Can the JW's dismiss their past?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i am also just stating the facts, you are publishing what basically amounts to slanderous tabloid gossip about someone's private life, why are you interested in what a man does in his private life? why are you interested in who he married and what children they have? whether he is separated or not? what type of shirts he wears? i do not know? nor am i angry.

The article does not agree or disagree it just states that it was a fact.
It's from wikipedia so other can read and decide. It just states it. My point is that this just furthered his anti-governmental stance. I guess if the US government put me in jail I would be pissed too!!



Manny

In Canada, in February, 1918, the ministers ( of christendom) began a systematic campaign against them and their publications, particularly The Finished Mystery. According to the Winnipeg Tribune, the attention of the Attorney General had been called to the Russellites, and the suppression of their book was believed to have been directly brought about by the ‘representations of the clergy.’”

In January 1918, leading clergymen of Canada signed a petition asking the civil authorities to suppress the publications of the International Bible Students Association. That no small number of opposers was involved is seen in the fact that the petition had upward of 600 signers. Many of the publications cited had been in use for more than 30 years! Obviously, it was not true patriotism that moved these clergymen to act against the Bible Students.

That clerical pressure moved the government of Canada to ban “The Finished Mystery” is seen in these remarks later printed in the Winnipeg Tribune: “The banned publications are alleged to contain seditious and anti-war statements.

Excerpts from one of the recent issues of ‘The Bible Students Monthly’ were denounced from the pulpit a few weeks ago by Rev. Charles G. Patterson, Pastor of St. Stephen’s Church. Afterward Attorney General Johnson sent to Rev. Patterson for a copy of the publication. The censor’s order is believed to be the direct result.”

Official records of the Canadian government that have been opened for public inspection in recent years clearly reveal that the clergy did indeed trigger the 1918 action against Jehovahs Witnesses in this country. When it was suggested that the clerics had done this, there was a denial. Yet, at that very time, Chief Censor Col. Ernest Chambers had in his file a letter from “Reverend” A. E. Cooke, minister of the First Congregational Church in Vancouver, British Columbia, who had written this to the censor:

“I have been instructed by the General Ministerial Association of Vancouver to bring to your attention a matter which seems to us to be of considerable public importance at this time. As you are aware the followers of the late ‘Pastor’ Russell . . . call themselves ‘International Bible Students’ . . .
“Would it not also be well to prohibit the propagandist literature of this body which is published in the United States and sent to Canada for distribution by these people?”
The chief censor, Col. Chambers, wrote back. In his letter, which was marked “Confidential,” he said to clergyman Cooke:
“Reverend and dear Sir: . . . your communication conveying as it did the views of such an influential body as The General Ministerial Association of Vancouver, proved very useful in securing action in this very important matter. . . .
“I consider that the bitter attacks in these publications upon the Churches of all denominations, without distinction, are noteworthy, even if the statements embodied in these attacks cannot be described as ‘militarily objectionable.’”

These confidential documents of the past, now open to public examination, do show that the clergy really did trigger the action of 1918 against Jehovah’s people. Yes, these faithful Christians were denied their freedoms because they dared, as did Jesus Christ, to speak God’s Word without fear, exposing the hypocrisy of the clergy.—Matt. 23:1-39.

It is most interesting that the Canadian ban came on February 12, 1918, and that in the United States the official act against “The Finished Mystery” came on March 14 of the same year. The U.S. action also came after representations by the clergy.

The Bible Students Monthly, published by Jehovah’s witnesses, had said in September of 1917:

“The clergy have stood by the kings and said, in substance, ‘Push on your work of destruction; God is with you, and we will pray His blessings upon your army.’ In Germany the Clergy pray God that He will bless their armies and enable them to destroy the English; in Great Britain the Clergy pray God for a blessing upon the British armies, that they may be enabled to wipe the Germans off the face of the earth. Which class of the clergy does He hear? . . .

“The Scriptures point out that both the kings and the clergy are responsible for this war, but that the clergy are even more reprehensible, because it was their duty to know God’s Plan and to tell it to the people. But they have refused to learn it and failed to tell it to others.”

It was this course of Jehovah’s witnesses, who outspokenly made known the truth, that was intolerable to the clergy. So they attempted to stamp out the truth.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i am also just stating the facts, you are publishing what basically amounts to slanderous tabloid gossip about someone's private life, why are you interested in what a man does in his private life? why are you interested in who he married and what children they have? whether he is separated or not? what type of shirts he wears? i do not know? nor am i angry.

It matters how he behaved RC to his fellow brothers because this establishes what he really believed. The evil came from out of his mouth from what was in his heart. Once again it's the basic tenant practice what you preach or be deemed a hypocrite.



Manny

The government archives, now made public, reveal the truth. They show that before the war even started, Lapointe was being peppered with demands from Catholic organizations to stop Jehovah’s witnesses. The war provided a convenient camouflage behind which the minister of justice hoped to conceal the intrigues of the Roman Catholic Church.

