from her.] John: Right you are, Mary! And the sale runs from now until Christmas!!! [jingle, ka-ching! jingle, ka-ching! . . . repeat until fade-out] And of course this new Golden Age advertisement in the guise of a letter is setting up the idea that this is a great witnessing tool as a stepping stone (or "gateway" book) to get them to buy real WATCH TOWER publications. Again this "one" appreciative reader speaks for the many who would like to get more information regarding these items, apparently knowing all along that such orders will actually need to go to the A. B. Abac Company. In my next post I'll cover the response to these letters in the same issue of the Golden Age.

I still think the timeline is informative in helping us decide just why this book was promoted in this fashion by the Watch Tower Society. We discussed the initial announcment in the The Golden Age, July 30, 1924 p. 702. For some reason this announcement said nothing about what made the book so important or just how it could help them ward off spiritism. This was the second major book that Woodworth promoted, and both of them tried to play off their close association with Charles T Russell for sales. (Finished Mystery and Angels & Women). But the actual author of the book Seola was never mentioned. Neither was the reviser named, only that it was a close friend of Russell revising a book that Russell had recommended to his friends. According to Brother Herd, Russell endorsed the book and had written the foreward in the book. Russell did NOT write the foreword in the book, and we only learn second or third hand that Russell had endorsed the book. We know of nothing of the book from Russell himself, or even from Russell's lifetime. In promoting the book through Watch Tower publications, they never mentioned that the original author was a woman, or that they believed she was acting as a spirit medium. Imagine how surprised you would be if you ordered 2 cartons of these books so that everyone in your congregation (a.k.a., "company") could get this new wonderful information about avoiding spiritism. You open up the book and are anxious to get a glimpse of just how "the faithful and discreet slave" had, in effect, posthumously (again!) provided spiritual food to the household of faith. (Russell was still the "faithful and discreet slave" at this point. Woodworth had proposed a new explanation of a parable that would have made Rutherford the fulfillment of a "steward" from a different parable, but it didn't really "stick" yet.) So you open up the book "Angels and Women" and you anxiously read the foreword: "dictated to the woman who wrote by one of the fallen angels who desired to return to divine favor" -- Angels and Women, page 5. In other words, it was dictated by a demon, and endorsed just because the Society held the view that some of the demons were honest and wanted to repent. You'd probably be thinking, "It's no wonder they left this part out of the advertisement." And that's no doubt what must have happened. They got letters. The Watch Tower publications didn't mention it again until December 3, 1924, after as much as 6 months of sales. In the December 3, 1924 Golden Age they went ahead and printed just one letter of concern, and one enthusiastic letter of support, and then defended their continued endorsement of the book. Note how the concerns are cleverly downplayed: Angels and Women WE PRESENT some letters regarding this book (a review of which recently appeared in our columns) which we feel sure will be of interest to our readers: TO THE GOLDEN AGE: Pardon me for taking this much of your time on what may be so simple a matter; but I was approached about going into a club to get a certain book called, "Angels and Women". I made some inquiries, and was told that it was a book that a fallen angel dictated to a women, showing a desire to come back into harmony with God; and that Pastor Russell approved of the book. I had never heard of the book before; and as we are to shun anything akin to spiritism I should like to know positively whether the book has your approval before buying one; so if it is not asking to much would like a reply. (Mrs.) W. S. Davis, Los Angeles, Cal. Notice how she (Davis) is not complaining about buying the book under false pretenses, only that she has somehow learned "that it was a book that a fallen angel dictated to a woman" and that this doesn't sound like the right way to shun spiritism. So she'll still buy the book as long as they can assure her that it really had the approval of Pastor Russell and whether it really has the current approval of The Golden Age, in spite of these facts. Then, of course, they follow this up with a glowing, enthusiastic letter of appreciation. Anyone who has worked in marketing (I have) knows exactly why it had to be done this way. It's always a matter of handling objections in such a way that you can still produce an action on the part of the buyer. It says: "You might have heard that this book is not really a book that helps you avoid spiritism, but that it's actually a book that is the product of spiritism. Perhaps this had made you wary about buying the book. Well guess what? You can rest assured that Pastor Russell himself really did endorse this book and the Watch Tower Society still endorses this book. So what are you waiting for? Have no fear! Buy this book today!" I'll get to the positive letter in the next post.

That's a good and thoughtful question in my opinion. You are right; it's not much different at all. It's easy to make a mistake in looking back over thousands of pages of material that is not all 100% consistent. Even though I never said that Russell was a universalist, it's good that you pointed out this might have been easily misunderstood. This is also correct. Just because Russell was very interested in the Adventist chronology among other ideas, did NOT make him Adventist. This is why I would also not call him an Adventists, even if several of his beliefs were much closer to Adventism than most other religions of his time. It's probably an important factor to see what he actually said he believed without so much concern over whether he felt it put him under a certain label or category. It's also possible to "protest too much" that a person does (or does not) belong in a certain category.

By the way, even though the long article you quoted called "Not Ashamed of the Gospel" supports what I was saying about Russell's view, we should be careful about the way in which we might inadvertently claim that early Zion's Watch Tower articles are supposed to exactly represent Russell's thinking at the time. This was from an early May 1881 Watch Tower, and the J.C.S. initials at the end of that article indicates that it was contributed by J. C. Sunderlin who said quite a few things that Russell himself never said. (Calling William Miller, "Father" Miller, for example.)