Posted by Gedanken [Gedanken] on November 03, 1999 at 08:59:35 {eZOTANvCI6HdgEG/iekYGxDfYXLgH2}:
In Reply to: Response-Cygnus' Misquote posted by Greg Stafford on November 03, 1999 at 07:22:47:
Greg,
You are so naive that I almost feel embarrassed for you. No one argues anywhere that the Society claimed to know the "day and the hour." What Cygnus left off in his quote makes no difference while what you did makes a large difference. The Society merely restated the last part of Jesus' words with which they could hardly disagree openly, now could they? However, I wish Cygnus had left the last sentence in so as to spare you the opportunity of writing such nonsense. Since you weren't around as a JW in 1975 let me explain: in a typically Dubesque fashion the Society had to get around Jesus' words somehow lest the friends decided that they could toy with those words to excuse the odd weekend away with a boat up in the mountains. In fact, I distinctly remember a talk at a Woodland Hills, Calif., circuit assembly where a CO screamed to the audience that he had actually seen a Toyota truck in the parking lot with the "ota" excised so that it read "Toy." Shame of shames! This was in the early 80s, but his point was the same as the article's. (Pity the poor guy with the Toyota. When the boredom was over, on the way out, everyone was scanning for that damñable vehicle. If he was an interested person, I'll bet that put him off, eh?)
So, while every JW back then would throw their hands up in horror if anyone claimed to know the exact day and the hour, they did think that they knew the general time frame. I recall many a discussion where a viewpoint along the following lines was advanced: "Note that Jesus used the terms 'day' and hour' and not `month' or `year'. This shows that, while we might not know the precise time, we can, nevertheless, expect the end real soon."
You claim to be troubled about what was said from the podium. In that case it's pretty obvious that you have no business writing anything about even the Society's (or anyone else's) recent history. Any historian worth his or her salt would know that what is written is not the whole story. What the Society committed to print was intended to fuel the atmosphere and expectations that were created from the podium. I simply cannot believe that you can seriously write a book about JWs and not do some objective research on "what was said from the podium." And then include that in your book. Can you imagine a historian doing a book on the French Resistance and basing it only on the official records of the Nazis? That is the kind of historian you are. It's not surprising that Farkel's buddy, the professor of religion and literature at a major US university thinks your book, based on your expressed opinions here at H2O, is a waste of money. Next time get it peer reviewed by somebody who knows a thing or two about the subject. AF would be a good choice. In fact, any neophytic writer would welcome the kind of detailed criticism supplied to you gratis by AF. The normal standards of publishing etiquette really demand that you thank him for this in the next edition of your book. It's in your own self-interest to seek peer review. Note, however, that these days, amateur academics are a bit of an anachronism and don't get treated kindly. In the mildly eccentric milieu of the 19th century, which sprouted such nutcases as Russell, you would have stood a better chance of being taken seriously.
Regards
Gedanken