The key point was reached when the following letter, in French, was sent from the cardinal’s palace to the private secretary of Lapointe. It was written on June 27, 1940, by Paul Bernier, chancellor of the archdiocese of Quebec:

“Dear Sir:
“His Eminence the Cardinal would be happy if you would draw the attention of the Right Honorable Mr. Ernest Lapointe, Minister of Justice, to the enclosed leading editorial of Quebec, concerning the publications of the Watch Tower or Jehovah’s Witnesses.
“Certain books and pamphlets again recently addressed through the mail, and in particular the periodical Consolation, are all that which is the most demoralizing and most destructive of the spiritual strength of the country.
“Thanking you in advance, dear Sir, for your kind attention to this letter, I remain
Yours very truly,
Paul Bernier, Chancellor”

The “leading editorial” that the cardinal’s office enclosed with their letter was from the newspaper L’Action Catholique. This paper was the official voice of the Quebec hierarchy. The editorial stated:
“A lot is being said about sabotage.
“With good reason a careful watch is kept on those who could blow up ships under construction, explosive works, etc., etc. But there are still more dangerous agents of sabotage; those are people who prepare the mind and heart for subversive activity by sowing revolutionary ideas and kindling feelings of revolt.
“Among these public enemies, there are none more hypocritical and more harmful than Jehovah’s Witnesses and their agents.
“Any time of day, in one parish or another, in country or in town, this dangerous sect gives out its poisonous booklets . . .
“Whatever the case, we declare with no hesitation that the authorities should be doing more to protect the public in this domain.”

This editorial, and the accompanying letter sent to Lapointe’s private secretary, were in reality a demand from the cardinal that Lapointe have Jehovah’s witnesses declared illegal. Lapointe knew that his power depended on the cardinal. He was therefore quick to respond.

The next item in this drama of secrecy and intrigue is the following letter sent to the cardinal’s palace one week later, on July 4, 1940. It was from the private secretary of the minister of justice, Lapointe. Addressed to the chancellor, Paul Bernier, it said:

“Mr. Chancellor:

“Upon receipt of your letter of June 27, I look it upon myself to fulfill His Eminence the Cardinal’s desire to direct the attention of the Minister to your representations as well as to the editorial published by L’Action Catholique with regard to the Watch Tower, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Consolation.

“Mr. Lapointe gave me permission to let you know by telephone the confidential information that the said organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses would be declared illegal as of today, with the request that His Eminence, the Cardinal, be informed of this.

“This letter is to confirm that which I just told you over the telephone.

“I understand that His Eminence the Cardinal will be duly informed of the departmental order regarding Jehovah’s Witnesses.
“Please accept, Mr. Chancellor, my expression of thanks and my warmest regards.”

The letter was signed by Lapointe’s private secretary. So from the time of the cardinal’s demand, it had taken just seven days to get the ban on Jehovah’s witnesses imposed!

Thus, from the government’s own official records, the truth is now revealed. The ban against Jehovah’s witnesses was engineered directly from the palace of the Roman Catholic cardinal in Quebec City.

What a shameful record the clergy built up in this matter! There were false accusations from religious enemies, secret files, hidden influence, no opportunity to reply, and arbitrary decrees designed to destroy freedom of worship to God. Those were all the hateful and evil practices of the ill-famed Inquisition used in modern times by the Roman Catholic Hierarchy in Canada to damage innocent people who dared to proclaim the truths of God’s Word!

Originally posted by menace71
It matters how he behaved RC to his fellow brothers because this establishes what he really believed. The evil came from out of his mouth from what was in his heart. Once again it's the basic tenant practice what you preach or be deemed a hypocrite.



Manny

spare me Manny i am uninterested in the tabliod nature of your gossip, you never knew the man, were not there and how convenient for you that he is not here to make a defence of himself, given the accusations of, his friends or more truthfully his enemies? more 'impartial', statements that you are quite fond of i see,

Rutherford and seven associated were given prison sentences of up to twenty years, innocent men, falsely accused by a clergy backed hysteria because that clergy were exposed for what they are, a bunch of warmongering dogs!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
spare me Manny i am uninterested in the tabliod nature of your gossip, you never knew the man, were not there and how convenient for you that he is not here to make a defence of himself, given the accusations of, his friends or more truthfully his enemies? more 'impartial', statements that you are quite fond of i see,

Rutherford and seven assoc ...[text shortened]... ked hysteria because that clergy were exposed for what they are, a bunch of warmongering dogs!

The article is fairly neutral that is all. It like saying I did not know Abraham Lincoln. Your right I did not not know either man. However this does not negate the history of either man or their character. If Rutherford drove 16 Cylinder cars that is what it is a fact. Lived an opulent lifestyle while preaching contrary that is what it is. I can infer however that he did not practice what he preached that is all.



