How exactly did J.F.Rutherford wrest control for himself over the Watchtower Society?

by Terry 26 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Quendi

  I’d like to clarify my earlier post with respect to Rutherford and his associates being both railroaded to prison and exonerated later. I don’t mean to imply there was anything improper about the way their case was handled. They were “railroaded” to prison only in the sense that was the mode of transportation to take them from New York to Atlanta, Georgia.

  As for being “exonerated”, that is in reference to the decision of the U.S. Attorney not to retry the case for reasons that seemed good to him at the time. I meant nothing more than that. But I appreciate what Leolaia and Blondie have researched and brought to our attention on this matter. I am also grateful to Amazing for his lucid explanation of what happened. I think his idea of the Attorney’s belief that a retrial would be a waste of time and resources has merit. But that decision also suggests to me that the original charges may well have been groundless and never should have been filed. This thread casts light upon a part of the history of the WTS it seldom talks about except in its distorted presentation of how these events were in fulfillment of certain aspects of the book of Revelation.

  Thanks again to Terry, Leolaia and Blondie for your contributions to this thread. I’ve learned a lot.

  Quendi
• 

  Terry

  It sounds as though Russell was idolized. I have no idea from his writing. Perhaps he was charismatic in person. His inheritance did not hurt, either. Without his funds, I wonder whether anyone would have noticed Bible Students.

  Too, I know the history from a JW viewpoint. I only learned a few years ago, through nonJW circumstances, that different groups persist

  Thanks to Miller, the 2nd Adventist movement revealed as a very strange group of people in the U.S. These were people who would never allow

  a little thing like complete refutation of their ideas to get in the way of STILL believing in them!

  The strange grip of absolute certainty seized a great many people because they wanted everything to happend IN THEIR OWN LIFETIME!

  So, they juggled dates and scriptures to make it come out right.

  Barbour and Russell were peas in a pod in this peculiar interest.

  Russell, like so many other Adventists, considered other people's ideas as a mere stepping stone to creating his own crackpot theories.

  Russell had a lot of money and could take it farther than most.

  The publishing company he founded led to a supply depot of ideas with willing colporteurs only too eager to sell them door to door.

  The Watchtower was not a religious foundation---just a business corporation.

  It isn't too strange that a canny person like Rutherford would see it as ripe, low-hanging fruit for his own career interests.

  Both Rutherford and Russell allowed themselves to be made into MORE than what they were. Russell was "Pastor" and Rutheford was "Judge".

  But, anything they could imagine or appropriate would be PUBLISHED and DISTRIBUTED for any bible-thumping dupe to drool over.

  Without the dupes where would they be?

  This religion has always appealed primarily to people who like to prove others wrong while being absolutely convinced they themselves are right.

  They are non-conformist, smug and pious. But, they have a fatal flaw. They are unable or unwilling to ADMIT to being wrong without dissembling!

  On the other hand, the Bible Students are humble, steadfast and unswearving. Unfortunately, their loyalty to a man precedes loyalty to their own

  family and self-interest in any practical sense.
• 

  Atlantis

  "The Watch Tower Society is not a religious Society for public worship, such as a Church, but is a business corporation, not for profit, and statutes requiring religious corporations of that nature to have three Directors in Pennsylvania do not apply." . . . . http://uploadnow.org/share/340574-19170001.jpeg . . Atlantis
• 

  Band on the Run

  Terry,

  Is there a title for the document in pdf called watchtower documents?

  What is the source of the quote about directors not having to abide by SH voted by-laws?
• 

  Terry

  Terry,

  Is there a title for the document in pdf called watchtower documents?

  What is the source of the quote about directors not having to abide by SH voted by-laws?

  If I understand your question correctly, this should do it for you:

  http://www.watchtowerdocuments.com/documents/1917_Facts_For_Shareholders.pdf
• 

  Apognophos

  Today's WT lesson (covered by blondieHERE), referred briefly to the split in the Society between Rutherford's group and his opposers, saying:

  Worse, after Brother Russell’s death in October 1916, opposition arose from inside the organization. Four of the seven directors of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society rebelled against the decision to have Brother Rutherford take the lead. They tried to cause division among the brothers, but in August 1917, they left Bethel—a cleansing indeed!

  I've decided to bump this particular thread because it has some very good points, but you'll notice that blondie also links from the aforementioned thread to some other theads on the subject. In one of those threads, Lady Lee writes, "In the end, there were none from either side who were entirely blameless." Having skimmed the main documents issued from Rutherford, the four ousted board members, and P.S.L. Johnson, this seems to be quite accurate. I feel it is important to take an unprejudiced view of this issue and to weigh both sides if we're going to claim to be better informed and more objective than the Witnesses about this history.

  As Band on the Run states above, there seems to have been little reason why the ousted board members did not legally contest what was done to them, except perhaps on account of lack of funds. Certainly they were thrown out of the headquarters, and it sounds as if they were affected by this just as much as if someone today were thrown out of Bethel, without preparation to fend for themselves in the outside world. But they should have had the law on their side, if they had tried to fight. It could be that they were attempting to follow a meek Christian course. Then too, it sounds as if Bethel was mainly on Rutherford's side, and they felt that the "people had spoken".

