Talk:Beth Sarim

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses (assessed as Mid-importance).

Funding for Beth Sarim?[edit]

I've noticed a discrepancy between two statements. In the 1937 Golden Age statement by Van Amburgh, it is stated that no funds of the Watch Tower Society were used for Beth Sarim. Yet, the 1975 Yearbook refers to a "direct contribution" for the home. I'm assuming that what was meant was that all the funds for the home were a designated contribution for that purpose. What do others think? Do we need to spell that out in the article or should we leave it as is?Dtbrown (talk) 02:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Funds for Beth Sarim and Beth Shan were donated by William Heath Jr., but it passed through several hands before getting around to Martin and Van Amburgh so that it didn't appear in his name. The initial project was begun through the Watchtower Society who had surveyors in the area look for a suitable location and then hired an architect to design a house to Rutherford's specifications. Pastorrussell (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Class B[edit]

Upgraded to class B: The article is mostly complete and without major issues. BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did Rutherford meet with Knorr et al expecting he was about to die?[edit]

Yes.
Jehovah's Witnesses - Proclaimers of God's Kingdom, page 90, "December 1941, several weeks before his death, he called together four directors of the two principal legal corporations used by Jehovah’s Witnesses and suggested that as soon after his death as possible, all the members of the two boards be called in joint session and a president and a vice president be elected."
--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So? There is no evidence that he was able to delay his death specifically for this purpose, and the alternative wording indicates that he met with them for this purpose prior to his death.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His death certificate indicates he had exploratory surgery on November 4 and rectal cancer was discovered. He was at that time given less than six months to live. He was putting his affairs in order. Pastorrussell (talk) 22:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image clutter[edit]

I removed a couple of pictures from the article, though one has since been reinstated. Five images, three of which are essentially the same as each other for the purpose of this article, seems a bit unnecessary for an article of its length, particularly in view of their effect on the flow of the article around the table of contents and the JW template.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Five images is hardly a "clutter", especially when the article is about the mansion itself and they show different perspectives. I don't feel strongly enough about it to start an edit war. Cheers. --BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beth Shan[edit]

Shouldn't Beth Shan be mentioned in this article? Pastorrussell (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if there are reliable sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong bias?[edit]

Having read the account in March 1930 Golden Age by R. J. Martin it seems to me that the whole tone of this article is biased.

R. J Martin makes it very clear that the whole reason for the purchase of the property was to provide Rutherford with a place to work from due to his failing health and in recognition of the enormous amount of work he was doing.

It was only at Rutherford's behest that the resurrected "ancient worthies" should be included in the deeds because he felt bad about accepting the property just for himself. It was his way of justifying his receiving such a generous gift.

But it was not the reason that Beth Sarim was actually built.

As martin himself relates the story, choosing to make the property available to any of the "ancient worthies" who might be resurrected was simply from Rutherford's desire that the house be put to greater use. He wanted the house to be used in God's work and to that end he stipulated in the deeds that he drew up that resurrected ones should have use of the property.

But that was not the motivation for its being built.

I feel the whole article has been written with the agenda to promote what Jehovah's Witnesses believed about the resurrection rather than simply to deliver the facts about the property.

For instance the BACKGROUND talks about the resurrection whereas the background was initially Rutherford's failing health and the brothers' desire to make accommodation for him.

It was only after this that Rutherford reluctantly accepted the gift of the property on the condition that the Lord's work be the chief benefactor of the property.

This then lead to the idea of allowing any of the resurrected ones to use the property if and when they should appear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Galik (talk • contribs) 11:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not unremarkable that the house was actually built as somewhere for Rutherford to live. However, the claimed purpose was as a place for resurrected Bible characters.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Beth Sarim. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]