Coincidence or Correlation?

[JW Insider]

6 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

pick up a dictionary and really learn the concept of influence.

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.

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, Witness said:

From the blessing of Holy Spirit received during an anointing, the initial truth presented by the organization is enough bait to bring in the anointed ones. 

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?

1 hour ago, Witness said:

If I didn't make this clear, please tell me.  

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.

[JW Insider]

8 minutes ago, AllenSmith said:

I already did, read and learn!!! there's NO reason for me to walk you through on, things you claim to be well versed on.

You must think you defined what "influence" really is, in the post that starts out:

4 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

A point about C.T. Russell and Adventist, influence.

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?

[JW Insider]

8 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

And don’t make assumptions with my writing; is somehow in agreement with what you are saying, in an attempt to distort the illustration, when it’s to the contrary that I reject your premise. Newcomers to this site might not know, you’re famous for that trickery!!!!!

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?

[Space Merchant]

11 hours ago, Witness said:

The last time someone challenged my stand as a Christian, was for my testimony of Christ in front of an elder body.  I was disfellowshipped for turning to Christ, rejecting an organization as salvation and for rejecting false dates and prophesies that began with CT Russell.    Rev 11:1-3,4,7; 12:17;13:5,7,11,12,14-17  You appear to have the same cock-sure attitude as those who judge God’s anointed ones for refusing to accept unfit spiritual food from a wicked slave.  Matt 24:48-51. 

Believing 100% in scripture would motivate a true Christian to expose the lies, would it not? Gal 1:6-9; Eph 5:8-14; Isa 32:6-8; Luke 6:43-45

Concerning your challenge -

For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ.”  Gal 1:10

I don't care about elders, disfellowship, excommunication, or any of that, I care about your response and your response as a Christian alone, no elders, no jws, no one, but you, and I raise these questions because of how you ignored and or avoided my questions on CTR's influence in your source, even when facts and clear information of said influence is nowhere to be found in said source, for even within your source it gave key points that confute what you even said and or put in bold letters , examples being the study of Pyramids and the Pastor's friends. Let alone the man can't even tell the difference between Templar or Knight is among the Masons, thinking they all function the same way.

I come from the CSE Christian community and even there it is a neutral space, but knowledge is often challenged there if we jump around something or ignore something, this includes making claims without legitimate information, as I and others operate there and other Christian forums, such that is asked of you is considered a basic Christian challenge to see where you are really at, since you claim someone to be corrupt, a few simple questions can make the difference between an honest or dishonest Christian in terms of Christologic knowledge and scripture. 

That being said, you also claim the man is corrupted, so I offer elementary based questions to see if you are not one of the so called  Christians who are dishonest or lacking who remain in darkness or maybe an upright honest Christian.are still in darkness. These are fairly easy too so there's no need to avoid them since you have scripture to prove yourself. 

Also please answer the questions pertaining to what is said in them. I'll ask you again (put numbers next to them):

• 1. Do you believe that the Bible is 100% inspired by God with pure conviction and what is the most reliable source when it comes to scripture? if Yes/No, Why? and what source is sued known to all Christians today?
• 2.Why is it that Jesus observed what is seen in the Old Testament and what for exactly?
• 3. Because of this situation you put yourself in, do you know the scriptural basis of a man or woman, Christian even, when they accuse someone of something out of spite without knowing nothing/being empty handed; at times have caused or causing harm of said person without even landing your hands on them?
• 4. Why is it that John the Baptist Baptized "his" people in the Jordan River?

Galatians 1:10 would help you here, for you choose to ignore what I said before and or go around what I said in terms of your source and so called influence, changing it to someone's love of God's Stone or whatever.

Just give a clear response and nothing more, simple as that. A test of faith and honesty as a Christian with only basic questions placed before you.

 

FYI, you contradicted yourself in terms of salvation because of the j organization, for it says something else on their website compared to what you said regarding salvation. For even they stated, Salvation is for ALL people, not jws alone, but to say something without facts just makes you blind.

