There are,
I think, things you do not understand. Let me clarify issues for you.
Some of you
believe this project depends on me. You think that because I am principal blog
editor. What is posted here appears under my rather silly post-it name. From
the beginning this project has depended on B. W. Schulz – not on me. He
conceptualized it. He was and remains the principal author and guiding light of
this work.
We often
write in tandem, writing the same chapter or parts of the same chapters. We
mold our separate writing into a unified presentation which we hope (and I
believe) our readers cannot easily assign to either of us. So when you praise me
for this work, your adulation is misplaced.
Some of you
misread my comments. I usually write exactly what I mean. I expect that my
words have meaning; injecting contrary understanding into them is at least
irritating and at its worst it abuses the gift of language, occasionally an
unforgivable sin. I did not say I was withdrawing from the current
project. I said that after it is finished, I will not remain to complete book
three. So all the distress expressed in private emails is misplaced. And one of
you said that you would not support Mr. Schulz if he moves on to book three, tentatively
called On the Cusp of Fame.
I am lead
on this blog to relieve Mr. Schulz of some burdens. He is aged, infirm, and
stubborn as a mule. He also continues to research, write, and guide this
project. Some of you act as if he has turned vegetable. Stop it.
Without
being offensive, I cannot clearly tell you how upsetting it is when you
attribute Bruce’s work to me. I take credit for my own work; I do not take
credit for the genius of others.
Another
issue must be addressed. One of the friends of this research, a retired history
professor, lives across the Columbia River from me. He pointed me to comments
on a controversialist chat board. Nice things were said about our work. I
appreciate the kind comments. However, there was other nonsense there that exemplifies
the ethical and procedural issues attendant on historiography. Another writer, I
think not a trained historian, is writing about the post-Russell controversies.
Someone should write about that, but the approach noted there is faulty.
He rejects
A. H. MacMillan’s testimony as given in Faith on the March because
MacMillan was ‘old’ and his memory faulty. MacMillan wrote exactly 40 years
ante. He was not particularly old. And if he was, age is not reason to
question memory. Mr. Schulz, my father, and others of my acquaintance are far
older than MacMillan was in 1957. No-one can fairly describe them as mentally
challenged. If you read hardcore science, you’ve probably read one or more of
my father’s books, many of them written when he was well-past MacMillan’s age.
Discounting
evidence because it does not support your point of view is unethical. Don’t do
it.
The same
writer fell into the trap that lures many. He hasn’t followed the trail to the
end. He separates some issues that cannot be separated. He comments on the
nature of the Watch Tower board of directors and the election process. The
Society was incorporated in 1884 under the laws of Pennsylvania as formulated
in 1876. Corporate law changed in 1906. The new laws changed Watch Tower
Society legal obligations. This gives the issues of 1916-1918 a new color.
If we write
to our pre-conceived ideas, our history will be flawed. Seriously flawed. Go
where honest research takes you. Do not write to an agenda.
Now ... do
you all feel scolded?
I see that
I’ve omitted a thought. Most of you know that I am not a Witnesses. I’m a
professional historian and educator. I write to be read. I do not write to
further a religion, not even my own. I do not write out of ‘principle.’ I’m a
storyteller at heart. That’s what I do. Storytellers want to be read and
appreciated.