Talk:Bible Student movement/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

"Protestant"?

Bible Students aren't Protestant.

For example, in discussing Matthew 24:14 C. T. Russell said: “Catholics and Protestants, although they use our Lord’s prayer, saying, ‘Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is done in heaven,’ do not expect such a kingdom, and hence are not preaching it in all or in any of the nations of the world. . . . Thus this work is still open to be done and can be done by no others than those who know something of these good tidings of the kingdom.”—Watch Tower, January 1, 1892, page 8 (as cited and quoted on pages 10-11 of The Watchtower, January 1, 1968)

The article on Protestantism doesn't even mention Bible Students or Russell (or Jehovah's Witnesses). The most that could be said is that Bible Students accept the sixty-six books of the Protestant Bible, and reject the additional Catholic books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AuthorityTam (talk • contribs) 22:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Bible Students were influenced by Adventism, and in a general sense they're perhaps (lower-case) "adventists" themselves. However, neither Bible Students nor Jehovah's Witnesses described themselves or their predecessors as "Adventist"; quite the contrary:

"Happy Are Those Found Watching!", The Watchtower, December 1, 1984, page 14,

"Russell wrote: “From 1870 to 1875 was a time of constant growth [for Bible Students]... We felt greatly grieved at the error of Second Adventists, who were expecting Christ in the flesh.” Russell and his associates quickly understood that Christ’s presence would be invisible. They disassociated themselves from other groups and, in 1879, began publishing spiritual food in Zion’s Watch Tower and Herald of Christ’s Presence."

"Proclaiming the Lord’s Return (1870-1914)", Jehovah's Witnesses - Proclaimers of God's Kingdom, page 49,

"Russell stated: “...various prophecies we use were used to a different purpose by Adventists”"

“Here Is the Bridegroom!”, God’s Kingdom of a Thousand Years Has Approached, ©1973 Watch Tower, pages 185-186,

"Bible study continued on. Thirty years later found a small group of men, not associated with the Adventists or affiliated with any of the religious sects of Christendom, studying the Holy Scriptures at Pittsburgh (Allegheny), Pennsylvania, U.S.A. They studied independently so as to avoid looking at the Bible through sectarian spectacles. Among these men was one Charles Taze Russell, just entered into his twenties."

"Priest Apologizes for Lies", The Watchtower, February 15, 1954, pages 125-126,

"Toma y Lee, meaning “Take and Read.” This periodical, dated January 25, 1953, said that Jehovah’s witnesses were a branch of the Seventh-Day Adventist faith... On February 9, 1953, we (two of Jehovah’s witnesses) decided to call on [the one] who was responsible for these articles, to ascertain the reasons for these misrepresentations and falsehoods. ...[Later, a Jehovah's Witness public] speaker quoted the assertions, misrepresentations and bold lies made in the periodical, and then, step by step, clearly and logically refuted them. He showed that Jehovah’s witnesses are not and never were Seventh-Day Adventists"

Admittedly, some Bible Student connection with Adventism and adventism exists, but it should be described accurately. Earlier today, I made invisible the reference to Bible Students as "neo-Protestant/Adventist" until/unless someone feels such a comment is so relevant exactly there (?) that it's worth making the effort to word the thought more accurately --AuthorityTam (talk) 17:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Somewhat agree. In any case, if they are protestant or adventist, it should be discussed in a relevant paragraph. Extra adjectives thrown into a sentence where they are not relevant to the context can be seen as weaselish.--Jeffro77 (talk) 21:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Why is it necessary to change from Protestantism to Restorationism in the first place??? Roman Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, and Greek Orthodox all of them have Restorationist FACTIONS - note key word FACTIONS. Protestants have Restorationist movements. Catholics have Restorationist movements. Various Eastern Orthodox faiths have Restorationist movements. To single it out makes no sense historicaclly. It smacks of PC.Bbltype (talk) 12:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The difference is that Russell himself, many Bible Students then, and many Bible Students have significant differences with even the fundamental beliefs of Protestantism (such as trinitarianism, arguably the central doctrine of Protestantism). Please do not insert the term again without recent scholarly references. At the least, the matter should be put into context rather than just plopped into a string of adjectives.--AuthorityTam (talk) 14:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

--AuthorityTam (talk) 14:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Bbltype, your point about 'factions' is unclear. If we were discussing a 'restorationist faction' of Catholics/Protestents/whatever, we would be right to call that faction restorationist. If you identify any factions within the JW 'movement' (the only application relevant to your analogy), you can identify those factions in whatever way is required.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

'Pastor'

Russell was not officially a pastor. Actual pastors receive ordination - they aren't 'voted' in. See pastor.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This discussion seems better suited to Pastor_Russell#Qualifications.

While certain religionists may have chosen not to recognize Russell's ordination, it cannot be denied that Bible Students certainly recognized it. Even if a critic of Russell's might insist that he wasn't a "pastor", Wikipedia isn't (primarily) a forum for criticizing C. T. Russell and those who consider him a pastor and addressed him as such. The fact remains that Jehovah's Witnesses (and other Bible Student adherents) have a right to consider whosoever they will as "ordained" or as "pastor". The opinion of Jeffro77 is of infinitely less encyclopedic significance. So, then, elevating scholarly encyclopedic interests above mere personal opinion, what does the religion itself teach?

Was Russell addressed as "pastor" by adherents of Bible Students and Jehovah's Witnesses?

"Why Called Pastor", Jehovah's Witnesses - Proclaimers of God's Kingdom, page 54,

"Charles Taze Russell was referred to by his associates as Pastor Russell. Why? Because of his activities in shepherding the flock of God. Ephesians 4:11 states that Christ would give to his congregation some as “pastors” (“KJ”), or “shepherds.” Brother Russell certainly did serve as a spiritual shepherd in the Christian congregation. In view of the pastoral work that he was doing under the Chief Shepherd, Jesus Christ, certain congregations acknowledged by vote that he was their pastor. It was not a self-assumed title. The first group to vote him their pastor was the congregation in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in 1882. Thereafter, he was voted pastor by some 500 other congregations, in the United States and Britain."

"Organized Testimony to the New World", The Watchtower, July 15, 1950, page 213,

"This study class grew into a congregation of students of the Bible to which he preached, and in October of 1876 he was elected the spiritual shepherd or pastor of this class of Bible students, there in Pittsburgh, Pa."

"Organized Testimony to the New World", The Watchtower, July 15, 1950, page 215,

"Property was purchased at 17 Hicks street, Brooklyn, New York. This came to be known as the Brooklyn Tabernacle. ...Into this the Society began moving in January of 1909, and on Sunday, January 31, there was an opening celebration... The total number attending that Tabernacle opening was about 350 from New York, Brooklyn, Jersey City, Newark, and other cities as far away as Boston. The following Sunday all the friends present from New York, Brooklyn and Jersey City voted unanimously to be parts of a congregation whose home would be at Brooklyn Tabernacle, and they unanimously elected Brother C. T. Russell to be “pastor” of the same. And so the designation “Pastor Russell”, by which he became known world-wide, was not because of any self-assumed title."

Jehovah's Witnesses - Proclaimers of God's Kingdom, page 560,

"The pastoral work was first organized during 1915-16 in the 500 or so congregations that had elected Brother Russell to be their pastor."

1975 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses, page 85,

"In Russell’s time this activity was limited to about 500 congregations that had voluntarily elected him as their pastor."

Was Russell "ordained"?

“Objects of Hatred by All the Nations”, Jehovah's Witnesses - Proclaimers of God's Kingdom, page 644-655,

"Russell had not graduated from one of Christendom’s theological schools. But he boldly said: “We challenge [the clergy] to prove that they ever had a Divine ordination or that they ever think of it. They merely think of a sectarian ordination, or authorization, each from his own sect or party. . . . God’s ordination, or authorization, of any man to preach is by the impartation of the Holy Spirit to him."

