THE STORY IS IN THE DETAILS - Notice: I've withdrawn my books from Amazon. They are now only available at Lulu.com
Please visit our newest posts. We'd love to see your feedback. Copyright Secured. Contact blog owner for permission to use anything you find here.
Search This Blog
Separate Identity Vol. 2
Buy at lulu.com
The video
Buy on lulu.com
Click on the picture
Buy on lulu.com
Click on the picture
Contributors
Blog Archive
-
▼
2010
(138)
-
▼
September
(25)
- The ebay description of our book ...
- Our thanks ...
- Peyton Bowman
- Bethany Faith Cure Home - Pittsburgh
- Faith Cure
- Alton Bay Conference
- Misc. Photos
- Voice of the Reaper
- Dr. B. A. Garr and Dr. Walter Bell
- Barbour
- Alton Bay
- Household of Faith Church
- Wish List
- I'm moving this here ...
- A. P. Adams
- Yipee!
- Peyton G. Bowman
- John T. Ongley
- Moved from Comment Section on an Earlier Post
- Several have ..
- Russell and Pirate Treasure
- Revised end to chapter on early work in China
- Early Work in China
- odd and ends
- Russell in Boston - 1877
-
▼
September
(25)
Counter
4 comments:
I am curious about your statement: "It expresses some regret at Bowman's departure. We won't comment on the degree of regret they felt, leaving that to our readers' own assessments. Here I will say that it rings false to me. That is so subjective that we, as I said, won't comment on it in the chapter."
Perhaps I am misunderstanding you here, but how is it possible for a reader to assess how much regret was felt, when none of us were there? All we have to go on is the source material. Wouldn't a historian be interested in relating how people felt about something in the past, or at the very least relating what they SAID they felt? If you believe they are exaggerating or lying, then provide the arguments why, of course. But don't leave it out. Otherwise it appears as if you are trying to sweep something under the rug, which I know you aren't.
I don't know if I was unclear or if you didn't read what I wrote.
What I wrote was: "We won't comment on the degree of regret they felt, leaving that to our readers' own assessments. Here I will say that it rings false to me. That is so subjective that we, as I said, won't comment on it in the chapter."
As far as I can tell, I meant exactly what is said above. While we will present what they said, we will not comment on the genuineness of their feeling. Our readers can decide that for themselves based on the text of the Conference resolution.
We do not see this as a key issue. Payton Bowman's association with the Methodists is a secondary issue. We don't really care what the Methodists felt. After reading the original document, I personally feel their claim of goodwill rings false. But how is that an issue at all in a history of the Watch Tower movement?
As I've rewritten those paragraphs, we quote part of the resolution expelling Payton Bowman. Bruce hasn't seen the rewrite yet. He's been asleep for most of the day. He'll make what changes and suggestions he wants and then one of us will rewrite it again. But for now, we quote the resolution. We will leave it at that. The rest is a non-issue as far as our book goes. My personal feeling is that two of those on the Methodist committee and the Conference presiding bishop hated Bowman's guts and were delighted to get rid of him. There seems to have been a tremendous amount of green-eyed envy over Bowman's success as an evangelist.
How is that relevant to his relationship to Russell?
My comment was not meant as a criticism. I misunderstood your statement "We won't comment" to mean "We won't quote." And I just thought it would be nice to have the quotation.
I didn't take it as criticism. And if I seemed cranky in my reply that was unintended.
Rachael
Post a Comment