[JOHN BUTLER]

What a lot of twaddle this has been. The bible students were totally wrong about a lot of things, we all know that. Is any of this important ? Surely what is important is the state of the Organisation NOW. And it's in a very bad way that's for sure. As for JTR Jr, keep asking 'Is there anything better'? That's a bit like saying "I'm drinking poison but it's less poisonous than other poisons". Poison is still poison no matter how you compare it. I left the Org' because of the Earthwide pedophile problems and more so because the Governing Body refuse to hand over the documents to the Supreme court of California. They tried it on here in the UK too, but it didn't work. Why oh why would the Governing Body want to protect pedophiles within the Org' ? Why would the Governing Body introduce a rule about the two witnesses needed in such cases as Child Abuse. It's very obvious that God Himself didn't mean it to be used in that way. We have to remember that the Governing Body call themselves the Governing Body. The Governing Body also call themselves the 'Faithful and discreet slave'. The scripture says 'Who really is the faithful and discreet slave .... ' it does not say the 'bosses of the JW Org' are the faithful and discreet slave.  They have given themselves those titles. Self praise is no recommendation. They have even said that other anointed brothers and sisters are not of the 'faithful slave class'. They have the right to judge do they ? And to make it worse they have said via the Watchtower that some claiming to be anointed, may be mentally ill. Um, dictatorship comes to mind. Because here we have a group of eight men (there is a new one it seems) of mainly American background, that say they cannot be questioned as they are the only ones receiving God's Holy Spirit and therefore are the only ones capable of distributing the 'truth' / food at the proper time.  So, you lot can go on disputing Masons and other unimportant things, but i will look for answers about the problems in the Org' now, as i think what is happening now is far more important. 

[Foreigner]

7 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

I don't care about elders, disfellowship, excommunication, or any of that, I care about your response and your response as a Christian alone, no elders, no jws, no one, but you, and I raise these questions because of how you ignored and or avoided my questions on CTR's influence in your source, even when facts and clear information of said influence is nowhere to be found in said source, for even within your source it gave key points that confute what you even said and or put in bold letters , examples being the study of Pyramids and the Pastor's friends. Let alone the man can't even tell the difference between Templar or Knight is among the Masons, thinking they all function the same way.

Excellent, Good for you.

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

In order for you to, deflect on the assumption? It doesn’t surprise me, there goes the agreement spin. What a shocker, LOL!!!!

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.

2 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

People that are cornered by falsehoods need to conform themselves to a different meaning.

 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]

13 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

So, the only influence Russell had, was to fully understand, scripture, by his own volition, no one elseÂ’s. His Time Prophecy was ultimately made by his own understanding of Biblical Chronology.

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.

2 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

Any published academic publications that might seem academic even though CAMBRIDGE is an academic institution only proves the obvious, your one-sidedness.

That is a completely illogical non sequitur, bordering on word salad.

2 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

The mission of the University of Cambridge is to contribute to society through the pursuit of education, learning and research at the highest international levels of excellence. It is one of the world's leading research universities, and offers a wealth of study opportunities for individuals from around the world.

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.

2 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

Social construct and mechanism. You’re the one thinking you have found a good definition for the word “influence”, just because you want to keep utilizing it as an excuse, just like any other arrogant person, to the teachings of the Bible students.

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.

2 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

ThatÂ’s just embarrassing.

Indeed.

2 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

I wish you people here would come up with a good argument that defines scholastic differences on scripture, instead of dumbfounded personal opinions.

Sounds arrogant. Just sayin'.

2 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

So, my reasoning is simply to state the FACTS straightforward. Therefore, I donÂ’t need to manipulate any works in order to seemly find fault in order to contradict.

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."

2 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

At least you have part of your original cheering section, back, supporting your erred claims.

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?

2 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

Therefore, I suggest you reread your link in order to fully understand what the Watchtower is actually conveying, and your attempts to distort them, and connect the dots, with what you are implying about a “direct” link in the “influence of Adventism. When, Russell, was dealing with the aforementioned people? They were seen, as fellow members of a new movement, through competing ideologies, with a similar goal of obtaining, Bible Truth. That is NOT influencing.

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.