A typical dispassioned reader understands a ministerial designation to be that applied by the minister's own religion, rather than by the writer. Again, this matter seems better suited to the article and talk for Pastor_Russell#Qualifications.--AuthorityTam (talk) 14:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of how he was given the honorific, Russell was widely referred to at the time as "Pastor" and is commonly referred to by Penton and Rogerson as "Pastor". This article correctly notes that that's how he was commonly known; an honorific is not needed throughout. The same issue arises at the entry for "Judge" Rutherford who barely earned that designation. LTSally (talk) 21:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

'Exodus'

The article implies, as cited by AuthorityTam, more of a link than seems appropriate to the death of Russell for the decline in membership of the Bible Student movement in the decade or so after his death. See here for a chart. Though there was indeed a decrease from 1916 to 1918, the quite dramatic drop from 1926 to 1928 (cited as the '75% decrease) has more to do with the 'disappointment' of 1925 as well as Rutherford's increased authoritarian control of the organisation. Additionally, the statistics are based on "memorial attendance", which is not being clearly specified in the article. Some significant re-wording is required. See also History of Jehovah's Witnesses.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Isn't a discussion of 'exodus' redundant to Jehovah's Witnesses splinter groups, since they retained IBSA, WT, etc? On Talk there or somewhere above an early editor frankly admits this article was begun because he or she didn't like the way the Jehovah's Witnesses splinter groups article had developed.--AuthorityTam (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd forgotten about that article. Strictly speaking, coverage of the schisms that took place up till the 1930s belong in the Bible Student Movement article. Major coverage of the early 20th-century exodus in the Jehovah's Witnesses splinter groups article is misguided, because of course there was no Jehovah's Witnesses until 1931; that article might properly include a brief reference to earlier schisms, but should be mainly limited to post-1931 splits. The very strong point Rogerson makes in his book, and I've tried to represent that point, is that in 1917 the whole Movement dissolved into several warring factions (each publishing their own literature and holding their own annual Memorials). Rutherford's overall success was in retaining control of the legal corproration and Zion's Watch Tower. His faction seems to have been the biggest, but the name change in '31 was mainly to make a clear psychological break from the rival Bible Student groups. In practical, rational terms, the growth from that point of Jehovah's Witnesses was due very much to his authoritarian style and organizational and marketing skills, and Knorr capitalized on those gains when he took the reins. The growth was subsequently attributed to "God's blessing" and the Watch Tower literature did a very good job of portraying Rutherford's rivals as "ambitious", "self-sparing" etc, and ultimately identified them as the "evil slave" cleared out when Christ did his sifting and cleansing in 1918! All the classic Communist propaganda tricks! It's fascinating to think what would have happened if Johnson had won the battle for control in 1917, because in many ways Rutherford completely transformed the religion and turned it into something that would have made Russell turn in his grave. Rogerson's historical coverage of that early era is probably the best and the most entertaining of all the Witness studies, if you want to get a copy of that book. LTSally (talk) 22:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally you might like to know only for interests sake that just before CTR died according to some old timers he sent JFR on a trip to the west coast USA. He had really ticked CTR off and he didn't want him anywhere near the Society knowing he was dying. Funny thing is nobody could have ever in the wildest dreams imagined anybody could just walk right into Russell's Bethel office and just go ahead and take control even before being voted in to anything! You're right it's totally Commie! The JW's justify his actions but never stop and think as why it would be proper for another elder to just take over somebody elses offices and paper work just because he wanted to and because he was so a strong personality and because he had the support of certain high ups in the organization it happened so smoothly and very few realized what was going on for almost ten years. BTW Johnsom was Russell's best friend and this was why he thought he was chosen by God to be his successor. If you read the Presidency Papers Johnson and JFR and others were all debating with each other for who had God's favor the most! JFR won the fight though because he knew nobody would take him to court because Bible Students say it was unbiblical, which is actually quite true when you read what the Bible says. Russell would have popped an artery if he knew this all would happen. Imagine if Bible Students changed their mind they could probably sue the Society even today and win it all back! Talk about irony. Bbltype (talk) 12:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

While the above reading is entertaining, much of it seems off-topic.

It seems reasonable to move all pre-1931 material OFF the article at Jehovah's Witnesses splinter groups; anything from there that isn't already here at Bible Student movement can be moved here. I won't do it myself until there seems consensus. Is there consensus on that suggestion?

Regarding the facts alluded to in this "Talk"... Does any reference suggest that there was EVER a point in time when the Bible Student Movement wasn't numerically dominated by adherents who remained associated with WT and IBSA? Is there any reference that says they were ever less than a majority of the entire Movement, at any given point? Even if some "left" the WT/IBSA group, did they typically join another Bible Student group?

Let's try to keep the discourse here encyclopedic. There are plenty of other places to pontificate.--AuthorityTam (talk) 15:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the pre-1931 material from the Splinter groups article and I'll weave it into this article as time permits. LTSally (talk) 01:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The idea is discussed here: Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses_splinter_groups#Deletion_of_pre-1931_material

Is there a set procedure for doing things such as this? Should the material have been deleted there before it was incorporated here or anywhere else? Even if future attention is needed, should the material at least have been "parked" here in a subheading something like "Material awaiting integration, from JW Splinter groups"?

--AuthorityTam (talk) 13:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Ideally, the {{mergeto}} and {{mergesections}} templates should be used on the article being moved from, and to, respectively. If the changes are made in the near future, this may not be necessary as the information is still in article history and the intention has been stated in both articles' Talk pages. If a considerable amount of time passes before the JW spliter groups article is amended, it may be a good idea to reinstate the material, and add the templates.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I've compared the material removed from the Jehovah's Witnesses splinter groups article with what's here and the differences are largely superficial. In other words, the pre-1931 material removed from that article largely existed here already. This article could still do with a cleanup, and I'm happy to return to it and work through it. The most obvious issues at this stage are a lack of chronological flow, and the placement of Johnson's group below those of less importance. Johnson, after all, was central to the 1917 split and carried off many followers.

The other main point here, I think, is to clearly define the movement itself. Was it just those who broke away from the Watch Tower Society, or did it include those who remained loyal to that society until it took on its new identity in 1931? If it does include the WTS, then that group needs a section of its own to briefly relate its history up to 1931. LTSally (talk) 12:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The Bible Student Movement includes Jehovah's Witnesses.

Formally and informally, Jehovah's Witnesses still refer to themselves as "Bible Students"; ironically, they believe the capitalized term can ONLY be rightly applied to themselves.

Suggest the article matter-of-factly note that "the IBSA" changed doctrinally 'this way' and 'that' (around 'this date' and 'that'), and 'this group' and 'that group' incrementally split from "the IBSA".

Then "the IBSA" renamed its adherent body "the JWs" in 1931, and JWs are discussed at Jehovah's Witnesses and future splits from IBSA and JW are discussed at Jehovah's Witnesses splinter groups.

Post-1931 goings-on would probably be a new section which concludes with a succinct JW subsection as the faith relates to the Bible Student Movement (for example, its current view of Russell, major agreements/disagreements with Russell-style Bible Student beliefs, interaction/judgment with other Bible Student groups, etc).

Currently, the sections are as follows:

   * 1 Formative influences

   * 2 Associated Bible Students

         o 2.1 Pastoral Bible Institute

         o 2.2 Berean Bible Institute

         o 2.3 StandFast Bible Students Association

         o 2.4 Dawn Bible Students Association

   * 3 Free Bible Students

   * 4 Layman's Home Missionary Movement

   * 5 Other groups

   * 6 References

   * 7 See also

   * 8 External links

I'd guess this sectioning will work better:

   * 1 Formative influences

   * 2 "Studies in the Scriptures" [Russell's six completed by 1904]

   * + 2.1 International Bible Students Association

   * + 2.2 Associated Bible Students

         o 2.2.1 Pastoral Bible Institute

         o 2.2.2 Berean Bible Institute

         o 2.2.3 StandFast Bible Students Association

         o 2.2.4 Dawn Bible Students Association

   * + 2.3 Free Bible Students

   * + 2.4 Layman's Home Missionary Movement

   * 3 Other early groups [especially if not interested in "Studies in the Scriptures"]

   * 4 1931 and after

   * + 4.1 IBSA and Jehovah's Witnesses 

   * + 4.2 Other interwar and postwar groups

   * 5 Conclusion

   * 6 References

   * 7 See also

   * 8 External links

Since core Bible Student teachings include mortal soul, nontrinitarianism, use of "Jehovah", and earthly hope for most saved humans, that plainly includes JWs. Numerically, they overwhelm the rest of the Movement.

Current non-JW Bible Student groups rarely ignore JWs, but embrace their minority status within the Movement in much the way that JWs embrace their smallness compared to "Christendom". Some Bible Student groups seem to seek recruits almost exclusively from JWs.--AuthorityTam (talk) 16:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

You have answered my question about exactly who is included in the term "Bible Student movement", but is this a verifiable fact or an opinion? LTSally (talk) 04:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I just took some time to look at all the "Bible Student" websites I could find, and yes, they all seem to still teach mortal soul, nontrinitarianism, use of "Jehovah", and earthly hope for most saved humans. You could add 'nonliteral hellfire' to that, but it's kind of a side point to believing the soul to be mortal.

