Bookmark and Share

Viewed 2514 times

Site To Refute Franz And Cameron

    Bangalore posted Wed, 06 Jan 2010 11:59:00 GMT(1/6/2010)

    Post 270 of 2680
    Joined 3/9/2009

    I found this site set up by a loyal JW who wants to refute books like "Crisis Of Conscience" and "Captives Of A Concept". I thought loyal JW's were not even supposed to read such books.

    http://settingtherecordstraight.wordpress.com/2010/01/

    Bangalore

    M jookbeard posted Wed, 06 Jan 2010 12:23:00 GMT(1/6/2010)

    Post 1407 of 3913
    Joined 1/28/2008

    took a very brief read through it could not see any of Franz' works refuted, and was Cameron ever a JW? his stuff looks fairly conclusive, JW apologist rhetoric does not really prove anything other then reinforce Cameron's views

    M jookbeard posted Wed, 06 Jan 2010 12:26:00 GMT(1/6/2010)

    Post 1408 of 3913
    Joined 1/28/2008

    some of the points the blogger refutes simply magnify the WTS's failed prophecies and false doctrine, enforcing the WTS as being a true Apostate, the guy incidently highlights even more the WTS lies, funny in some ways.

    teel posted Wed, 06 Jan 2010 12:46:00 GMT(1/6/2010)

    Post 267 of 946
    Joined 8/28/2009

    It's an excellent case study of delusion. I only read the first entry yet, where he continually quotes from the May 1 st 1957 Watchtower, proving that he can "take whatever theocratic steps are open for us", while not realizing that the only theocratic step open for a JW is "wait on Jehovah". What a joke

    F blondie posted Wed, 06 Jan 2010 12:52:00 GMT(1/6/2010)

    Post 28510 of 36635
    Joined 5/28/2001

    Don Cameron, as a former member of a Body of Elders of Jehovah’s Witnesses has much experience with the Watchtower Society. According to Cameron, "The concept that still holds millions of Jehovah's Witnesses captive is their belief that the Watchtower Society is God's chosen organization to teach them what he wants them to believe; that all of God’s directions to mankind comes through this one 'channel of communication.'" Don Cameron goes on to show that the teachings of the Watchtower have changed since 1919, therefore making the basis upon which they were chosen as God's organization (their "correct" teaching) to no longer be valid.

    http://www.godandscience.org/book_reviews.html#captives_of_a_concept

    teel posted Wed, 06 Jan 2010 12:57:00 GMT(1/6/2010)

    Post 268 of 946
    Joined 8/28/2009

    How convenient, moderated comments... let me guess... no criticism will be allowed.

    M leavingwt posted Wed, 06 Jan 2010 15:33:00 GMT(1/6/2010)

    Post 5442 of 14216
    Joined 6/16/2008

    Everything I've read by JW apologists always leads back to the same point: Follow the Slave. They are blindly devoted to the concept that WT is God's Organization, and they work from there.

    If a person is content with whatever rolls of of WT printing presses, rather than following the evidence, they are blind followers, with no hope of ever realizing the facts.

    The best thing about JW apologist sites, is they give the names/titles of apostate books, which might lead a few active JWs to examine such books. There is no risk of an apologist site motivating an ex-JW to return. They're preaching to the mind-controlled choir.

    M OnTheWayOut posted Wed, 06 Jan 2010 15:44:00 GMT(1/6/2010)

    Post 9947 of 17804
    Joined 9/8/2006

    I glanced at the blog. All this guy is doing is highlighting Cameron's book. That would make any curious person aware of and desirous of reading the book. Cameron's logic is simple and anyone who reads it will follow it easily. It can be refuted, but it takes more WT gymnastics to do so.

    M AK - Jeff posted Wed, 06 Jan 2010 15:55:00 GMT(1/6/2010)

    Post 9905 of 10727
    Joined 11/19/2004

    Illogical argument will eventually open more minds than it can keep closed. I hope 100 of these sites pop up.