Manny

I will agree that the response of the public and possibly clergy and US government was way over the top. I'm not in disagreement about it. However it just proves that there was anti-government rhetoric and anti-clergy rhetoric Rutherford and his associates made. Just because there was a response does not mean I agree with it. I think it just proves that it was true.



Manny

Originally posted by menace71
The article is fairly neutral that is all. It like saying I did not know Abraham Lincoln. Your right I did not not know either man. However this does not negate the history of either man or their character. If Rutherford drove 16 Cylinder cars that is what it is a fact. Lived an opulent lifestyle while preaching contrary that is what it is. I can infer however that he did not practice what he preached that is all.



Manny

ok Manny i have presented my information on why he was put in jail which you have repeatedly ignored for it exposes the corruption and manipulation of warmongering Christendom and its clergy, you continue to attack and slander a mans character even though you never met nor conversed with him, and have included nothing but statements from his enemies showing that you are uninterested in impartiality nor of why he was innocently imprisoned. I warned you and now i am done here. why you have also not attacked those that perpetrated the injustice i can only imagine, cya!

Really? I agreed with you. At least that they were imprisoned for some type of rhetoric. It may have been over the top to place them in jail for 20 years I agreed with you.
This does not change the fact that they did what they did. I know RC you are a smarter man than you let on.



Manny

Originally posted by menace71
Really? I agreed with you. At least that they were imprisoned for some type of rhetoric. It may have been over the top to place them in jail for 20 years I agreed with you.
This does not change the fact that they did what they did. I know RC you are a smarter man than you let on.



Manny

sorry it was typed after your post on agreement, panic over,

so we call out the government for killing millions of persons in a futile war, call out the clergy for supporting them, get put in jail for our troubles and you still dont admire us just cause the judge refuses to wear scratchy shirts and barbed wire underpants and walk about like a pauper, i dunno Manny, you got some strange beliefs.

would you like to know how Rutherford became a Jehovahs Witness?

Just because there were clergy that were warmongers as you say does not change anything. The JW's or Rutherford just did what other sects of Christendom have done to each other through out the ages. This however does not mean that you throw out the baby with the bath water so to speak. Not all Christians would have agreed with the clergy or whatever.

Current JW doctrine has it's roots with Rutherford is all I'm saying.


Manny

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
ok, now you are slandering someones personality and reputation with second hand gossip. He was a member of the United States judiciary, not a pauper, and why his private life should interest you i do not know? do you also rifle through garbage cans looking for pieces of information, perhaps you steel ladies underwear from clothes lines as well? are ...[text shortened]... ossip that would grace the table of any old housewife starved of tabloid news, you are finished.

He makes a valid point Robbie. Church elders of all denominations have lived lavish lifestyles in the name of Christ, all the while ignoring his very words

Luke 14: 25Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them he said: 26"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple. 27And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.
28"Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Will he not first sit down and estimate the cost to see if he has enough money to complete it? 29For if he lays the foundation and is not able to finish it, everyone who sees it will ridicule him, 30saying, 'This fellow began to build and was not able to finish.'

31"Or suppose a king is about to go to war against another king. Will he not first sit down and consider whether he is able with ten thousand men to oppose the one coming against him with twenty thousand? 32If he is not able, he will send a delegation while the other is still a long way off and will ask for terms of peace. 33In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple.

Originally posted by menace71
Just because there were clergy that were warmongers as you say does not change anything. The JW's or Rutherford just did what other sects of Christendom have done to each other through out the ages. This however does not mean that you throw out the baby with the bath water so to speak. Not all Christians would have agreed with the clergy or whatever.

Current JW doctrine has it's roots with Rutherford is all I'm saying.


Manny

if Russell was alive today, he would not hardly recognise the organisation, nor many of its beliefs. Have you never read the finished mystery? My goodness man there is a pull out with a huge picture of a pyramid which he thought had biblical significance, and there is diagrams and dates tied to it respecting the gentile times and all sorts of inaccuracies. We are indebted to Russell for some of our very basic teachings, but many others also held these at that time, you must remember, it was a great time of searching for Bible truths, not just by us, but by many.

Originally posted by duecer
He makes a valid point Robbie. Church elders of all denominations have lived lavish lifestyles in the name of Christ, all the while ignoring his very words

Luke 14: 25Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them he said: 26"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, eve 33In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple.

lavish life style??, the man was a United States appointed judge, he was minted before he ever became a witness. What would you have him do, put on hemp boxer shorts and fibre glass shirts and go around pretending he was poor? There is no evidence other than statements from his enemies that he led a lavish lifestyle. He was expected to preach from house to house as are all Jehovahs Witnesses if physically able and would have gleefully engaged in doing so. I dont think we need mention the churches of Christendom in respect to opulence.

Poverty is not a prerequisite for being a Christian, nor austerity!