It's strange that this distinct and unifying theology isn't used as the introduction, with schisms in a section below it. Unless a particular individual has left one group and joined another (that is, "apostatized"), any individual Bible Student would probably find a welcome with any of the groups, including Jehovah's Witnesses.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 17:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not have the references on hand, and certainly others here who own modern Watchtower literature could find it, but Jehovah's Witnesses would not, do not, and could not ever consider Bible Students to be anything but apostate, to be blacklisted and avoided at all costs as dangerous to their spiritual survival so much that to even look at Bible Student material is to invite official censure, or inspire fear of God's judgment. This is widely documented in their own writings from the late 1920s to the present day. Many Bible Students have had the experience of "witnessing" to a JW who comes to the door only to notice on later occasions when they come to the neighborhood that their home is specifically avoided. (Of course, that falls under the category of hearsay insofar as an encyclopedic reference is concerned for as far as I know it has not been documented and published by a third party). As for the definition of the Bible Student Movement and who it describes, the movement was begun informally and was not 'named' as such by Pastor Russell. It was a general term adopted by Bible Students after the wider names of Associated Bible Students and International Bible Students Association came into being. Jehovah's Witnesses, also widely documented in their own publications, state that the Bible Students were RENAMED Jehovah's Witnesses, essentially denying and disclaiming all connection to the Bible Student Movement. Even though there is similarity in doctrine, there is also similarity in doctrine with many Adventist groups, but they are not part of the Bible Student Movement. This movement was begun under CTR, and splintered after his death primarily due to the activities of JFR. It was at that point that JFR made a concerted effort to disassociate himself and his new organization from all things Bible Student-related. In 1927 the Society officially ceased publication of CTR's writings. In fact, it was until as late as 1931 that all factions called themselves "Bible Students", but JFR chose a "new name" to disclaim any such association. The facts prove that JWs are not directly part of the Bible Student Movement. Pastorrussell (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I have seen no evidence that a JW who met a modern 'Bible Student' would take the attitude that you state here. They only consider baptized JWs who leave to be 'apostates' (they consider Christendom to be 'apostate Christianity', but this is a different context). A member of the 'Bible Students' would almost certainly be considered simply to be a member of a 'false religion', just like a person of any other religion not their own.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Since the early 1930s Bible Students have been called the "evil slave class" and strongly condemned as enemies of God's organization. Perhaps that is not the same as an "apostate" as you are using it. Your statement that JWs would not be afraid or hesitant in contacting a Bible Student is inaccurate. It is well documented in their own writings and in the works of the cult-hunters who have researched the same. Pastorrussell (talk) 11:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

--AuthorityTam (talk) 14:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC) writes...

"...afraid..."? "...cult-hunters..."?

If it's for the article, please be sure to cite references for "well documented" claims.

Further comment on what seems a 'persecution complex' would be inconsistent with the purpose of the article's "Talk" page. A "Talk" page is for discussing improvements to the article.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 14:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. The "Talk" page is about discussing ways to improve an article, and that is what I'm trying to encourage here. I do not physically own modern Watchtower/JW literature to gather the direct references, but do indeed know they are there (my mother's family are JW; I was raised one as a child; several Bible Students are former-JWs) and am hoping that this will encourage one who has resources to gather those references. Perhaps there is a copy of the Watchtower Library on CD that could be acquired and collect the references myself. The "persecution complex" is an interesting response, but certainly has nothing to do with how the Watchtower views Bible Students. It's a rather straight-forward matter really, and this is about improving this article, not denying verifiable published statements. But perhaps I'm misunderstanding you: are you saying that JWs no longer view Bible Students as the "evil slave class" and "enemies of God's organization"? That would be a major shift in one of their beliefs. Perhaps they don't really talk about it anymore, but it was certainly published numerous times from the 30s to the 80s. This does have an impact upon whether or not JWs are part of the Bible Student Movement, so perhaps this does need to be fully addressed. Pastorrussell (talk) 06:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

If the Bible Student movement is about religion, what religious beliefs make the movement both distinct from other religious movements and also are common to various Bible Student organizations? I submit four: mortal soul, nontrinitarianism, use of "Jehovah", and earthly hope. That includes JWs by any reasonable measure.

Jehovah's Witnesses still refer to themselves sincerely as Bible Students when it suits their purposes to do so. JWs likely consider themselves the only rightful "Bible Students"; if possession is nine tenths of the law, it's noteworthy that they still retain IBSA as an active corporation (by contrast, they long ago renamed "Peoples Pulpit Association" as 'WTBSNY').

Those familiar with JWs will confirm that they use the term "faithful and discreet slave" only to refer to anointed Christians with a heavenly calling, in recent decades all Witnesses. JWs have (for many decades) understood "the evil slave" to be former members of the "faithful and discreet slave".

"‘The Faithful Slave’ Passes the Test!", The Watchtower, March 1, 2004, page 13,

"(Matthew 24:48-51) The expression “that evil slave” draws our attention to Jesus’ preceding words about the faithful and discreet slave. Yes, the “evil slave” came from the ranks of the faithful slave."

Worldwide Security Under the “Prince of Peace” (1986), page 64

"“Evil Slave” Class Thrown Out

"Those who have actually been part of the spirit-anointed remnant and entrusted with the Kingdom valuables, but who have quit making the effort to increase the interests of the returned Master, have been thrown out of the Master’s royal service. (Matthew 24:48-51) No longer do we find the sluggish “evil slave” class preaching “this good news of the kingdom.” "

Paradise Restored To Mankind—By Theocracy! (1972), page 363-364

"Matthew 24:44-51; compare with this Luke 12:42-46 with its similar parable. Here it is the “evil slave” who is “cut off,” he being assigned his part, not with the fellow slaves of his master, but with the hypocrites, with the unfaithful ones, after he has been punished with the greatest severity. Just as the “faithful and discreet slave” pictures a class of anointed Christians who are actually in the household of the Master Jesus Christ as his “domestics,” so that “evil slave” pictures a class. This class of Christians, unlike the “weeds [of "Christendom"],” was anointed with God’s spirit and was a part of the Master’s household, he being a fellow slave therein. However, this class turns unfaithful, becomes self-seeking, loses self-control over its appetites, mistreats fellow slaves in an abuse of power and authority, and becomes careless and indifferent toward the matter of having to account with its Master at his coming. Therefore, during this “conclusion of the system of things,” ...he cuts this “evil slave” class off. He disfellowships them to the religious hypocrites and to the unfaithful ones."

So, JWs believe that an individual cannot be a constituent of "the evil slave" unless he was formerly an anointed baptized Witness (or IBSA Bible Student before the 1930s).

The 'elephant in the room' alluded to by 'P.R.' is that a substantial percentage of the "Bible Student movement" is currently composed of those who personally were formerly JWs. Whether he's "anointed" or not, even a disfellowshipped JW who chooses to join a different religion commits "apostasy" (according to JWs), and JWs would withhold spiritual fellowship from such a person. It would be prejudiced for a JW canvasser to assume a householder is a former JW just because the householder self-identifies as an adherent of some non-JW Bible Student religion, but the Witness's assumption is more likely based on his own repeated experiences rather than any official position of the JW religion.

So, even if the anecdotal story is true, it seems likely the JW canvasser assumes the self-described Bible Student is a former JW, with whom JWs do not fellowship spiritually.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 09:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

There are a couple of points I'd like to address, but also need to ask for some clarification of you (AuthorityTam). When you list the four points that you indicate marks one as part of the Bible Student Movement (let's say BSM for short for now) namely "mortal soul, nontrinitarianism, use of "Jehovah", and earthly hope" can you explain why or how you get this list? What I mean is this: there are many religious groups (small and large) not affiliated with the JWs or BSM who believe in a mortal soul (or "soul sleep"), do not hold to the Trinity, and some of them do in fact use the name "Jehovah", "Yahweh" or "Yahveh". The last or fourth point you listed of the "earthly hope" is one which is a bit confusing. The Bible Students do not hold to the "earthly hope" as defined by the JWs. The Witnesses teach that the "great crowd" is an earthly class, but Bible Students have always believe they are a heavenly class. The change was introduced by JFR in 1935 when he claimed "new light" that the "great crowd" are on the earth. The idea of one being of "the anointed" is one of exclusivity amongst/within JWs, but not so amongst Bible Students all of whom claim to be (using the JW phrase that is) of "the anointed", also a view held to by all Bible Students until JFR made the change. So, out of your four points three of them are held to by several other religious groups. In a very quick cursory scan of the "Handbook of Denominations" I found at least four other groups who have no affiliation with the BSM who hold to three of your four points. Some Seventh Day Adventist groups also hold to at least three of your points. Do you mean to include any group that hold those views as part of the BSM? I'm interested in your rationale. Oh, and by the way: the majority of Bible Students are not former JWs. You misread my statement. In North America there are only about 60 former JWs, as well as a handful who had some contact with them before finding the Bible Students. That's not even 1%. So, the elephant is more like a flea. (sorry, it's early in the morning! :o)) Many thousands of Bible Students in India and Europe have been Bible Students since the days of CTR. Pastorrussell (talk) 12:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The claim that JWs explicitly refer to Bible Students as part of the 'evil slave class' is untrue (and Pastorrussell admits to having no such references). As I have stated previously (too long ago to find the particular edit), JW literature simply doesn't mention the extant Bible Students, rather than specifically labelling them as anything. Additionally, there is no merit to the claim that a JW wouldn't talk to any member of a particular religion on the basis that the person might have been a former JW.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

