Read this ...

This post requires NO comments, but it does require your attention.

A Polish web site describes me as a “liberal JW.” I’m uncertain what is meant. If the writer suggests that I have a liberal view of the Bible, they are incorrect. If they mean that I have a lax view of moral obligations, that too is incorrect. If they mean that I have a loosely held view of congregation structure; that is wrong-headed. I am, in fact, socially conservative, a Bible believer. I believe that all the rights and obligations God grants apply to everyone. In the United States the appellation “liberal elder” or “liberal Witness” attaches to a type of apostate. Are you calling me an apostate? On what basis?

A private email suggested that I was angry at the Watchtower Society. The basis is a footnote in my current work. Perhaps the person who wrote that email is a mind reader, but I doubt the possibility.

Related to the above, but from another, is the suggestion that I should not repeat something previously said in volume two’s footnotes. This ignores the nature of volume two which is a series of essays presented in rough chronological order. My experience with that type of writing is that it may not be read in chapter order. So I have repeated key footnotes. I will not change that. If one of them reflects on your beliefs, it says no more that what is true.

The Separate Identity series occasionally challenges Russell mythology. Some who read them, some who visit this blog, are committed to the various mythologies, both pro and anti Russell. I am not. I am committed to telling you an accurate, clearly stated account. If you want to challenge the narrative as I present it, give me your sources. I will accept only original sources. Secondary sources, especially one written by a polemicist, are of no value.