Rumors about Russell

by Lady Lee 39 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  Lady Lee

  I am getting rather tired of all the Russell scandals. However, if there is something to find out I'm all for it. I have a connection to one of Russell's followers.

  1. Yesterday I passed on the info about Russell's possible poisoning. He had never heard this before. I sent him the 1 page letter and he is going to check on it. Over the last year he has begun to hear rumors that Russell was possible murdered but not that it was poison.
  2. I also passed on the info regarding Russell and the allegations of sexual abuse of a child. He had heard the rumors but thanked me for the proof needed to end that rumor.
  3. This morning I asked about possible drug use and his thoughts on this were the same as mine. He was using medications for he believes a condition called Cystitus. Drug use was not what we consider drug use today.
  4. Russsell as a Mason. My source says his FATHER was a Mason but Russell was not. I have asked for any information he has regarding Russell's father being a Mason - waiting for a response. Oh and interestingly my source says that the pyramid for Russell was erected by - none other than Rutherford!!! Well we know Russell didn't put it up. Anyone want to try finding out a bit more about Rutherford's background???

  Now my contact is a Russellite. So some of his info may be squewed but if he can pass on enough info to point those who want to research this, then that will be a good thing.

  One way or another I would love to stop the rumors and just have the facts.
• 

  gumby

  Personally.....I see no headway being made by proving Russell was a Mason, a Pyramid lover, a pedophile, a wife abuser, or anything else. What is the point of proving any of these things? Do some think if these things can be proven it will cause some to leave the Organisation because Russell was faulty?

  If I were still a dub and saw and read scandolous material about Russell.....it would not have phased me. The way I would see it is that he was an imperfect man who did some crazy stuff but the stuff he did didn't reflect on the truths I thought I had learned. Besides....most dubs figure anything that happened that long ago doesn't matter now since the Organisation is progressivly refined.

  What good does finding smut on Russell have on a active JW? Has anyone left the Organisation in modern times because they found Russell had some problems?

  Gumby
• 

  AK - Jeff

  Has anyone left the Organisation in modern times because they found Russell had some problems?

  Gumby

  In fact - Gruss states that Rutherford had run off nearly all the cult-worshippers of Russell by 1938 [The Four Presidents of the WT]. Today the organization gives little creedence to Russells ideas - how would they dare?

  Still - I think like LL, that accurate information and history is worth having, before too much time elapses and nothing is left but revisionist' history by the Society.

  Jeff
• 

  SWALKER

  Well, most of the people old enough to remember his influence at all, say 40 years or more say, "Well he might not have understood all the things we know now, but he basically had the truth." If it can be shown that his teachings and the beginning of this religion was based on Masonry for example, it may have an effect on some. There will always be the die-hards who stick with the program no matter what. Learning what I have about Russell and his teachings really did help me cement in my mind that there was no going back, no matter what. Until then, I thought if the WT changed it's policy on child abuse and apologized and disfellowshipped those responsible for the U.N. involvement then I would consider returning. Now I see the "truth" was built on layers of lies starting with Russell and even before.

  Swalker (Still trying to unlearn years of untruths!)
• 

  Lady Lee

  Gumby I have to agree 100%. When I was a dib I heard about the rumors about him sexually abusing a child. Of all people you'd think that one alone would have sent me running. Iknew all too well how damaging sexual abuse was. But I closed my ears, and ducked my head and pretended it didn't matter.

  I think at this point for me, I would just love to see an end to the rumors one way or another. That way when someone shows up here spouted the rumors we can point them in the direction of the proofs (one way or the other) and put an end to it all. Well at least more than the one we have now.
• 

  daystar

  The desire to believe the conspiracy theory about Russell being a Mason is quite simple to explain. There is the tendency for humans to search for meaning, especially when there is an intense emotional attachment. It is quite a seductive idea to believe that Russell was part of some worldwide conspiracy.

  A person feels betrayed and shout to the heavens, "Why! Oh why!" And when there seems to be evidence that links someone like Russell to, gasp!, the Illuminati!... Well, that must be why he created a religion that went on to manipulate and deceive millions, that must be why we lose family and friends through shunning, that must be why...

  People will believe all sorts of things in their search for meaning; Russell was a Mason, Masons are evil, the earth is flat, the earth sits upon the back of a turtle, there is a God...