    Jeff

    sd-7 posted Wed, 06 Jan 2010 18:43:00 GMT(1/6/2010)

    Post 180 of 3675
    Joined 7/31/2009

    From the site:

    From this quote we can clearly see that Charles Taze Russell did not teach he was the ‘faithful slave’ and in fact, never did. It is true that some Bible Students believed Russell was the ‘faithful slave’, however was the Society teaching this in their magazines?

    Sure, from 1897 to 1927, Bible Students “generally” held that Russell was the ‘faithful servant’ but does this mean they were actively teaching that or does it mean they were actively preaching that? No.

    It is clear Cameron’s conclusion is erroneous in comparison to what Russell actually taught, and his faulty logic into reading something into the quotation of the Proclaimers book makes one question his honesty.

    Quote from The Finished Mystery, page 6 (1917):

    "Pastor Russell was a man of unusual modesty...The examination of the contents of this book will disclose the fact that...[and I'm not taking it out of context, it's in the same sentence--there are a LOT of semi-colons in this paragraph]...the earthly creature made prominent therein above all others is the messenger of the Laodicean Church--"that wise and faithful servant of the Lord"--CHARLES TAZE RUSSELL."

    If one attempts to refute an argument based on incomplete information, one will inevitably find oneself in the position that the author of this site is in. Here, in a publication that was printed and distributed hundreds of thousands of times, Russell is referred to as "that wise and faithful servant" in big, bold letters.

    Russell may not have actually taught that he was 'the faithful slave', but after his death, his successors had no problem declaring him as such to the public, as the above quote clearly indicates. This is just one point on which this guy is dead wrong. It's in black and white. I didn't make it up. It's right there in The Finished Mystery.

    It would be wise to gather the evidence before attempting to defend one's belief. That's just common sense. The Proclaimers book just doesn't provide any evidence save spin-doctoring to explain away very serious mistakes.

    I could go on, but...it'd just be a waste of time. Cameron was right in that people will believe what they want to, in spite of the facts.

    SD-7

    cantleave posted Wed, 06 Jan 2010 18:46:00 GMT(1/6/2010)

    Post 1760 of 12722
    Joined 6/25/2009

    Good advert for DC's book IMO. Hopefully it will get some JW's to read it.

    M TD posted Wed, 06 Jan 2010 18:52:00 GMT(1/6/2010)

    Post 2238 of 4672
    Joined 5/14/2001

    Oh good grief!

    The level of research and honesty this individual has devoted to his refutation comes through on the very first page. He states:

    "He [Cameron] argues since the Society believed Jesus had been enthroned in 1874, therefore, in 1914 they couldn’t have been on the watch for Jesus and his Kingdom. Is this true? The following quote from the March 1880 Watchtower proves otherwise:

    The Times of the Gentiles” extend to 1914, and the heavenly kingdom will not have full sway till then

    First of all, this quote is taken from an article, "One Body One Spirit One Hope" written by J. H. Paton for the March 1880 issue of Zion's Watch Tower. The complete quote in context reads:

    ""The Times of the Gentiles" extend to 1914, and the heavenly kingdom will not have full sway till then, but as a "Stone" the kingdom of God is set up "in the days of these (ten gentile) kings," and by consuming them it becomes a universal kingdom - a "great mountain and fills the whole Earth." Dan ii 35-44"

    In context, this was a discussion about the degree to which the "Saints" would participate in the coming conquest of the Earth. Full sway" did not mean either the commencement of the Parousia, the beginning of God's kingdom or the enthronement of God's King. Russell dated these events to 1874 - 1878. Neither did it mean that the Kingdom would be fully set up in heaven as Jehovah's Witnesses have understood the concept since 1925. In context, "Full sway" was an explicit reference to the point in time when the stone in Nebuchadnezzar's dream crushes the statue. It therefore meant complete control over the Earth and this is exactly the same point in time that Jehovah's Witnesses imagine themselves to be at today.

    If, as the author of the website implies, expectation of a future establishment of God's Kingdom on Earth is all that is important and dates and details of various invisible heavenly events leading up to it are not, (Since the Bible Students prior to 1914 and Jehovah's Witnesses today cannot both be correct on these dates.) then a number of other religious groups have also been "On the watch."