No sir, I did not say I had no references. My statement was that I do not have current references from modern JW literature, but will be collecting them once able to acquire a copy of the Watchtower Library CD. Hopefully it contains the material from the 1920s and '30s. There is one quote that can be given straight away without any research at all taken from the 1975 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses, page 88 which says: "Jehovah and his "messenger of the covenant," Jesus Christ, came to inspect the spiritual temple in 1918 C.E. Judgment then began with the "house of God" and a period of refining and cleansing commenced. (Mal. 3:1-3; 1 Pet. 4:17) Something else also occurred. Men manifesting the marks of an "evil slave" came forward and figuratively began 'beating' their fellow slaves. Jesus Christ had foretold how such ones would be dealt with. At the same time he showed that a "faithful and discreet slave" class would be in evidence, dispensing spiritual food." There are also many references in the Golden Age Magazine from the early 1930s where the Bible Students are called the "evil servant" (KJV). The 1975 Yearbook and the Divine Purpose book contain references pertinent to this discussion. There are copies of two GA articles in my possession which will be put online for your inspection. Within them the Bible Students are condemned to "second death" as "enemies of God's organization". (We do not believe the Bible teaches burning hellfire. So, to condemn someone to "second death" which term comes from the book of Revelation, meaning eternal death without hope of resurrection, is principally and philosophically the same as if a Roman Catholic Pope, who also claims to speak exclusively for God like the JW Governing Body, were to positively and authoritatively condemn one to eternal suffering in the fires of hell) Pastorrussell (talk) 12:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The Watchtower Library CD does not contain publications from the 1920s-30s. The quote from the yearbook says nothing specific about "Bible Students" being the 'evil slave class', particularly since the period being discussed (1918) was prior to any separation of JWs from the Bible Students; specifically, the Yearbook is not discussing Bible Students as distinct from JWs, but rather it is talking about people who left the Bible Students. The presence of unfavourable statements about Bible Students in the Golden Age magazines from the 30s, to which most JWs have no access, is a far cry from saying that such views are current or that JWs would refuse to have any contact with a Bible Student if they encountered one today.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The Watchtower Publications Index makes no mention at all of Bible Students outside of the context of what they say they called themselves prior to 1931. That is, it makes absolutely no reference to any attitude that JWs should take toward modern-day Bible Students (other than their generic statements about how they should treat people of any 'false religion'). The current position (for at least the last 50 years) taken in JW publications, including the Index, is of ignoring the present-day Bible Students, not of 'poisoning' JW members against them.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Please read the pages in that section of the Yearbook. If you do not have it available I would be pleased to scan them for you this afternoon if you'd like. The quote given and the scenario outlined following it describe the official view of the Watchtower Society as of 1975 that the Bible Students who dissented from JFR and his associates were the fulfillment of the "evil slave class" who then, as the Divine Purpose book adds, broke into several sects and eventually came to naught which they believe indicates the Bible Students were disapproved of by God, but they (the JWs) have God's blessing manifested by their great numbers. That the modern Watchtower Society publications do not use the term "Bible Students" means nothing. They have taught that the "evil slave" represent those Bible Students who left the Society refusing to believe they represent God's voice on earth. It is not necessary for them to use the term "Bible Students" as common sense tells us who they are speaking of. A reference was provided for you as you requested, and more will be collected. I assume you merely forgot to say 'thank you', so in reply, you're welcome :o) Pastorrussell (talk) 16:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I read the article. You are incorrect. The article does not at all state that post-1931 'Bible Students' are the 'evil slave', and following the only mention of the 'evil slave' in that article, it first discusses a dissenter who broke away from Russell in 1915, rather than specifically targetting Bible Students. If the JW leadership wanted members to so vehemently oppose modern-day Bible Students (more than members of any other religious group), surely they would a) explicitly call the Bible Students the evil slave class; b) say the Bible Students still exist, and c) state how JWs should respond to them. They do none of this, which is entirely consistent with the Watchtower Society's tendency to simply ignore the Bible Students that continued after their name change to JWs. The entire Watchtower Library CD contains absolutely no reference to 'Bible Students' as the 'evil slave'. There is only one instance of the two phrases even appearing in the same paragraph, and that is in reference to a tract published by the Bible Students. Of the articles that include both phrases in the entire article (thirteen), zero mention the 'Bible Students' as being the 'evil slave'. If they did previously label the 'Bible Students' (in publications from the 1930s as you claim) as the 'evil slave', it is a view that has been long since abandoned. Your persecution complex is getting tiresome.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea how to even begin going about addressing this idea of "persecution complex". There are many things that could be said, all of which would be entirely valid, but which would only apparently serve to create an argument so shall refrain. What concerns me most is your, let us say, overly coercive expressions. Such responses tend to close down discussion rather than open it up. This is a "talk" page to discuss the verifiable, published facts which will aid in the proper formation of this article on the BSM. It should be a dispassionate discussion, or as close to dispassionate as possible, although friendly. If published facts are being denied, and ones who bring forth such facts labeled as paranoid or delusional then it can only result in an article which ignores published references in favor of personal opinion, and that shouldn't happen in Wikipedia. Being bossy or resorting to argumentum ad hominem can only ever do more harm than good. At least two poster's (or maybe it's all of us?) are getting overly emotional. Let's all of us take a deep breath, relax, and do our homework. This should be a dispassionate, open discussion... Now, when you say a "dissenter who broke away from Russell in 1915" to whom are you referring? The 1975 Yearbook and Divine Purpose book sections I cited refer to PSL Johnson, who did not leave in 1915. He left only after JFR falsely accused him in late 1917 of being the instigator of the schism, a claim which each of the official histories of the JWs continued to repeat. There are a lot of published facts on the Johnson situation, but will leave that to another time. But perhaps I am missing something and you are referring to someone else? Please let me know. Does the JW hierarchy ignore Bible Students? Of course they do. I certainly never claimed otherwise. But what is also true however is that the "evil slave", if not now though certainly for quite some time, was taught to be those Bible Students who broke away and disagreed with JFR. That's published verifiable history, not opinion or delusional fantasy. The JWs "cleansing of the temple" doctrine is centered around the purging of dissent, and those who dissented were Bible Students. So we have a bit of a conundrum here, on the one hand Bible Students are ignored, are even claimed to have died out, but on the other hand are still central to one of the JW doctrines although not mentioned as Bible Students by name. A way needs to be found which addresses this in this article. Pastorrussell (talk) 05:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The 1975 yearbook makes reference to Johnson's 'dissent' (his intentions to replace Russell) as beginning in 1915. But whether the actual dissent was in 1915 or 1917, it makes no difference to the fact that Johnson's departure has nothing to do with 'recent' JW literature (if we're calling 1975 'recent') labeling Bible Students as anything. Whilst there may indeed be some long-abandoned statements from the 1930s, current JWs by and large have no access to that material. The dissenters referenced in the 1975 yearbook dissented from the Bible Students, and the article does not support your claim that "Jehovah's Witnesses would not, do not, and could not ever consider Bible Students to be anything but apostate, to be blacklisted and avoided at all costs as dangerous to their spiritual survival so much that to even look at Bible Student material is to invite official censure, or inspire fear of God's judgment." Though JWs are indeed separate from the rest of the modern day Bible Students (who they ignore rather cite as especially "dangerous"), they are historically still a part of that movement. While the claim that JWs were 'previously known as the Bible Students' is indeed misleading, because of the implication that there were no other Bible Students, they are still historically a part of the Bible Student movement. If I understand your position correctly, it seems that you would have the article say that those Bible Students under Rutherford from 1917 to 1930 were even then not part of the Bible Student movement, while they were still called Bible Students, which seems a bit of a stretch. Technically, it seems most accurate to say that JWs arose as a sect of the Bible Student movement, but it's a bit of a leap to say they're not a part of the movement at all.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can definitely agree more with what you've said/the way you've put it here than previously, (especially your last sentence) although there remain some items of dispute which could likely be addressed through further documentation. Granted, the section cited from the 1975 JW Yearbook does not support my statement which you quoted but it is by other references, which will be provided shortly. Even though you seem to disagree, assume for the moment that the Bible Students have, at some point, been considered the "evil slave". What are the implications of this? In other words, what bearing does it have on this BSM article as to whether it was a former position or a current position? Would it not be valid to say the important point is that it was at one time considered by them a valid interpretation and had an impact upon their initial formation? Is that not of primary consideration? The reason I put it this way is the JWs continue to maintain a couple of different viewpoints on this: 1) THEY, and they alone represent the "true" Bible Students even though they do not hold to the same beliefs and were themselves the ones that broke away, and 2) Those who, from their view, broke away from them were disorganized, never engaged in proclaiming the gospel, and eventually died off, and therefore insignificant. JFR was far more dogmatic on it than those who came after him. They do continue to hold to the "cleansing of the temple" viewpoint which refers to the events of 1917-31. What bearing does that interpretation hold as well? I believe we can all of us agree that the modern JW rulership tend to ignore the continuing existence of the original Bible Students, at least officially in their publications. Have you had the chance to look at their Our Kingdom Ministry references? I have not, but there may well be some interesting statements in those which would be appropriate here. The key period is indeed the time around the schism as this was when the JWs and even the Bible Students to some degree really began to define themselves, their role, and their purpose. Incidentally, the 1975 Yearbook statement is important to reference but so too are the actual published statements of Johnson. The dissent did not begin in 1915 as that book is claiming. Of course that's irrelevant since it is still a published source of information, true or not. In one of Johnson's books he goes into explicit almost excessive detail about what happened in the time period from late 1916 through the end of 1919, and his views on what JFR did to him and others, etc... Those references should be included in the article as well to at least show the two differing views on it. Pastorrussell (talk) 09:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

If there are references supporting the claim that the non-Rutherford "Bible Students" as a group were called the 'evil slave' (rather than just particular individuals), then the information should be presented, but only as a historical view, not a current JW teaching. The 1975 yearbook article cannot be used a source to support the claim that the term 'evil slave' was specifically applied to the "Bible Students", though it could be used to define the 'evil slave class'. Because Rutherford maintained control of the Watch Tower Society, it is not quite cut and dry to call Rutherford's Bible Students a sect of the Bible Student movement even if it may be technically true, and it would be better to stick to particulars of the schisms rather than applying labels. Not sure what OKMs you're referring to.