2 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

At least your friend “Barbara Anderson” in her website is slightly more honest than your claims are, here.

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?

 

[Witness]

8 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

don't care about elders, disfellowship, excommunication, or any of that, I care about your response and your response as a Christian alone, no elders, no jws, no one, but you, and I raise these questions because of how you ignored and or avoided my questions on CTR's influence in your source, even when facts and clear information of said influence is nowhere to be found in said source, for even within your source it gave key points that confute what you even said and or put in bold letters , examples being the study of Pyramids and the Pastor's friends. Let alone the man can't even tell the difference between Templar or Knight is among the Masons, thinking they all function the same way.

Such a well-read man as CTR had no clue where his use of the symbols originated from, or what they meant, that he attached himself to.  Interesting.  We have evidence of just one of his deceitful ploys in what JWI posted from jwfacts.  No, sir.  You are excusing a man just as deceitful as the next Watchtower leader.  His teachings were not sourced in Holy Spirit; which, as a Christian, you should recognize, but feel I should ignore.  I will not excuse the man for his use of pagan symbols and support of measurements of a pyramid that he put into print…to teach…as divine truth, to thousands of people who believed him at the time.   What an act of blasphemy toward the Father.  

Matt 15:17-20; 7-9; 10:26

8 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

FYI, you contradicted yourself in terms of salvation because of the j organization, for it says something else on their website compared to what you said regarding salvation. For even they stated, Salvation is for ALL people, not jws alone, but to say something without facts just makes you blind.

 

Here are the “facts”.  You choose which you want to go with:

“We cannot take part in any modern version of idolatry – be it worshipful gestures toward an image or symbol or the imputing of salvation to a person or an organization”  Wt 90/11/1 p. 26

“Come to Jehovah’s organization for salvation”  Wt 1981/11/15 p. 212

“Still, as a people, “the chosen ones” and their loyal companions will physically survive the end of apostate Christendom by taking refuge in “Jehovah and his mountainlike organization”  Wt. 11/1/15 pp. 3-7

You do realize that according to JWs, you belong to apostate Christendom, don’t you?

Kingdom Ministry 11/1990 p. 1 Directing Bible Students to Jehovah’s Organization" 
"Bible students need to get acquainted with the organization ... They must appreciate that identifying themselves with Jehovah’s organization is.... 
. * essential to their salvation *. ...(Rev. 7:9, 10, 15) ... directing our Bible students to the organization as soon as a Bible study is established".

“Satan would like to reel in your children as a man reels in fish. Various clubs and other organizations are designed to make young people fit in with Satan’s world. But Jehovah’s servants already belong to the only organization that will survive the end of this wicked system of things.” Wt. 07/12/15 pp. 11-15

Awake! 2009 Jul p.29 (p.28)
"No one should be forced to worship in a way that he finds unacceptable or be made to choose between his beliefs and his family."

But wait, they really don’t mean that…

"Really, what your beloved family member needs to see is your resolute stance to put Jehovah above everything else - including the family bond. … Do not look for excuses to associate with a disfellowshipped family member, for example, through e-mail." 
Watchtower Study Edition 2013 Jan 15 p.16

"The slave’s will is Jehovah’s will. Rebellion against the slave is rebellion against God." Wt 1956/6/1 p 346

 

 

 

 

 

 

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, AllenSmith said:

Now, people can decide what kind of influence Russell received through scripture. However, I recommend, people actually read the Bible Student Literature, instead of getting redacted and manipulated information from AP sites.

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?

 

[JW Insider]

8 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

Get head you head out of the sand. How about the included "assimilate" definition, among other things you’re trying desperately to stay away from; all variables that suggest otherwise by Russell own words.

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.

8 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

So, the one that doesn’t want to accept is you, and anyone who is one-sided on this matter.

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)

8 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

You have a serious problem with the word “influence” even though I keep referring you to the more APPROPRIATE approach with the word “assimilate” that you continue to be blind with?

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:

19 hours ago, AllenSmith said:

People that are cornered by falsehoods need to conform themselves to a different meaning.