    However, if as official JW literature states, expectation of and recognition of the Parousia and the heavenly establishment of God's kingdom is important, then Cameron's objection stands because the quote from the 1880 Watch Tower is not directly relavant. In JW theology, there is a big difference between the heavenly and the Earthly establishment of God's kingdom.

    A second issue here is accuracy. You can see that the author of this website has quoted a sentence only partially, presented it as a stand-alone construction, and failed to indicate the omission with ellipses. That is not considered to be a terribly honest quoting practice even when it is not done for the purpose of obscuring an important distinction in your opponent's argument.

    F AnnOMaly posted Wed, 06 Jan 2010 19:01:00 GMT(1/6/2010)

    Post 1194 of 3996
    Joined 8/11/2003

    I've just left a comment about ch.3. Whether it will appear or not ... we'll see.

    STRS (Settingtherecordstraight) sets up a straw man by contending Jehovah's Witnesses (he means the Bible Students, of course) "were on the watch for Christ and his Kingdom in 1914." However, Cameron's statement was specifically, "Since they believed that Jesus had RETURNED in 1874 it means that they were not watching for his RETURN in 1914" (emphasis mine). Jesus' 'return' was equated with an invisible Parousia. While the Bible Students were eagerly anticipating Christ and his Kingdom to visibly wipe out all Gentile kingdoms in 1914, they were NOT on the watch for Jesus' 'return' because he had already 'returned' and was present from 1874. Cameron's statement, therefore, is correct.

    Moreover, if the Bible Students were watching for Christ and his Kingdom to crush the earthly kingdoms out of existence in 1914 (or thereabouts), any role the 'faithful slave' would have in feeding its fellow 'anointed' domestics would naturally come to an end since they'd all be together in that heavenly Kingdom!

    Regarding STRS's exclamation,

    "What!? Where in that quotation does it say that the Society was TEACHING that Russell was "the faithful and discreet slave"? Sure, from 1897 to 1927, Bible Students "generally" held that Russell was the 'faithful servant' but does this mean they were actively teaching that or does it mean they were actively preaching that? No."

    On p. 27, note 47, Cameron referred to the May 1, 1922 WT. Here is a fuller quote from p. 132 of the article:

    "Jesus clearly indicated that during his second presence he would have among his church a faithful and wise servant, through whom he would give to the household of faith meat in due season. The evidence is overwhelming concerning the Lord's second presence, the time of the harvest, and that the office of 'that servant' has been filled by Brother Russell. This is not man-worship by any means. It matters not who Charles T. Russell was - whether he was a doctor, a hod-carrier or a seller of shirts. St. Peter was a fisherman: St. Paul was a lawyer. But these matters are immaterial. Above all, these men were the chosen vessels of the Lord. Regardless of his earthly vocation, above all, Brother Russell was the Lord's servant. Then to repudiate him and his work is equivalent to a repudiation of the Lord, upon the principle heretofore announced."

    Another instance from earlier in the same year, March 1, 1922 WT, 'Who Is Wise?' p.73-4:

    "The indisputable facts, therefore, show that the "time of the end" began in 1799; that the Lord's second presence began in 1874; that the harvest followed thereafter and greater light has come upon the Word of God. In this connection, then, let us note the words of Jesus: "Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season ? Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing." (Matthew 24: 45, 46) It must be conceded, then, that at the end ot the world, at the "time of the end", during the presence of the Lord, during the harvest, he would have in the earth a servant who would be faithful and wise. The physical facts show that Brother Russell met every one of these requirements. This prophetic utterance, then, has been fulfilled. Therefore fulfilled prophecy, or physical facts, and the circumstantial evidence are conclusive proofs that Brother Russell filled the office of that faithful and wise servant. He applied his heart unto wisdom."

    It is evident that the Society was indeed officially teaching and forcefully promoting the idea that Russell WAS "the faithful servant" - the evidence was overwhelming, the proofs conclusive in the Society's view. Again, Cameron is quite in order to point out this glaring credibility gap where Jesus had spiritually inspected, chosen and appointed a 'faithful slave class' over all his belongings in 1919, and yet for years afterward this spirit-appointed and directed class was oblivious to it, teaching that a single individual had already fulfilled the role!