I noticed on the Golden Age linked from the article to the pastor-russell website, the copyright statment that has been added to the PDF files is inappropriate. Copyright on these publications has expired, and the claim of copyright is not legitimate. You cannot claim ownership of these documents simply by hosting them on your website.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, I had hoped you hadn't seen those! Myself and others are in the process of rescanning all of that material (and a lot of new material) without any copyright dates and with watermarks that are far less of an eyesore. My apologies on that! There is a legitimate reason for using it, but that's another discussion for another time. On the OKM I do not have any one particularly in mind. It simply occurred to me that there should be statements in those that would not appear in the regular Watchtower articles or published books. Even if they aren't defined per se they would be used in contexts which would make it clear to what/whom they are referring and sometimes without actually citing the scripture. On the "evil slave" reference in the '75 YB are you saying that you believe it is only calling Johnson the "evil slave" and not the dissenting group of Bible Students in toto? If that is the case note that said reference draws the distinction between the "faithful slave class" and the "evil slave" class. Since Feb. 1927 they've referred to the two "class" upon rejecting the belief that CTR was exclusively the "faithful slave". The Divine Purpose book provides a few examples of this idea. On page 69 bottom of column 1: "The seed of rebellion seemed to germinate in one man, but soon spread and finally did develop into a real conspiracy." Tied in with the YB reference it is clear they are applying the "evil slave" to not just Johnson but to all dissenting Bible Students. It is further stated on page 71 middle of column 1: "This controversy showed a number of the Bethel family were in sympathy with this opposition to the Society's administration under Brother Rutherford.", and in column 2: "They began to spread their opposition outside of Bethel in an extensive speaking and letter-writing campaign throughout the United States, Canada and Europe. As a result, after the summer of 1917, many of the congregations all over the world were composed of two parties." They define exactly what they mean on page 72 middle of column 1: "As foretold in the Scriptures, they were not interested in feeding the Lord's sheep from Jehovah's table. Instead, they were busily engaged in beating and abusing their fellow slaves". That is a direct reference to the "evil slave" scripture in Matthew 24:48-51 even though they do not cite the scripture nor mention "Bible Students". So we now have a reference from 1959 and 1975 where those dissenting Bible Students as a whole are called or placed into the "evil slave class". The reason this is important is because this was the defining period in their development. If JFR and his associates believed at that time the dissenting group(s) constituted the "evil slave class" then it would have had an impact upon their formation, and subsequent events. The question now though is what affect does their having maintained this view at least up to 1975 have upon the definition of the BSM? I would contend that they are attempting to separate themselves from the group. We need to have more than just us two discussing the implications of their interpretation so that we can form a consensus. They considered it important enough to publish and emphasize, so it has significance within the context of the proper formation of this article. Pastorrussell (talk) 11:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

If you believe there are valid reasons for putting a claim of copyright on old copies of the Golden Age, then I think you don't have a clear understanding of copyright law. You aren't the original copyright owner, and it unlikely that the publisher (the Watchtower Society) transferred ownership to you before the copyright expired, meaning that it is in the public domain. Our Kingdom inistry since 1970 are included in the Watchtower Library CD, and therefore covered in the previous searches I mentioned; specifically, the Bible Students have never been explicitly labelled as the 'evil slave'. I am not saying that only Johnson was called the 'evil slave'. I am saying that they did not identify the 'evil slave' as "Bible Students" in the yearbook article, only individuals such as Johnson, and vague references to 'apostates who beat their brothers'. What you're saying "is clear" is a conclusion you've drawn, not something stated in the source material, which indicates that those who caused 'dissent' were part of the evil slave, not all the Bible Students including those who followed the 'dissenters'. The fact that JW literature never mentions 'Bible Students' as the 'dissenters' or the 'evil slave', and JW literature frequently claims that JWs were known as Bible Students indicates that they are not "attempting to separate themselves from" the original Bible Student movement (i.e. Russell), who they believe is one of 'their' 144000.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Pastorrussell, you say you are seeking consensus. I have been reading this debate that's flying off on a number of tangents, but still haven't seen a word added to the article that addresses the issues. Can you express in a sentence or two the statement or view you'd like to see in the article? Precisely what is the issue? Make a specific proposal. LTSally (talk) 12:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

In view of this discussion, I for one would like the following statement:

Bible Students who refused to recognize the Watch Tower Society's new claim to be God's sole mouthpiece on earth were condemned as apostates or servants of "the evil slave" of Matthew 24:48.

to be changed to something more accurate like:

Bible Students who promoted their own ideas and refused to recognize the Watch Tower Society's claim to be God's sole mouthpiece on earth were condemned as apostates or servants of "the evil slave" of Matthew 24:48.

This is consistent with the references cited for the statement, which identified individuals associated with a Bible Students radio program as 'apostates' (along with other 'dissenters' in the discussion here), not merely any Bible Students who did not accept the Watch Tower Society.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

"Those Bible Students who disagreed with Rutherford's changes sought to maintain congregational independence and refused to recognize the Watch Tower Society's new claim to be God's sole mouthpiece on earth. As a result, they were condemned as either apostates or part of the "evil slave" class of Matthew 24:48." Pastorrussell (talk) 18:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The above is my proposed wording. Over the weekend I'd discussed the matter of whether or not the JWs are part of the BSM and it seems that every other Bible Student I've communicated with believes that it is entirely accurate to say that they are. This is generally based upon the view that JFR, as the leader of their group, broke away from the original movement to form their own path, and were they excluded from this article it would be an incomplete record of the early history of the "Movement". That seems quite reasonable to me, so as a result of those conversations I no longer dispute the inclusion within this article of the JWs as an offshoot of the BSM. Perhaps this article could open with the formation of the Bible Students as a group under the Allegheny Bible class, and the emergence of CTR as its vitalizing force, and the results which followed. How extensive are the references in the published non-JW works regarding the early formation? Do such references contain information that is not merely a repeat of what the JWs claim of the early history? Pastorrussell (talk) 10:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

This entire thread generated that "proposed wording"? If only the proposal had been enunciated earlier!

Please be sure to reference points such as "Watch Tower Society's new claim to be God's sole mouthpiece on earth".

Incidentally, some didn't necessarily disagree with theological developments, but did disagree with ceding congregational independence. Arguably, that in itself was a theological development, so the wording is not unacceptable.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

JWs "break"?

Regarding the repeated "Talk" allusion to JWs as having "broken away" from the Bible Student Movement, that seems poorly supported by statistics. Back on May 4 I asked a few questions intended to bring encyclopedic thinking to that claim. To repeat...

Regarding the facts alluded to in this "Talk"... Does any reference suggest that there was EVER a point in time when the Bible Student Movement wasn't numerically dominated by adherents who remained associated with WT and IBSA? Is there any reference that says they were ever less than a majority of the entire Movement, at any given point? Even if some "left" the WT/IBSA group, did they typically join another Bible Student group?

Statistically, the numbers of "other" Bible Students were, simply put, never enough to confuse the general public. The group associated with Watch Tower had the support always of not merely the largest plurality of adherents, but the actual majority of adherents (of course, non-JW Bible Students have always been shy about their statistics, so a referenceable comparison isn't easy) at any given time.

JWs didn't "break" from the Bible Student Movement --and-- JWs didn't reject any core doctrines. JWs steered the overwhelming majority of the Movement in a slightly different direction. Rather than the details of thousands of articles, however, the core Bible Student doctrines of nontrinitarianism, use of "Jehovah", mortal soul, and earthly hope for most humans have remained consistent for JWs since their beginnings, which they would argue was in the 1870s.

What, exactly, are JWs considered to have "broken" from, if not doctrine?

Again, focusing on the statistics...

In 1931, the year they accepted that name, there were 39,372 Jehovah's Witness publishers associated with WT.

The loftiest claims I've ever seen for all non-Witness Bible Students is about 20,000, in 2009!

In 2009, there are over 7 million active JW publishers. By the most generous measure, non-JWs constitute less than 0.3% of the Bible Student Movement.

