by Lady Lee 56 Replies latest watchtower scandals
wow Marvin (haven't seen you for a very long time)
That is a lot of very interesting info. Seems right from the start they were busy hiding and covering up info.
I've said this before and I will say it again. I always thought Russell was just a very misguided person and that the org became corrupt when Rutherford wrestled control of the organization after Russell's death.
But the more I discover about Russell the more I see the corruption started with him
I wonder if Barbara Anderson has more details. She may have had access to documents that otherwise have been lost. Anyone know when her book is going to be completed?
Marvin, the board of directors were elected annually by the membership ... so the BOD could and would change from year to year.
RR
But the more I discover about Russell the more I see the corruption started with him
Lady, I don't think it was corruption. Russell always stated that the Watch Tower Society ws nothing more than a business. The 1,500 or so congregations of Bible Students in those days were NOT beholden to the Society. They were all autonomous, they elected their own elders and servants and decided what to study and how to study, they sponsored their own conventions. Yes they supported the Society, but the Society did not dictate to them them.
With that in mind, it seems that any problems within the organization were certain individuals who felt Russell had to much authority within the Watchtower, Truth is Russell was President, he was elected to that office by thje majority shares, whether or not he had the majority share doesn't make it corruption, anymore than Microsoft, ATT and other CEO or President is corrupt because they own majority shares. He was simply looking after the best interest of what he considered the Lord's goods.
Now, you want to talk corruption, let go to after the death of Russell and Rutherford taking over, stripping the congregations of their Christian freedom, having the Society appoint elders and other officers, dictating to them what they can and cannot believe, study and think. Today the Society continues along those lines. While the BIble Students who trace their heritage to the early days of Russell continue to operate autonomously, that's not to say they are not without issues, but with them, it's more personality conflicts and doctrinal issues, and not some central headquarters dictating to them.
RR
Sorry to take another dig at Rutherford, but he would have it that a 15-year-old girl was on the Board of Directors? Who did he think he was fooling?
RR,
Two things:
1. The 1884 Charter stipulated members of the Board of Directors “shall hold their respective office for life, unless removed by a two-thirds vote of the shareholders.” Under the 1884 Charter it was not the Directors who were elected annually; it was the corporate officers.
2. My inquiry is regarding the first Board of Directors; not subsequent ones. The sources I cited all stipulate they are talking about the first Board of Directors. Yet they are inconsistent. So my question remains unanswered.
Who constituted the Board of Directors in 1884?
Marvin Shilmer
RR
I was thinking more of moral corruption rather than legal. Sorry for the confusion.
A few of the morally corrupt things for Russell
I have a feeling we will be seeing a lot more of these kinds of moral corruption from Russell
Interesting question, since if I am not wrong, Rutherford capitalized on the incongruity of this provision with Pennsylvania law in 1917 to legitimize his high-handed dismissal of the four directors who stood in his way.
Looks like the original members of the BoD were those listed in the original paperwork of December 1884, and then the list published in January 1885 was identical except for omitting the name of Simon O. Blunden. Since he was still a director in 1894, this was possibly an inadvertent omission. It would be good to verify whether the name was included in the original or if it was omitted in the Reprints (I only have the Reprints to consult). Then in the 1894 listing, which Russell explicitly designated as "the names of the present board and officers", Joseph F. Smith and William I. Mann had been replaced by Henry Weber and Rose J. Ball. Regarding Mann, there is a letter that Charles Russell wrote to Maria (Russell vs. Russell, Exhibit 2), dated 9 July 1896 that lists Mann alongside "Sunderlin, Adamson, Zech, Bryan, Greta, Samson, Martin, Mott, Rogers, Gilruth, et al." as a "conspirator" who had turned against him. In fact, he is listed first in the list, before "Sunderlin, Adamson, and Zech". So it is possible that Mann had been removed as a director by this time. Or he left to focus on his steel business. As for Joseph F. Smith, it is possible that he died between 1884 and 1894 or left as well. This is just a guess though.
QUESTION: Did Rutherford deliberately lie when he wrote that the recorded facts showed that Rose Ball was 10 years old in 1894?
Or was Rutherford simply guilty of sloppy research?
--VM44
VM44....Actually, Rutherford said that she was 10 when she first came to live with the Russells, which was a number of years earlier. On Rutherford's account, Rose would have been 15 by 1894. In reality, she was about 25. And yes, I think it was probably deliberate since the "orphan" part of the story was also false, and clearly the function of the latter was to explain why a 10-year-old girl was living with the Russells. On the other hand, it is possible that he never knew Rose personally, as he only first read Russell's literature in 1894 and did not get baptized until 1906. By that time Ball and Henninges had been long gone to Austalia, and they broke company with the Bible Students around that time as well over the "new light" on the New Covenant. So, it is possible that the lie actually originated with Russell, and Rutherford merely passed it on. Yet there is also the matter with Bonnie Boyd lying about her age over a period of many years (such that she apparently got different passports with different DOBs), so I still think it was probably Rutherford's idea.
