Preface One – By R. M. de Vienne
It’s
taken longer to write this volume of Separate Identity than we
anticipated, but as with the two previous books, few of our expectations have stood
up under the light of better research. We believed that a second volume would
complete our research. It has not done so. There will be, assuming we live long
enough to complete it, a third and final volume.
The remainder of this post has been deleted.
7 comments:
I know that Rachael views this as a side issue and not completely on topic, but as the changing nature of some beliefs has been highlighted, I would like to thank her for drawing attention in footnote 8 to the "beliefs clarified" section in official indexes.
Witnesses know it is there in the index of course, but I think that more casual readers should be aware too, If you want to know what the witnesses believe and in what years they changed some details – whether you agree with them or not – this is a good, comprehensive list, especially when you use it to check the references.
On similar lines, if you examine the new Watchtower book on Ezekiel released in 2018 there is a very obvious section at the end – what used to be taught, what is being taught now, and what reasons are there for the change? Those who do not accept the witnesses’ beliefs may disagree with all of the comments, but you would find it hard to fault the open approach.
Thanks for posting this. I appreciate your direct and straightforward style of writing. It makes your conclusions easy to think about and understand.
While it may offend some readers, I think including your comments about the secrecy of the Watchtower Society is appropriate. After all, it is the "truth." While writing a history of my own congregation, which goes back to the mid 1890s, I have written the Society's headquarters for information about the early years of the congregation, and have received only silence and, once, a rebuke from a traveling representative of the Society. I myself am a Witness, and I do not understand the lack of transparency. It is very regrettable, and makes it look like they are trying to hide something. I myself have wondered, if, as you have, I should mention this secrecy in either the Forward of my work, or in places of the work where a lack of information is because I could not get access to materials I know exists. I have not yet decided if I will.
Once again, thank you for posting this. I look forward to the book, and I will encourage all in my congregation to consider buying a copy.
Andrew Grzadzielewski
thanks for your comments, Andrew. Will you please email me your experience in greater detail?
Rachael
I will.
But let me clarify here first by saying the local congregation was very helpful in providing materials, such as artifacts, pictures and stories for the history project. The one exception was an elder who has discouraged others from assisting me, for reasons he will not disclose. All the other elders and ministerial servants enthusiastically participated in the project, so his efforts have not really affected the progress of the project.
The headquarters will not help with details of the early years of the congregation for some reason unknown to me. I do not believe there is anything unsavory that might come out if they provided me with some rather benign things I am asking for like names and dates, and my research is certainly neutral, if not mostly positive. I am not a polemicist, and I have no axe to grind.
Andrew
Thank you Jerome for your points, well taken. Thank you Andrew for your very candid thoughts here expressed.
I was certainly drawn to the “essay” that discussed the apparent Watchtower policy on dealing w/ academics. The policy does appear to be currently and for many decades one of “radio silence” when requests are made. Why is this the case? We may never know the details to this, but I suspect the reasons have to do with feeling targeted by opposers (clergy or otherwise) and probably with good reason. This likely created a blanket policy on how to respond (or not respond) to requests for historical information no matter how legitimate they might be. I personally consider the authors here purely legitimate as I’m sure many or all of us do. I have personally asked Bruce specific questions which he has kindly answered for me in years past and this site has at times clarified it’s purpose in studying this most interesting history in such detail. This has all contributed to the overall objective nature we feel when reading the information posted. However it does take a level of maturity to see the broader spectrum of reality or truth when looking to the past. Things can easily be taken out of context when a detailed history is presented, and opposers will quickly grab whatever sensational inconsistency they can find in efforts to smear a “good name”. Hence, even if the authors sentiments are pure and correct, the work could be used for a negative purpose and hence the WTB&TS position to remain disconnected from the project. Just one readers opinion.
Again, thank you for your hard work and research in spite of the many challenges you have faced.
And the problem of being "targeted by opposers" is not only that we receive bad publicity or annoying remarks. Opposers' so called "information" is being used in court as an excuse to ban our work in different countries, in custody trials, etc. creating a lot of suffering to quite a few JWs.
Anyway, though I think I understand their position, I think they should show a better discretion about it.
By the way, great essay, very informative, as usual.
Grand preface Rachael. You were able to explain well both the origins of the Watchtower doctrine, and its links with the strand of Anglo American and European millenarianism. It was not easy, but your great mastery of the subject and years of deep and extensive study have allowed you to do it. Thank you so much, because this introduction is really perfect.
I am sorry only for your disappointment towards the Watchtower, some criticisms seem excessive, but after all the great and essential amount of information for the reconstruction of this story is available to everyone. You and Bruce have been great in the study and analysis of a huge amount of documentation, and you have created a work that, from my point of view, deserves a prize.
I hope that my words, and those of others, are sufficient to make you understand the deep appreciation for your work. Simply perfect.
Post a Comment