As I said before, you have often proven yourself to be merely contentious, divisive, sniping, etc. As I said a few posts back:

17 hours ago, JW Insider said:

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.

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.

[Witness]

On 2/9/2018 at 8:36 PM, JW Insider said:

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 believe you grew up in the organization, am I right?  For the outsider who joins, I’ll give you my example. I was a Catholic but also looked into other religions, never finding what seemed to be “truth”.  When introduced to the Wt. teachings, the bits of truth that had a clear ring were, living on a cleansed earth, no hellfire, no annihilation of both the heavens and earth (taught by my Catholic father as the result of Armageddon), no purgatory, no limbo, and no trinity (as I was taught). These are truths taught by genuine anointed ones, another bait tactic, but who have fallen from the grace of God by practicing deceit. Rev 13:11; Matt 12:34; Rev 8:10,11   JWI, can it be dismissed that a projected date that never materialized is false prophesy, and false prophets are doomed to destruction?  Deut 18:20-22; Isa 9:16; Jer 23:10-12

I have said quite a bit on here why JWs need to leave, and primarily which is spiritually discerned - the “abomination standing in the holy place”, which is the replacement/standing in/sitting over the holy priesthood of anointed ones who are God’s Temple, by the “Gentile” elder body/”man of lawlessness”/Beast from the Sea.  2 Thess 2:3,4   “Spiritual Israel” is trampled upon by the elder body’s rule over them, condoned by the GB.  I am sure you remember now that I’ve spoken of this many times.  Dan 8:9-13; 2 Thess 2:4; Dan 11:31-36; Mark 13:13,14; Rev 11:2; Mark 13:13,14; Rev 11:2; 13:7,10; Luke 21:24  We have a symbolic mirrored image of what happened in the first century.  The abomination standing in the holy place then, in Jerusalem and the temple, was the Gentile army overtaking Jerusalem.  Luke 21:20-22; Matt 24:15-25; Mark 13:14  This was a warning to get out, flee to the mountains.  Through the years of Wt’s existence a slow transition has developed where the elder body has gained power over the anointed ones and given authority to “kill”/deem as spiritually “dead” any who reject the GB/wicked slave’s teachings. Matt 24:48-51  Christ was killed by the Roman army, turned over to them by Jewish leaders.  So, too, those holy ones who declare Wt’s sins.  As soon as anyone discerns this spiritual fulfillment of the “man of lawlessness”, they are to FLEE – flee the Watchtower.   The true “mountains” of Israel are the restored “living stones” of the Temple Zion.  1 Pet 2:5,9,10; 1 Cor 3:16,17; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:20-22; Heb 12:22; Zech 4:7  (Rom 9:33)

It is curious that the physical appeal of the early temple caused the majority to disregard Jesus’ words, even though he stated “not one stone will be left on another, every one will be thrown down”.  Mark 13:2  Today, the physical appeal of the organization causes one unbelief that it will be destroyed. Rev 8:8; 19:20  Those “living stones”/holy ones who have already been “scattered” will not be restored under Christ, if they remain with the organization.  Christ expects worship in spirit and truth, and under his Headship; not through a mediator called the GB.  Matt 24:48-51  No one can slave for "two masters".  Matt 6:24

 

On 2/9/2018 at 8:36 PM, JW Insider said:

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.

Satan demands it:   “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded permission to sift you like wheat,  but I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.”  Luke 22:31,32

This demand is put upon all anointed ones before they are sealed.  His purpose is to derail the faith of as many as possible and is the basic war outlined in Gen 3:15.  

 He also instigates it.  Because God knows all things, we have the evidence of how he will demand it, through scripture.  Rev 12:7; 9:5,6;6:9-11; John 16:20,22,23; Eph 6:12; 1 Pet 5:8; 2 Cor 2:11   And how the successful ones combat this demand put upon them.  Rev.12:5; 2:26-27; 11:12; 4:1; 22:6; 3:21; Eph.2:6; Rev.19:11,14; 17:14.  