This article need not focus on Jehovah's Witnesses; they have articles discussing their particulars. Nevertheless, it's silly and wrong to pretend that JWs "broke" from the Bible Student Movement and should not be discussed here. The publications of JWs still refer to even long-baptized Witnesses as "Bible students", and they seem to have pointedly retained the name of their century-old corporation International Bible Students Association.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You have a poor grasp of the history of your own religion, Authority Tam. The article already details how many Bible Students quit fellowship with the Watch Tower Society between 1917 and 1931, a fact confirmed by Rutherford himself. Penton notes (p.68) that "while numerous new converts were being made, almost as many old-time Bible Students were severing association with the society", hence the very slow rate of growth until the mmid-1920s. The change of name in 1931 was a conscious effort by Rutherford to forge ahead under a new identity, with many new doctrines, leaving the Bible Students to totter along on their own and, he probably hoped, wither on the vine. (Many, or most, indeed did just that). Your discussion about the Bible Students being numerically overshadowed by the Witnesses is a straw man and unrelated to the issue of whether Rutherford's faction broke from the Bible Students. By the mid-1930s, the traditional Bible Students were certainly becoming outnumbered in the new, Brooklyn-controlled congregations; as they drifted off, the congregations increasingly reflected the new direction of the Rutherford-directed religion and bore less and less similarity to its Bible Student roots. A breakaway indeed. LTSally (talk) 11:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

My "own religion"? On what basis would anyone make such an assumption?

Although I'm certainly familiar with JWs and prefer that they and others be discussed objectively, I don't believe I've ever indicated any religious affiliation.

It might be useful for certain persons to re-read Talk guidelines.

Getting back to the thread, and improving the article...

Above, I reiterated core Bible Student doctrine, noted that JWs still believe those core doctrines, and rather pointedly asked:

What, exactly, are JWs considered to have "broken" from, if not doctrine?

That the crux, isn't it?

Statistically, a mere fraction might be described as a "faction", but can a majority be a "faction"? Terms like "faction" and "break" seem used for nonneutral reasons. Is there some encyclopedic work that uses such terms in the same context as that used by certain Wikipedia editors?

Regarding a grasp of history...

Assuming it's true that " almost as many old-time Bible Students were severing association with the society"... ...well that rather plainly admits the non-IBSA constituency to be LESS THAN the IBSA constituency (affiliated with the Watch Tower Society).

Regarding a grasp of mathematics...

If a whole has two parts A and B, and if part B is less than part A, then it seems rather obvious that part A is the majority. That's what I wrote! IBSA adherents have always constituted a majority of the Bible Student Movement. In other words, there have always been more IBSA Bible Students than non-IBSA Bible Students. Always.

The faulty logic of LTSally is in assuming that everyone who departs A must join B. That's a silly argument, and one unsupported by references and statistics related to the Bible Student Movement.

Please, feel free to show whatever referenceable statistics the various Bible Student groups have claimed. It will be interesting to see if non-IBSA Bible Students have ever claimed their combined numbers ever exceeded the numbers affiliated with IBSA/JWs, at any given moment in history. I'd guess they've never made such a claim. Again, do asserters even pretend that there is some referenceable basis upon which to assert that everyone (most? some? any particular number?) who left IBSA/JWs actually joined any other Bible Student group?

Referenceable statistics would be of encyclopedic value.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 15:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

There are published references (both JW and non-JW) that show clearly the number who broke away from the Movement were in fact the majority by the end of the 1920s. In fact, even before 1919 nearly 25% had left. More left in the early 20s, and many more left between 1925 and 1931 where numerous shocking changes took place. ("shocking" to the adherents) The prophecy concerning the year 1925 resulted in a large number leaving. When in 1927 he rejected CTRs role in the 'restoration of truth', and in 1928 claimed the Great Pyramid of Giza was built by Satan many more left. The numbers given of those who kept the Memorial of Christ's death (held yearly on the 14th of the Jewish month Nisan) show a significant drop in membership. Anyone who reads the same information in the ZWT prior to CTRs death will see that those records represented an accurate count of their 'membership'. When JFR decided to reject the name of "Bible Students" in favor of his "new name" of "Jehovah's Witnesses" it was to make a clear separation between his group and those who had left their association with the congregations now under the full control of the Watch Tower Society who were in fact the majority. JFR denied everything CTR stood for, except for some core beliefs, but which no more identify him than do the Seventh Day Adventists, Universalists, or Worldwide Church of God who could never be included in this article. Pastorrussell (talk) 16:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, here's an idea...

Instead of just claiming references exist!, why not actually cite the supposed references with statistics. It will be interesting to weigh the credibility of a reference arguing that everyone (most? some? any particular number?) who left the International Bible Students Association (IBSA) must have actually joined any other Bible Student group.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 16:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Another demonstration of the poor knowledge of the history of your own religion, AuthorityTam. The IBSA was the London corporation only. Bible Students in other countries, including the US and Australia, were never members of the IBSA, just as you are not a member of the Watch Tower Society. Thanks for the maths lesson, but as I've explained, the subsequent growth of Jehovah's Witnesses proves nothing. Rutherford clearly sought to sever affiliation with traditional Bible Students whose more liberal and traditional outlook prevented them from buckling to his tyrannical demands. It's all in the history books, old chap. Just read them. LTSally (talk) 21:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

My "poor knowledge" regarding the IBSA?

I must assume yours is an attempt at humor. The suggestion that an adherent could not have considered himself an "IBSA Bible Student" unless he was British is silly. If it were restricted to one nation, how could it be "International"?

Until 1933, their global Yearbook was entitled "Year Book of the International Bible Students Association".

IBSA was the stated "publisher" for publications such as:

Studies in the Scriptures

The Divine Plan of the Ages

From Paradise Lost to Paradise Regained

“Where Are the Dead?”

Since IBSA's incorporation, publications have repeatedly noted 'All three of these corporations [including IBSA] were organized for identical purposes and they harmoniously work together.'

Until 2000, the president of Watch Tower was usually the president of IBSA.

In the day, I'd guess many regular readers of Watch Tower would have unconfusedly accepted identification as "IBSA Bible Students". Here in "Talk", my use of the term "IBSA Bible Students" need not be subjected to lawyerly protestations. To those familiar with the matter, such protestations don't make me seem less knowledgeable, and it doesn't make the protester seem more knowledgeable. It wastes everyone's time and isn't useful.

And, incidentally...

My "own religion"? On what basis would anyone make an assumption about that? Although I'm certainly familiar with JWs and prefer that they and others be discussed objectively, I don't believe I've ever indicated any religious affiliation.

It might be useful for certain persons to re-read Talk guidelines.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Definition of movement

I'll start a new thread here to get us back to basics. The article still lacks a proper definition of the movement. Clearly what's needed is properly sourced detail on when the "movement" began. Russell's followers evidently began referring to themselves as Bible Students about 1880 and the term "movement" is a handy description of the assortment of groups that formed from 1917 as individuals parted with the Watch Tower Society in reaction to the increased organizational control and doctrinal shifts being imposed by Rutherford.

We also need a paragraph summarizing the beliefs of the movement, which were evidently based around the second advent of Christ and the study of Bible chronology, including calculation (and indeed the concept of) the Gentile Times. These beliefs are essentially those established and promoted by Russell. AuthorityTam has suggested the central doctrines are mortal soul, nontrinitarianism, use of "Jehovah", and earthly hope, but these are side issues to the central belief in the imminent advent of Christ. The use of "Jehovah" is itself a tenuous point: Russell and Rutherford used the name in WTS publications only occasionally and, as Penton contends, no more frequently than publications by other groups.

The list of groups within the Bible Student movement obviously needs to include the original Bible Students (associated with the Watch Tower Society), whose connection with the movement ended, I'd contend, in 1931, when they broke free of it by changing their name and accelerating their abandonment of many of Russell's teachings. Penton certainly believes the change of name in '31 marked a psychological break with the Bible Students, though it can be noted in the article (if supported by WT references) that the Watch Tower Society later continued to suggest it was the continuation of the Bible Students. This may be a contentious point and if there are conflicting claims, both will have to be represented.

There are a few good reference books on the history of Jehovah's Witnesses that spent time on the early days, and I'll extract what I can from these in the next few weeks to help fill in these gaps. LTSally (talk) 22:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Along with the use of the "Bible Student Movement" a common term that began to be used among them was "the truth", such as in phrases like, "Make the truth your own", or "How long have you been in the truth?" These are still commonly used by Bible Students and even JWs, but it began to be used by CTR and the original Bible Students in the late 19th c. At the same time in which the term "Bible Student Movement" came into being there was also use of the "Truth Movement". I have references on these points and will post them in short order. The two would be nearly synonymous ('The Bible Student Movement, also known as the Truth Movement...') Does anyone know if this phrase is used by any other other religious fellowship outside of the BSM and the JWs? ("the truth") Pastorrussell (talk) 16:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

IBSA

I have removed the following text inserted by AuthorityTam:

As a group, Bible Students who remain(ed) affiliated with Watch Tower magazine (now The Watchtower) are represented by the International Bible Students Association. The name was applied to the British corporation founded in 1914 as a sister corporation to Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania (in the United States), but the religion also self-identified its global brotherhood as "IBSA" at least until the name "Jehovah's witnesses" was adopted in 1931. Jehovah's Witnesses still refer to themselves formally and informally as "Bible students".

