Washington Post -- Rev. "Jellyfish" R...

by Alleymom 22 Replies latest jw friends

  • Justin
    Justin

    OK, for the good of the "cause," I'll stand aside and let "the dear Pastor" be villified!

    Seriously, I believe the idea suggested of reading Russell's own writings to determine his true character is a much more direct way of assessing him than using the old scandals. I've been reading his works, and I don't like a lot of what I read. When I was JW (before they were so sensitive about people reading the old writings), I read the first volume of Scripture Studies and, in my youthful idealism, became favorably disposed toward Russell. (After all, his belief in the "restitution of all things" almost amounted to a belief in universal salvation, if not quite so, compared to the WT's Armageddon today.) But now, re-reading his works, I'm beginning to see that the the first volume was like a come-on, merely preparing the way for his prophetic dates and claims of grandeur. This technique is still used by JWs today - presenting the public with ideas that are more easily swallowed than with their advanced, convoluted thinking.

    The Washington Post article should be preserved for history, but I wonder if the only concern is an objectively historical one by tossing it to us XJWs, many of whom are determined to "hurt" the WT in any way we can. That's like throwing food to sharks! But, we'd get our hands on it sooner or later, anyway.

    The seriousness of dealing with Russell's memory can be summed up in few words: I'm sure we've all been exposed to basically two theories of WT history, one which starts out with Russell as a "bad egg" and goes from there, the other which portrays Rutherford, not Russell, as making the WT what it is today. If the second approach is held to, then anyone who has ever been involved with WT can afford the luxury of thinking they were involved in something that started out good (even if to a certain extent misguided) and then was corrupted later. But if Russell himself was an evil man, then the JW/XJW has given years of his/her life for something that was rotten to the core.

    Whatever the facts are, we have to abide by them. But the view of reality we accept, whichever of the two theories of history we abide by, has consequences for our mental health and our own self esteem.

    Justin

  • Alleymom
    Alleymom

    Justin --

    his belief in the "restitution of all things" almost amounted to a belief in universal salvation, if not quite so, compared to the WT's Armageddon today
    Indeed, that is one of the doctrines which the Bible Students list when they discuss the differences between them and modern JW's.

    I wonder if the only concern is an objectively historical one by tossing it to us XJWs
    Well, Justin, I've been sitting on this for many years, and I've never seen anyone put it up on the internet. As to tossing it to the xJW's, well, who else is interested in Russell history? The Bible Students? If I gave it to them, it would surely be buried.

    Now I cheerfully admit that giving it to Tallyman was like adding fuel to the fire <g>, but although we have different approaches (I'm kind of the prissy Madame Librarian type) I think there is definitely a place for his kind of wacky humor. I've probably been around teenagers too long and they've corrupted me <g>, but Tallyman's stuff makes me laugh. That doesn't mean you have to choose to send a JW friend to his site, but, hey, a little laughter is a good thing. I gave it to him because his site is one of the few that I turned up when I was trying to find more information on the court case.

    Didn't it make you smile at ALL?

    Cheers,
    Marjorie

  • messenger
    messenger

    Justin, you stated,

    "Messenger,
    All you have done is quoted from the court testimony to which I provided a link. You have not supplied any evidence that there was a second woman involved other than Rose Ball. You have not supplied any evidence of a sexual scandal in England, merely asserted it."

    You need to reread the link you provided as it describs another woman, I quote,

    Q. You state that you found him doing this at other times. How often after that?
    A. I found him a number of times, I don’t remember how often.
    Q. In her room?
    A. Yes, sir. And I found him in the servants girl’s room as well, and I found him locked in the servant girl’s room.
    Q. Did he make any explanation why he was in the girl’s room?
    A. No, he did not; he just got angry.

    I does not appear the "servant girl" was Rose Ball. She also was implicated as helping the good Pastor satisfy his spiritual need. Regarding the Pastor's England adventures, stay tuned evidence shall appear in due time "oh yee of little faith."

    Russell in his testimony never directly answered the question regarding the "jellyfish" statement. He stated words to the effect, "I think of a jellyfish as a species that does not have a spine and I never considered myself compared to something that does not have a spine." The attorney neve asked the second question, "did you ever actually make that statement to Rose Ball?" If this question had been asked you would have probably had yet another Bill Clinton response with a play on words. In testimony he clearly evaded the question, in his rebuttal in the WT he never directly answered the question. Why? Would it not have been simple to say I NEVER MADE THAT STATEMENT! Yet the good Pastor always danced around the question. Certainly an "innocent" man could have spoken more clearly regarding this slanderous statement. He certainly did not have any problem with slandering his wife in print on the pages of the WT. His lack of candor on such an obivous matter points to the actual truth of the matter. He did make the statement and knew if he called Rose Ball a liar it could possibly induce her to clarify the facts of the matter publicly. This was a pot he did not want to stir.