  Now that I've done a little search, wikipedia has a good article on conspiracy theories -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

  (Now, to feed into it myself, the Information Awareness Office mentioned in wiki's article... IAO... this, from Aleister Crowley's (of O.T.O. infamy) Magick in Theory and Practice regarding the IAO formula - http://www.sacred-texts.com/oto/aba/chap5.htm. How many other "IAO"'s can you find to apply this to?)
• 

  gumby

  I would just love to see an end to the rumors one way or another. That way when someone shows up here spouted the rumors we can point them in the direction of the proofs (one way or the other) and put an end to it all. Well at least more than the one we have now.

  LL, I feel lurking witnesses on this site really appreciate it when the truth is told......whether it's for or against the Organisation........most "for"...lol

  If active Jehovahs Witneeses see only negative half truths about their organisation, they have no desire to continue being here.....however, when ex-witnesses expose lies told about the Organisation, it sparks the intrest of active witnesses as they feel we have a measure of truth about us and tell it like it is

  Your threads have aided in this direction

  Gumby
• 

  Confession

  I remember reading "Jehovah's Witnesses" by Marley Cole when I was in my early 20s. It was there that I first discovered the claim that Russell may have made sexual advances on his adopted daughter. As I recall, there were some court transcripts. In one, Russell's wife made reference to his saying to the daughter something like, 'Oh, I'm just like a jellyfish. If one woman pushes me away I just float over to another!'

  I recall thinking, this does not sound serious at all. I had a wife and daughter, and if I was horsing around, trying to hug my wife--and if she kinda pushed me away--I might say something just like that to my daughter when going over to hug or tickle her. Anyway I read on. It seems that in another transcript, Russell's attorney asked Maria something like, 'In relating this story, were you attempting to suggest that Pastor Russell was as adulterous as a jellyfish?' She replied, "No."

  I believed that she originally related this comment in an attempt to throw as much dirt toward Russell as possible, but when called on it, she had to admit it was nothing. Might that have just been my thinking as a JW, trying to dismiss anything negative? Perhaps, but even now--at least from my memory of what I read--it still seems a weak case in which to indict him as a pedophile.

  Generally, I agree that most JWs would try hard not to let any such accusations color their thinking about the organization. But, like anything else, it may continue to nag at them over time. Yes, over the years, we know JWs develop questions that occasionally pop up to bother them. The concept that this organization may not have been under direct, divine guidance--but was actually the creation of real, sinful human beings, often building upon teachings that have its roots in things considered entirely un-Christian by JWs today, could perhaps be just another aid in leading some of them to the truth about the WTS.

  But, to me, it is so incredibly important to make certain such evidence is presented in as credible a way as possible--so that it does not have the obvious markings of ugly, hateful, ignorant mud-slinging. Things such as this do much to ensure the easy dismissal of it by the great majority of JWs.
• 

  gumby

  Nice post confession!

  The concept that this organization may not have been under direct, divine guidance--but was actually the creation of real, sinful human beings, often building upon teachings that have its roots in things considered entirely un-Christian by JWs today, could perhaps be just another aid in leading some of them to the truth about the WTS.

  The problem is......they do in fact teach their Organisation was under divine guidence at it's conception........all the way back to the apostles. They now feel Russell was just an instument.....but still believe he was used by Jehovah to "start the ball rolling".

  Gumby
• 

  stev

  If I am not mistaken, in libel and slander cases, the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof lies with the accuser to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt. I recently saw the movie "Good night, and Good Luck" It was about Edward R. Murrow. He did a TV program back in the 1950's about Senator Joe McCarthy, who was accusing people of being Communists based on innuendo and guilt by association. Murrow exposed McCarthy's tactics. Murrow wished that all be given a fair trial. Against McCarthy, he said "accusation is not proof."

  In the book
  "The Art of Reasoning" by David Kelley, pages 120-123, the fallacy of the ad hominem argument is discussed:
  "An ad hominem argument rejects or dismisses another person's statement by attacking the person rather than the statement itself...But the goal is always to escape the responsibility of dealing with a statement logically, and the method is always to try to discredit the speaker. The ad hominem argument has the form: (X says p) + (X is a bad person)/ ---> p is false. This is a fallacy because the truth or falsity of a statement, or the strength of an argument for it, has nothing to do with the character, motives, or any other trait of the person who makes the statement or argument....In its crudest form, the fallacy involves nothing more than insults - calling one's opponent an idiot, slob, lowlife, airhead, fascist, pinko, nerd, fairy, bleeding heart, wimp, Neanderthal, and so on through the rich vocabulary of abuse our language offers. "

  Steve