• The Bible Students in question were affiliated with an organization, not a magazine.
• IBSA is the main corporation used by JWs in Britain, and there are also separate corporations with the same name in some other countries (including some translated into local languages), but it is not a universal organization with which all JWs are affiliated.
• The gender-specific term 'Sister corporation' should be avoided.
• JWs don't formally refer to themselves as Bible Students, and it may be confusing to make reference to them as Bible students. People of many religions may refer to themselves informally as 'students of the Bible'; in Bible Student-related articles, it is best not to raise this ambiguity.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Authority Tam has some bits right, but he has a lot wrong. The term IBSA seems to have been used in two quite distinct ways. Rogerson (p.35, 155) and the 1973 WTS Yearbook (p. 96) says Russell established the IBSA as an independent corporation in Britain in June 1914 to handle British branch affairs. The association was formed under the parent body of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania (therefore not a sister organization). The 1979 WTS Yearbook (p. 124) says the IBSA was also formed in 1925 in Canada as a legal and administrative body to serve interests in that country. Bodies with an identical name were also formed in Tanzania (1966), Seychelles (1972) as well as Norway (pre-1940), Czechoslovakia (1930) and Fiji (1966). So in those countries it was a legal name, with the IBSA always formed as a subsidiary of the Pennsylvania corporation.

The second use of the term is referred to in the Proclaimers book (p. 151) when it says that in 1910 Bible Students began using the name International Bible Students’ Association with reference to their meetings, and it seems it was a quite informal term, although a popular one: the big conventions in Ohio in the 1920s and '30s gathered under that title. The yearbooks from around that time also used the IBSA prominently on the cover. Although the date of incorporation of the Peoples Pulpit Association (later renamed the WTBTS of New York) is known, I have yet to see any reference to the legal incorporation of the IBSA. The April 1910 Watch Tower probably explains why when it introduces the term, with Russell saying they needed some label with which to advertise their services without suggesting any sectarianism. To Russell, the "church", or anointed true Christians, could exist in any denomination. But to demarcate his own brethren, he wrote:

"Now in the Lord's providence we have thought of a title suitable, we believe, to the Lord's people everywhere, and free from objection, we believe, on every score--the title at the head of this article (IBSA). It fairly represents our sentiments and endeavors. We are Bible students. We welcome all of God's people to join with us in the study. We believe that the result of such studies is blessed and unifying. We recommend therefore that the little classes everywhere and the larger ones adopt this unobjectionable style and that they use it in the advertising columns of their newspapers. Thus friends everywhere will know how to recognize them when visiting strange cities. In harmony with New York State laws the association will be under the direction and management of the Peoples Pulpit Association, which, in turn, represents the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society ... To avoid everything that might be construed as "joining," the membership is confined to those constituting the chartered Peoples Pulpit Association. The provision is made that all Bible Student Classes using the Bible Study Helps published by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society may consider themselves identified with the Association and are authorized to use the name "International Bible Students' Association" in respect to their meetings."

To suggest, as Authority Tam did, that those who remained affiliated with the dominant Rutherford faction following the post-1916 schisms are represented by the IBSA just doesn't make sense. Nor, I'd contend, do Jehovah's Witnesses today ever refer to themselves or their organization as Bible Students. LTSally (talk) 12:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me begin by noting how odd it seemed that an article on the Bible Student movement should have a single solitary mention (in passing!) of the first and largest (by every measure, I'd guess) Bible Students association. So, I add such a section. It's summarily deleted rather than improved!

Hmm.

I'll improve it myself, based on the explicit criticisms above.

• Rather than "affiliated", now says "associated with Watch Tower". Many reference works use exactly this language; it should be unobjectionable. Of course, other works say "affiliated"...
  
• Removed present-tense 'Bible Students who remain associated with IBSA'. Nothing in the section claims that IBSA is currently "a universal organization with which all JWs are affiliated".
  
• Perhaps "related corporation" would've been better for reasons of subsidiarity rather than gender. Moot.
  
• The point about JWs referring to themselves as 'Bible students' was intended to inform readers. I don't care enough to push the issue, so it's dropped from my mostly-reinstated paragraph.
  
  

Following a deep breath, I'll sidebar that it's factually irrefutable that JWs do indeed continue to refer to themselves as 'Bible students' both colloquially and in their publications (that is, informally and formally). In addition, there seems no way the sentence could have led to a wrong conclusion because JWs are (for most purposes) also 'Bible Students' (members of the 'Bible Student Movement'). So what hypothetical wrong conclusion or confusion might have resulted from the sentence?

Regarding "IBSA" and "International Bible Students Association": that's simply the best label available for Jehovah's Witnesses before 1931. It's easily demonstrable that IBSA was used as the name of the religion for decades and its subsequent use for corporate names was in addition to the pre-existing and concurrent use (compare with the more recent "Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses"). It is not necessary to prove or disprove that "all JWs are affiliated" with an IBSA corporation; IBSA was always more than a mere corporation. Here is the former paragraph.

As a group, Bible Students who remain(ed) affiliated with Watch Tower magazine (now The Watchtower) are represented by the International Bible Students Association. The name was applied to the British corporation founded in 1914 as a sister corporation to Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania (in the United States), but the religion also self-identified its global brotherhood as "IBSA" at least until the name "Jehovah's witnesses" was adopted in 1931. Jehovah's Witnesses still refer to themselves formally and informally as "Bible students".

Here is the paragraph as I've reinstated it at Bible_Student_movement#International_Bible_Students_Association:

As a group, Bible Students who remained associated with Watch Tower magazine (now The Watchtower) were known as the International Bible Students Association. While the name was soon applied to corporations in Britain, Canada, and elsewhere, the global religion continued to self-identify itself as "IBSA" and "International Bible Students Association" through 1931, when the name Jehovah's witnesses was adopted. Today, Jehovah's Witness publications typically define "Bible Students" as "Jehovah’s Witnesses from the time of C. T. Russell until 1931".

If some fact from this new paragraph is really "a lot wrong", please be detailed in noting (and referencing) what exactly seems factually incorrect.--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Deep breaths aside (your bodily functions are of no concern to me), thanks for your response. I did consider rewording your incorrect paragraph rather than deleting it, but it seemed too full of factual errors. Your new wording still contains some errors, including errors from the original wording.

• They weren't affiliated/association with a magazine but with an organization.
• 'soon applied to' after mentioning BS who remained associated with WT restricts the naming of those corporations to no earlier than 1917.
• 'Self-identify itself'??

I will remove these errors from the article while retaining the usable portions.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The edits of User:Jeffro77 continue to reinforce the misconception that IBSA was primary a corporate name; in fact, IBSA was firstly and most importantly the name of the global religion before 1931. Furthermore, the "errors" he cites hardly justify rewriting the paragraph completely.

• Persons are and were associated with a magazine and an organization. The two are not mutually exclusive.
• No. First the name began being used (in 1910) and secondly "the name was soon applied to corporations" (in 1914). The name's use by 'Bible Students connected with WT' was not a time that began in 1917 or any year other than 1910 (or earlier, anecdotally).
• Wow, a typo. I change "self-identify" to "identify itself" and neglect to delete the unwanted prefix. Terrible. Or is it?

I'll look at this again tomorrow.--AuthorityTam (talk) 23:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Whilst most JWs would likely understand what was meant if asked if they're affiliated with The Watchtower magazine, they would generally prefer to say they're affiliated with the Watch Tower Society (likely by way of some euphemism such as 'Jehovah's organization'); though the two (affiliation with magazine versus organization) are not mutually exclusive, neither are they synonymous and the latter is far more accurate. I do not understand how your statement about "Bible Students who remained associated" with the WT makes any reference or implication to the application of IBSA to the group in 1910, or any other time prior to the schism beginning in 1917 - if you are going to make reference to when the term was first used, you need to disconnect the phrase from the statement about those who remained with the WT at a later time. Not sure why you're referring to the irrelevant and abandoned proposal, WP:Make omissions explicit (aka Wikipedia:Always_leave_something_undone).--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Apparently this must be repeated again: "International Bible Students Association" was not used merely "informally" to refer to the global religion. WT and non-WT publications refer to it as an unincorporated entity with a governing body (intentional lowercase) chaired by Russell. My latest edit was primarily motivated to correct that idea, but it also addresses other supposed "errors"...

• User:Jeffro77 seems to argue against wording similar to 'persons were associated with a magazine'. I disagree and believe User:Jeffro77's opinion represents a minority at odds with multiple scholarly works. Rather than argue, I've changed "...associated with Watch Tower magazine..." to the simpler "...associated with Watch Tower...". Obviously, "Watch Tower" is a scholarly and common diminutive of the corporation's full name.
  
• User:Jeffro77 seems to argue that "remained" somehow implies 1917. I disagree, but rather than argue, I've chosen to change "...Bible Students who remained associated with..." to the simpler "...Bible Students associated with...", removing the possibility that "remained" could be interpreted as implying a single event (rather than a decades-long, continual 'remaining').
  
• User:Jeffro77 seems to argue that "soon" must be understood as 'soon after 1917' rather than 'soon after 1910'. I disagree, but rather than argue, I've chosen to remove the confusing "soon"; I've changed "...name was soon applied to corporations..." to the simpler "...name was also applied to corporations...".
  Here is (was) my criticized middle effort...
  

