Wednesday, May 2, 2018

Temporary Post

You've seen most of this before. Back with some additions and changes and presented for your comments. Comments, even general ones, are helpful. No need for proof reading yet. Bruce is still 'tinkering' with this. [His description of additional research.] Usual rules. You may copy this for your own use. Do not share it off the blog unless you get permission first. Do not rely on this; it is a work in progress. Some of it may change.

I've deleted several comments as soon as they were posted. Do not post links to controversialist sites. A link to an original source is okay. Do not try to advertise though a post. Doing that will get you reported as a spammer. Google takes a dim view of spammers on blogger. Your comments should be in English if possible. Most of our readers are English language literate.

The opportunity to comment on this is closed.

Introduction by B. W. Schulz

            In this volume of Separate Identity you will find much that is unfamiliar to you. Some of what we present changes the narrative – call it the story line – usually presented by those who write about the Russell years. But more often we simply elaborate where others have abbreviated. A more complete narrative gifts readers with a better understanding of Russell era history. This occasionally makes us myth-busters.

The remainder of this post has been deleted. 


Anonymous said...

Clear, accurate and reliable, as always. Very interesting, feels
German Girl

jerome said...

The preface from Bruce is ideal for anyone who may come to volume 2 first – these sort of things do happen – and it should send them to volume one for more background on the antecedents of what for a better word is called Russellism. The repeated errors of past writers on this along with their sloppy research get short shrift in Bruce’s inimitable style. Phrases like “not suffer fools gladly” come to mind.

I particularly enjoyed the review of the errors made in connection with the Ross trial, as this is of special interest to me. The newspapers of the day reviewed the case as it happened, and it is interesting to note what they picked up on and what passed them by. Personally, I suspect that if the transcript ever did surface, it would all be much of an anticlimax for friend and foe alike. But anyhow, that case is outside the time frame of this book – but just an illustration of what past writers have focused on with their agendas.

It was nice to see Conkin get “the treatment” since I sent you this volume originally.

The only thing I would say is that while past writers like Gruss and Stroup are rightly dissected in a bit of detail – they have been around for so long and are so well known to those interested in this subject they have a sort of “timeless” quality as does Walter Martin, the amount of space given to Zoe Knox could “date” the work. At the moment this is bang up-to-date, here we have a modern writer who repeats past misconceptions. But anything THAT current (as in newspaper journalism) has a habit of dating very quickly. In ten years time someone reading this will know of Gruss and Stroup, but a swipe at Zoe Knox’s latest book will be dated news – it could even produce the response “Zoe who?”

There will always be new writers to review who continue to repeat past errors – it depends whether you need to be continually updating, or whether you want something that remains up-to-date and “timeless” by its selection of targets.

But I add again, I enjoyed it and it makes you want to see the remainder of the work – sooner rather than later.

Gary said...

I'm sorry, I appear to have upset Rachael, which was never my intention.

I haven't had time to take in all of Bruce's article yet and am slow in working things out. It pieces together so many strands of information and makes much sense. I think it important that Volume 2 is completed, regardless of whether you continue the blog. My limited understanding of millennial thought in Britain suggests you are right in locating a British Literalist influence on Russell's religious thought and you argue convincingly for this rather than an Adventist source.

Can I please ask a question? Would it be right to term all dispensationalists 'Age to Come' believers? I have reason to ask this question. In a cell at Richmond Castle, a wall inscription with a dispensationalist diagram exists with 'Age to Come' among the writing. (Of course, using the term 'Age to Come' does not, of itself, make one an Age to Come believer!) It dates to c.1916-1918 when a number of conscientious objectors were incarcerated in the cells including, as you know, five Bible Students. The inscription appears, however, to be Trinitarian in nature.

jerome said...

If you believe in the concept of dispensations, that is different epochs of time for different things to happen in God's plan, then you will likely use terms like "Age to Come" - even though the details may differ somewhat from the belief system of the Church of God Abrahamic Faith and its offshoots. Even though the Brethren/Plymouth Brethren movement has wrangled over the issue of "eternal Sonship" over the years, their credited founder, John Nelson Darby (who popularised Dispensationalism) was Trinitarian. In the first world war the Brethren had a record as conscientious objectors (or at least non-combatants). Were any of that group imprisoned in Richmond Castle perhaps?

Gary said...

Yes Jerome, a number of Plymouth Brethren COs are known to have been in the cells at Richmond (after the period the Richmond Sixteen were there), so I think it likely you are right!
Many thanks,