    Dungbeetle seems to have a better handle on who Russell was, Justin perhaps you need to do further research to complete the picture.

    Alleymom, do you have any further evidence as to what happened to Rose Ball? When did she pass away?
    Just courious.

  • Kent
    Kent

    XJW scholar James Penton, in his book "Apocalypse Delayed," has stated that Russell apparently had such a low libido that he didn't even consummate his own marriage!

    As other people, he might not have fancied his wife - but I can tell you he fancied other women!

    Unfortunately I won't give you any clues or evidence at the moment - but there will be a book looking into these matters released in a short while :)

    The story mentioned is interesting - since everyone seems to have most of their facts wrong, he, he....

    Yachyd Da

    Kent

    I need the new KM's as they come! Please send me scans!

    Daily News On The Watchtower and the Jehovah's Witnesses:
    http://watchtower.observer.org

  • Alleymom
    Alleymom

    Hmmm, I'm at the library right now, and I just found a reference to a court case
    in which Russell sued the Washington Post for libel and won.

    I'll post more info when I get home.

    Marjorie

  • messenger
    messenger

    Now you are getting it! Pastor Russell won $1 in a jury award. It seems they did not feel he was injured too badly. After appealing it to a higher court they sent it back to the lower court and the Post quietly settled for an undisclosed sum to Russell. I wonder what the sum was?

  • dungbeetle
    dungbeetle

    Those were the two lawsuits that Russell won; but he lost the miracle wheat case I believe, he lost every suit brought against him by maria, (and she got her money too I hear). According to Barbara Harrison, Russell lost another libel suit against some Canadian minister. There was some kind of taxation hearing mentioned that occurred in New York in 1913; I do not know the outcome of that.

    It is not about villifying Russell; it's about the fact that he was just a man, a plain ordinary man that was obviously suffering from some mental disorder. He was delusional and megalomaniacal, just from his Studies in the Scriptures Series.

    The man wrote some interesting books; he started a religion; he was handsome and charismatic; in this way he was just another ordinary person who did some extraordinary things.

    There is nothing about his life as we have come to know it, that indicates God was working through him, or that Holy Spirt was functioning through him; or that the voices he heard or messages he was getting in his head came from anywhere---except in his head.

    To me,he is a piece of American History. Nothing more, nothing less. To others, he may be much more than that, and to those others I say "knock yourselves out."

    But I reccomend you do not follow any of his examples.

    In 1975 a crack team of publishers was sentenced to death by a judicial commiteee. They promptly escaped from the cult and now live life on the run. If you have a problem ... and if you can find them ... maybe you can contact the A--postate Team"

  • sf
    sf

    Thanks Marjorie,

    Since new threads made are limited to two, I just put all of his work in the Watchtower gallery post. It would be ideal if Tom's pages were linked at the bottom here along with the other sites listed. He is the Master of what he does. Not really a genius though. More like a sub-genius. ( Tom)

    I need to reserve my new-threads posting though, so I will continue to put them in the WATCHTOWER GALLERY thread. Please continue the commentary threads though, they are great.

    Thanks again, sKally

    If man was supposedly created in gods image, then.....holy krap...we're all doomed.-sKallyWagger

  • Alleymom
    Alleymom

    Hi, sKally --

    Ummm#1, I hate to ask, but could you explain to your humble servant what the "two new threads" rule is? Two new threads a day?

    It would be ideal if Tom's pages were linked at the bottom here along with the other sites listed.
    Ummm#2, ok, that sounds good ... is there a reason you didn't do that? I only know three of Tom's pages, the two I listed upthread and the Gallery pics you have posted.

    Suddenly feeling inept <s>,
    Marjorie

  • sf
    sf

    "Ummm#1, I hate to ask, but could you explain to your humble servant what the "two new threads" rule is? Two new threads a day?"

    This forum allows only two new threads per poster per day. I tried posting three the other day and got a message stating this.

    "Ummm#2, ok, that sounds good ... is there a reason you didn't do that? I only know three of Tom's pages, the two I listed upthread and the Gallery pics you have posted."

    Simon is the only one able to add Tom's link to this page below. Simon owns this forum and makes the decision of what links are attached.

    Until then, I will continue to post them in the gallery thread.

    If you want to post them on new threads made by you, please do.

    sKally, tallys ho

    If man was supposedly created in gods image, then.....holy krap...we're all doomed.-sKallyWagger

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit