This is the title of a morning worship talk given by governing body helper Kenneth Flodin. Let’s listen to a clip of that talk:
So according to Kenneth Flodin, apostates, by that he means former members of the organization, never try and explain their beliefs using the scriptures but instead only seek to twist the scriptures in an effort to “grab a mind” as he puts it, which means to deceive others from following the truth. Why does he employ such hateful name calling? Perhaps a quote from Ray Franz, former member of the governing body, who found himself on the receiving end of such treatment, can help to explain:
“Since many of those who find they cannot conscientiously support all of the organization’s teachings have been exemplary persons, often longtime members and very active in congregational service, some
reason must be supplied to Witnesses who have known them and
their conduct so as to justify the harsh step of excommunication.
This is accomplished by what amounts to a vilifying of them and
their motives, denouncing them as “apostates,” simply because
they feel compelled to give greater respect to God’s Word than to
that of an organization. The motive of such ones is always presented
as selfish, presumptuous, egocentric, born of a rebellious
spirit, disrespectful and unappreciative of God and Christ.” (Raymond V. Franz “In Search of Christian Freedom” page 438)
But who is really being deceitful? Why doesn’t Ken Flodin tell us what the issue and page number is of the 1910 Watchtower to which he is referring? Why does he not produce a copy of the page to show his audience how he was able to uncover this deceit? Apparently it was an easy matter for him to obtain a copy for himself so as to investigate the claims of the person writing the letter. But why doesn’t the Watchtower society provide for its members copies of its older literature so that they can make their own investigation? Then when faced with such a deceptive use of the society’s literature it would be an easy matter for them to expose it without having to depend on Kenneth Flodin to do it for them.
If they were given a copy of the September 15, 1910 issue, pages 296-301 they would see, first of all, that the article the quote is taken from is entitled: “Is the Reading of “Scripture Studies” Bible Study?”
The very first paragraph states:
“The plan of reading twelve pages of the studies in the scriptures each day, tried by so many, results in more Bible study than any other way that we know of. We believe that it is not so much the time that is given to Bible study, but the amount of study done and the amount of information gained, that counts. We all know people who have spent days and weeks and years in study of the Bible and have learned little or nothing. We think the idea that Bible study is merely the time spent in handling a Bible and reading over some verses is a mistaken idea.”
After comparing Bible study to hunting and fishing, Russell goes on to say:
“The six volumes of Scripture Studies are not intended to supplant the Bible. There are various methods to be pursued in the study of the Bible and these aids to Bible study are in such form that they, of themselves, contain the important elements of the Bible as well as the comments or elucidations of those Bible statements”
What Russell is saying is that the scriptures are contained in his books along with his commentary. A person cannot come to a knowledge of the truth without his commentary. So a reading of the Bible without his books would be a waste of time. If the question posed in the letter read by Flodin is why does Russell encourage reading his books instead of the Bible? The answer would be, because his books are designed as a commentary with the scriptures included. Russell makes this point further on in the article when he states:
“the six volumes of scripture studies are practically the Bible topically arranged, with Bible proof texts given”.
That being the case he goes on to say “we might not improperly name the volumes-the Bible in an arranged form.” He further states:
“Furthermore, not only do we find that people cannot see the divine plan in studying the Bible by itself, but we see, also, that if anyone lays the Scripture Studies aside, even after he has used them, after he has become familiar with them, after he has read them for ten years – if he then lays them aside and ignores them and goes to the Bible alone, though he has understood his Bible for ten years, our experience shows that within two years he goes into darkness. On the other hand, if he had merely read the Scripture Studies with their references, and had not read a page of the Bible, as such, he would be in the light at the end of the two years, because he would have the light of the Scriptures.”
Here are copies of the article for you to read for yourself. Note how Russell makes his point of the superiority of his scripture studies in the highlighted areas.
First of all, as you can see, the layout of the magazine is different from what Ken Flodin describes. Unless his copy of this Watchtower is formatted differently, I can see no place where a single piece of white paper at the bottom of the left hand column would obscure important information that would give the wrong impression of information at the top of the right hand column. The quote that Flodin makes comes in the middle of the right hand column of the second page of the article.
However, I do have a theory of what might have happened. In his second book entitled: “In Search of Christian Freedom” on page 31, Raymond Franz produces a photocopy of this 1910 Watchtower article. In order to fit it on one page he has to combine what is written in the first column of the Watchtower with the second column. Take a look:
My theory is that the writer, not having access to the 1910 Watchtower, sent in a photocopy of this page of Raymond’s book. This is what Kenneth Flodin is comparing to the actual 1910 Watchtower to verify the accuracy of the quote. However, even with that being the case, contrary to what he claims, there is no missing information between the two columns. He does not read for his audience what was written in the article that agrees with the questioners point. So from the video it is impossible to know which statement the inquirer is referring to. However, as you can see from the page of his book, Raymond underlines the sentences he wishes to highlight:
“would, therefore, not waste a great deal of time doing what we know some people do, reading chapter after chapter, to no profit. We would not think of doing it. We would not think we were studying the scriptures at all. We would think we were following the course that had been anything but profitable to ourselves and many others in the past-merely reading over the Scriptures. We would say that the same Heavenly [end of first column]
Father who had guided us to this truth, to this understanding of the Scriptures as his children, if he had some further information for us he would bring it to our attention in some manner; and therefore we would not see the necessity of reading the New Testament every day or every year; we would not consider that necessary. We would consider that the Scripture which says, “They shall be all taught of God,” would imply that in his own appointed way God would bring to our attention whatever feature of divine truth would be “meat in due season for the household of faith.”
In the Watchtower, these words begin near the bottom of the first column of the second page of the article under the subheading: “THEY SHALL BE ALL TAUGHT OF GOD”. But as you can see, nothing from between the two columns is left out.
So when we come to the subheading “SCRIPTURE STUDIES NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR THE BIBLE” and the paragraph Flodin references, it must be understood in the context of what Russell has been saying throughout the article up to this point, namely that there is no need to read the Bible if you have his books because the scriptures are provided and commented on. In Russell’s mind the only reason a possessor of “Studies in the Scriptures” would have for reading the Bible is to initially check that the quotations are accurate. After that the recommended twelve pages a day should suffice to keep one in “the truth”.
In fact Russell goes on to say:
“We are not wishing in this to say anything against one’s poring over chapters that he does not understand and others do not understand, hoping that he might light on some truth. We have no objection to this. He has a perfect right to do so if he wishes. He has a right to spend weeks and years in this way if he chooses, but the chances even then are that when he does light on something he will have it all wrong.”
Flodin is right when he says apostates are deceitful. But who is being deceitful?