As a group, Bible Students who remained associated with Watch Tower magazine (now The Watchtower) were known as the International Bible Students Association. While the name was soon applied to corporations in Britain, Canada, and elsewhere, the global religion continued to self-identify itself as "IBSA" and "International Bible Students Association" through 1931, when the name Jehovah's witnesses was adopted. Today, Jehovah's Witness publications typically define "Bible Students" as "Jehovah’s Witnesses from the time of C. T. Russell until 1931".

Here is the edit I posted to address the recent concerns of User:Jeffro77...

As a group, Bible Students associated with Watch Tower were known as the International Bible Students Association. The name was also applied to corporations in Britain, Canada, and elsewhere, but the global religion continued to identify itself as "IBSA" and "International Bible Students Association" through 1931, when the name Jehovah's witnesses was adopted. Modern publications of Jehovah's Witnesses typically define "Bible Students" as "Jehovah’s Witnesses from the time of C. T. Russell until 1931".

Yesterday, my Talk edit summary for this section "IBSA" was "Focus should be on global religious entity, rather than one country's corporation." I believe my latest edit does that without POV or undue weight; compare it with other sections in this article. I'll also work to refrain from metaphoric 'deep breaths' and references to minor levity. --AuthorityTam (talk) 19:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Coupla minor edits, leaving...

As a group, Bible Students associated with Watch Tower were known as the International Bible Students Association; the name was also applied to corporations in Britain, Canada, and elsewhere. Globally, the religion continued to identify itself as "IBSA" and "International Bible Students Association" through 1931, when the name Jehovah's witnesses was adopted. Modern publications of Jehovah's Witnesses typically define "Bible Students" as "Jehovah’s Witnesses from the time of C. T. Russell until 1931".

I'll leave it be now... --AuthorityTam (talk) 19:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I have reordered the article chronologically. I have maintained the fundamental import of your wording in this section. However, it is much more accurate to say affiliated with the Society rather than the magazine. Affiliation with the magazine is merely metaphorical for endorsing support of the magazine's publisher as the magazine is an inanimate object with no opinions of its own. Additionally, until is less informal than through.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Statistics

The section Bible_Student_movement#Layman.27s_Home_Missionary_Movement says there are 16,000; the reference says "Present Truth LHM Publication, February, 2006, p. 9-13." A tag was deleted when "LHM Publication" was added. Now, a tag requests the actual quote; please post it here. Thanks! --AuthorityTam (talk) 05:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer this figure to remain in the article, if it's a bonafide statistic. If not (that is, if the quote hasn't been verified by 2009-08-30, two full months after above request), I can't see allowing it to stay in the article. Anyone know who might have a page scan? --AuthorityTam (talk) 20:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Two months have elapsed, with an interim warning almost four weeks ago. The statistics claim has been removed until a quote can be sourced from a verifiable reference. --AuthorityTam (talk) 10:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Freytag

Authority Tam, it would have been helpful if you'd explained what it was about the name of Alexander Freytagyou wanted to "clarify". He is mentioned at [1], [2], [3], [4] and [5]. Penton in his Third Reich book does identify him as F.L. Alexandre Freytag, but he appears to be on his own with that rendering. LTSally (talk) 00:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The individual's full name is Alexandre Frédéric Louis Freytag.[6] The commas indicate he was also known as the other names in no specific order, with italics indicating the name by which he was primarily known, in agreement with other sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Article: List of Christian denominations

At Talk:List of Christian denominations#Nontrinitarianism, I've asked about moving certain groups. You may wish to post a comment there.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 20:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

"Leadership Crisis"

I am proposing that this section is poorly written, and largely presents the standard modern Watchtower Society views on the schism while glancing over the real facts and reality of the situation as outlined in other reliable third-party sources than the few used to support the revised history. Pastorrussell (talk) 04:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

So you have two complaints: (1) That it is poorly written and (2) It presents the WTS view of the schism. I rewrote this section, so I won't bother to defend myself on the first complaint, but I did go to much effort to convey both sides of the issue. The sources are clearly drawn from both sides of the issue, as well as Rogerson and Wills, neither of whom present the history with a pro-JW bias. On the points at which Rutherford and the four directors disagreed, I have simply tried to present both sides in order to maintain neutrality. Much of the material here is an adaptation of what I wrote at Joseph Franklin Rutherford. Can you please be more specific on the points you find to be biased in favor of the JW version of events and I'll try to remedy these. LTSally (talk) 05:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I sincerely hope that I didn't cause any hurt feelings or discouragement. If so, please forgive me as it was not intentional. You are a good writer, but the section in question is slanted toward the viewpoints long endorsed by the Watchtower Society which are in fact quite skewed, even to the point of unfortunately and regrettably having to say that they were dishonest. Their three official historical accounts (Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose; 1975 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses; Jehovah's Witnesses Proclaimers of God's Kingdom) present JFR's actions as wholly justifiable, supported by legal opinions, and that those who opposed him were either enemies of God, or seeking to be trouble-makers. You did address some of the information regarding JFR's enforced letter passed around to all of the members of the "Bethel Home". Those who did not sign the letter were forced to leave. I have the testimony of one of them that was there, but it is not published so it would constitute original research and thus not acceptable for use in Wikipedia until it is. But with the combination of Olin Moyle's letters, some of the references you did cite, etc... it can be shown that JFR knew what he was doing, and had an agenda all his own. At the very least there were indeed conflicting legal opinions, but the conflict was for all intents and purposes between JFR himself as a lawyer and the legal counsel acquired by the deposed Board members. The 1917 pamphlet "Light After Darkness" which was written and distributed by the deposed Board members presents an outline of what happened, and is therefore a good source. There was also a book written by Paul S.L. Johnson (founder of the Layman's Home Missionary Movement, and CTR's best friend) called "Merarianism" which outlines in detail everything that JFR did, his activities with certain individuals who worked together even before CTR died to take over after his death. The issue with the proxies is documented in published sources. CTR's Last Will & Testament specifies who was to have control of his proxy votes, but JFR dismissed them ALL as invalid and it was by this means of legal maneuvering which created his "unanimous election". I haven't looked at the JFR article, but will do so now, and will add a few more thoughts shortly. Hopefully this will suffice for the moment, but if not let me know what you'd like me to address and we can work together on this. Thanks for being so patient. Pastorrussell (talk) 22:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. I think, however, that your complaint about that section is ill-founded. I'll address your points one by one.

(1) The WTS accounts present JFR's actions as justifiable. I agree. They have only ever presented one side of the issue. I acknowledge this in footnote 85. With this article I have tried very hard to present both sides.

(2) Bethel family members were compelled to sign a letter supporting Rutherford. This is covered in the final paragraph of "Leadership crisis": to ensure neutrality, I have included the accusation and JFR's denial.

(3) JFR had an agenda of his own. I believe you are right. I think he was doing what he could to cling to power and he stooped to any means possible to achieve this, possibly in a sincere belief he was acting as an agent of God to protect his interests. My gut feeling, based on the writings of the ousted directors and JFR himself, is he simply wanted the power of a tin god with power over people's lives. An encyclopedia, however can't make such an assertion. The first paragraph of "Rutherford's re-election and aftermath" does indicate that his opponents accused him of gross misrepresentation and trying to usurp authority. (Just as he, indeed, accused them of the same thing. For Bible Students of the day it would have been very hard to decide.)

(4) The conflict was between JFR and the expelled directors' legal opinions. Very much so. The second-to-last paragraph of "Leadership crisis" discusses the legal opinions gained by ousted directors that conflicted with that gained by Rutherford. Rutherford never did address any of the points raised in those legal opinions, so my guess is that he knew his legal opinion was on shaky ground.

(5)The 1917 pamphlet "Light After Darkness" presents the views of the ousted directors. I agree, it's an excellent source, and I have cited that source 13 times in the article, as well as provided a link to the document – on your website, as it happens.

(6)JFR dismissed proxy votes as invalid to ensure his unanimous election. I am not sure which election you are referring to. I refer to the proxies Rutherford used, in a dishonest manner I believe, to oust Hirsh and Hoskins from the Peoples Pulpit Association board. As always, there are two sides to the story and to be neutral one must provide a balancing comment if there is one. Accusations were made that Rutherford misused the proxies; he insisted his actions were legally correct because the meeting had never been closed. To me it's stretching the truth, but to achieve balance I have included links to both the directors' claim and his rebuttal. If you are referring to the 1917 election, I have already referred to accusations that the voting process was engineered to ensure Rutherford won. If you are referring to the 1918 election, that's information I haven't seen.

I'll reiterate that in writing this article I have attempted to say firstly what did happen, and secondly the accusations made against Rutherford and in each case his defence if there was one. I can't be fairer than that. I maintain that the coverage I have provided is much more balanced than anyything you'll read in a WTS publication because it presents the opposing views (which they have never acknowledged), but resists any temptation to appear biased against Rutherford or the organisation he helped shape. I invite you to read the section again and consider whether I've addressed all your concerns. LTSally (talk) 12:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)