The Watchtower teaches that the anointed have left Christendom/”Babylon” and have repented of their sins. They have been cleansed of Satan’s defiling tactics by entering the organization.  However, what do we find in the organization?  Failed prophesy, changing doctrine, errors in guidance, lawsuits because of strict guidelines made without mercy, men judging another’s spiritual standing, hidden sin among leaders,  a “holy priesthood” directly told not to “gather” which renders them powerless, their continual struggle to remain afloat among the nations, and devotion to an organization – all, is the result of “another gospel” other than what Jesus or the apostles taught.   It is submerged by the heavy focus on a “preaching work”, a message also contrary to scripture during this time of the end.  Luke 10:7; Matt 10:11,23

John tells the anointed of his day – “We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one.” 1 John 5:19  With his power, the wicked one can create “mountains” and instill his “rulers”. Zech 4:7; Rev 8:8; 17:9  We can’t dismiss the possibility that the fourth beast, which is “different” and which comes against the saints, is not cloaked in a spiritual deception.  Ps 1:17

It would be different from all obvious powers; this ploy and his last, by seducing anointed ones to spearhead its formation.  The organization/mountain and all aspects of it is a full counterfeit of the true Zion, found in the Body of Christ.  Satan uses his convincing lies to cause all of the anointed to swallow them down.

The organization was labeled “spirit-directed” by the Wt. leaders; the Beast from the Sea is given “breath” by a false prophet. Rev 13:15  (John 20:22)

 The organization requires one’s dedication and loyalty; the Beast from the Sea requires “worship” and adulation, and it is successful in convincing many.  Rev 13:4,7,8

The organization has taken away the reputation and rightful position of the priesthood and bestowed it onto and elder body.  Rev 13:5,6 The Beast from the Sea “was given power to wage war against God’s holy people and to conquer them.”  Rev 13:7 

 The organization disfellowships those who speak against it when revealing its lies; the Beast from the Sea “attacks”, “overpowers” and “kills” those who refuse to worship it.  Rev 13:15; 11:7-10

The Watchtower is not God’s plan, but Satan’s.  God’s justice, though, requires our freedom of choice, just as he gave Adam and Eve. Yet, these developments of prominent anointed ones joining powers with the “Gentile” Beast from the Sea, to bring to nothing the powers of the anointed by “trampling” underfoot, was prophesied to occur.  Matt 24:15,16; Mark 13:13,14; Dan 8:9-13; 2 Thess 2:4; Dan 11:31-36; 2 Thess 2:4; Dan 11:31-36; Mark 13:13,14; Rev 11:2; 13:7,10; Luke 21:24 

 Yes, we all face the test because Satan demands that we do.  Once the last anointed one who will stand up to Satan’s deception by declaring it as the lie - the delusion of 2 Thess 2:9-12 - and becomes sealed in Christ, Satan’s accusations against Christ’s individual brothers are finished. Still, all hearts within the Watchtower must decisively take “sides” in the war of truth against lies. Rev 7:3; Matt.18:12; John18:9; 17:12; Dan.12:1; Matt.24:24-25; Luke18:26-27; Matt.24:21-22

“Now the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will depart from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and the teachings of demons 1 Tim 4:1

“Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God because many false prophets have gone out into the world.”  1 John 4:1

Those anointed who have awakened to Satan’s ploy have the job to reveal it to all.  Some will, some won’t.  Those that do, are the “two witnesses” of Rev 11:1-3 who “prophesy in sackcloth” over the iniquities of God’s people.  “Babylon” means “confusion”; among spiritual immorality by Wt’s leaders, no set of teachings are more confusing than those of the Watchtower.  Rev 18:4-8  It is time to leave the “apostate city”. 

Satan always reveals a bit of his plan through the pages of the Watchtower, in word and including artwork.  Although it will be dismissed that it is an artistic individual guilty of shenanigans, as frequently as it has occurred through the years it is apparent that darkness resides in the organization.  Where darkness resides, the light of Christ is not there.  Wt. 2/1/83 pg 17 is a perfect example – the face in the woman’s skirt and the feet of the directing “angel” in the “preaching work”.  2 Cor 6:14,15

 I'm hoping all of this covered your questions in another post you made before this one.  I'll look over it.