    As Cameron also brings out on p.28, this discrepancy matters. Jesus' parable says that the slave would be rewarded for being faithful, discreet and dispensing 'proper and timely spiritual food' (see the Knowledge book, p. 161). If they couldn't discern and dispense 'proper and timely spiritual food' even about their own divinely and spiritually given appointment, surely that calls into serious question about their claims to the 1919 appointment in the first place!

    F AnnOMaly posted Wed, 06 Jan 2010 23:25:00 GMT(1/6/2010)

    Post 1196 of 3996
    Joined 8/11/2003

    Hmm. An edited version has appeared. http://settingtherecordstraight.wordpress.com/2010/01/05/chapter-3-48-teachings-jesus-examined-reviewed/#respond

    M slimboyfat posted Wed, 06 Jan 2010 23:28:00 GMT(1/6/2010)

    Post 3562 of 8461
    Joined 11/24/2004

    There used to be a more extensive site with a similar name that dealt mainly with 1914 chronology.

    Kenneson posted Thu, 07 Jan 2010 02:56:00 GMT(1/7/2010)

    Post 5470 of 5215
    Joined 1/8/2002

    Sounds a whole lot like 3dWitness arguments at http://www.topix.net/forum/who/jehovahs-witnesses

    where he debated Cameron and others. It's been quite awhile since that took place and I don't have the time to go back and search fo it.

    M LockedChaos posted Thu, 07 Jan 2010 03:50:00 GMT(1/7/2010)

    Post 677 of 748
    Joined 6/2/2008

    and to think..................

    At one time I believed all that CLAPTRAP!!

    Ha, Ha, Ha

    F AnnOMaly posted Thu, 07 Jan 2010 10:06:00 GMT(1/7/2010)

    Post 1197 of 3996
    Joined 8/11/2003

    The author has responded to an edited version of my reply. Either he's rusty on JW history and doctrine or he's trying to redefine BS/JW terminology to allow for the BS's anticipation of Christ's return in 1914.

    In case anyone's interested and in case parts of my latest reply get cut again ...

    STRS wrote:

    "I agree the Bible Students believed his invisible presence was in 1874, but does this mean they weren't expecting him to return in 1914?"

    Emphatically yes! They were NOT expecting Jesus to return in 1914.

    The September 15, 1922 WT, p.278 states:

    "No one can properly understand the work of God at this present time who does not realize that since 1874, the time of the Lord's return in power, there has been a complete change in God's operations."

    And as the Proclaimers book points out on p.631,

    "Calculations based on this cycle of years led to the conclusion that perhaps a greater Jubilee for all the earth had begun in the autumn of 1874, that evidently the Lord had returned in that year and was invisibly present, and that "the times of restitution of all things" had arrived.-Acts 3:19-21, KJ."

    The quotations you asked me to consider do not deal with the Bible Students' understanding of Jesus' return and subsequent presence but with Jesus' crushing all worldly governments and inaugurating the Millennium of Peace. JW doctrine allows for many 'arrivals' or 'comings' which include the events of the great tribulation and Armageddon, but only ONE 'return' and 'parousia'! Because the Bible Students still taught that Jesus had returned and was present from 1874 many years after 1914 came and went, it cannot be claimed they were expecting any return of Jesus prior to 1914.

    designs posted Thu, 07 Jan 2010 10:38:00 GMT(1/7/2010)

    Post 665 of 17358
    Joined 6/17/2009

    There are some historical errors in Cameron's book and some teachings of the Bible Students that he doesn't quite grasp but overall its a thorough study. The JW apologist echoes the oft repeated phrase 'JWs as Bible Students were then called' and is one of the biggest misleading ideas about these groups and their history. Bible Students and JWs are night and day apart in their approach to Scripture just like a Pentecostal and a Presbyterian are.

    F boyzone posted Thu, 07 Jan 2010 16:43:00 GMT(1/7/2010)

    Post 681 of 976
    Joined 1/8/2007

    I left a comment on sidewiki

      Close

      Confirm ...