  This Brother Johnson was a real ch aracter. It's difficult to tell from his defense statement, "Harvest Siftings Reviewed", whether he was in his right mind at the time he attempted to take control of London Bethel or not. He claims it was the branch itself that was basically apostate, and that they framed him by sending misleading telegrams to Rutherford. However, Johnson himself apparently sent this telegram to Rutherford:

  "Surprised at cablegram. Have you not received my letters second, eleven, twenty-one, January? Shearn, Crawford, leading sixth sifting. Ezekiel Nine Beware. Cablegram campaign engineered Crawford, Shearn, Ezra Nehemiah Mordecai experience type mine here. Since January Twenty-eight am Steward Matthew, Twenty, eight. Shearn, Haman then hanged on gallows for me. Was then given Esther Eight, Two Fifteen powers like Russell's. Crawford, Sanballet, Shearn, Tobiah. Guard Senior, Gishen. Will you be my right hand? Must keep my hands on "Johnson."

  One can't help but question the sanity of someone who would write this. He admits to being sleep-deprived at the time, and to having had a nervous breakdown a few years before when he was sleep-deprived. He was clearly a neurotic fellow. The feelings that the London brothers had about him are shown by the fact that he ended up being barricaded in his Bethel room with boards placed against the door. He escaped by partly breaking the door down, and shortly after, he dropped down from a balcony to escape. He manages to make all of this sound quite reasonable in his defense, but I suspect that he was in fact somewhat unhinged and Rutherford was right to recall him and try to reign him in.

  However, Rutherford went further and associated Johnson's supposed attempt to seize power with the disagreement he was having with the four board members. The board members deny that they had much of anything to do with Johnson. Rutherford then made the famous coup, as described above, by claiming that they were not legal board members in the first place. His beef with them was apparently that they tried to direct the work in ways that the board was not supposed to. It's entirely possible that after Russell died, some of them did become more bold and thought they could exert more authority.

  So who was at fault? Was this all a Machiavellian plot by Rutherford? It's clear from his success in situations that required votes and popular approval that a lot of the Bible Students supported him. It's entirely possible that this situation was no different from the death of Alexander the Great. Shortly before he gave in to his mysterious illness, Alexander was asked who should succeed him. You often hear that his response was, "To the strongest". What's interesting is that Alexander's voice was supposed to be nearly gone in the days before he died. "Strongest" in Greek is "kratistos", and "Craterus" was a trusted general who Alexander had appointed regent of Macedonia. Because of his station, Craterus was not present for Alexander's death in Babylon. It's quite possible that the generals who claimed to hear "the strongest" were hearing what they wanted to hear. The wars over the territory that followed are famous.

  Similarly, it could be that there was a general rush for control in the vacuum that Russell left behind. Rutherford claimed that he was simply performing the same duties as Russell, who was chiefly in control of the Society, and that this was the only effective way to get things done (he also listed some examples of how he had saved the Society thousands of dollars because he was able to make quick, unilateral decisions, a very business-like way of making the case for leadership of a religion). At the very least, this shows a lack of modesty on Rutherford's part, aside from all the other presumptuous things he did, such as publishing and mailing out copies of the seventh volume of Studies in the Scriptures before the board knew it was even in print. But then again, Johnson briefly proclaimed himself the "faithful steward" of Jesus' parable. And the other board members seemed to like the idea of the board assuming more control in the absence of Russell.

  So the only conclusion that I can come to, based on what I've read so far, was that Rutherford was "the general who won" in the war of succession after Russell. What's so surprising is that, as Quendi describes above, for a while it must have seemed that Rutherford had lost. How he turned things around I have no idea, though it probably had a lot to do with the corporation's material advantages over whatever was possessed by the ones who left or were kicked out. But here we are today, ex-members of a millions-strong organization, and where are the Bible Student "offshoot" groups? All they have left as proof of their existence are the websites a few members have created -- though I'm glad they have preserved these documents. At the least, we can clearly see that the split that occurred back then was not a simple "cleansing", as the Watchtower says. But, as always, since they have the printing presses and the opposers are long-dead, the Watchtower gets the last word.
• 

  Frazzled UBM

  I imagine it was similar to how Stalin wrested control of the Soviet Communist Party from Trotsky after the death of Lenin - plain dirty tricks in the pursuit of power for its own sake. It is amazing that none of the four directors who opposed Rutherford ended up with an ice axe in the back of their heads.
• 

  Apognophos

  Nothing that extreme was necessary, Frazzled, because Rutherford could simply shout them down and threaten them with legal action. He was something of a bully, going from their testimony. To illustrate that, here's a bit from Johnson's testimony about his final confrontation with Rutherford. I've highlighted a part that really amused me, though it's off-topic; Johnson was certainly a character.

  He shouted out, "You broke up the British Church [i.e., London Bethel! -- Apo]." I replied: "If it is broken up, before God and this family I charge you with the responsibility." Then still more angry he shouted, "Bro. Johnson stole $1500.00." I replied "that is a false statement, and you know it is." Still more wrathful he ordered me to leave Bethel on pain of legal proceedings. I replied that I had appealed to the Board from that decision; and that since I recognized the Board as in control, and, in the case of an appeal, as having the right to decide the question, I awaited its decision; that if it ordered me to leave, I would do so at once. At this he completely lost self-control. To enforce his order he rushed at me crying out "you leave this house." Grabbing me by the arm, he almost jerked me off my feet. So violently did he squeeze my arm that, if it were not quite muscular, I feel sure, he would have made black and blue marks on it. I called the family’s attention to the fact that he exercised physical violence on my person. Bro. Macmillan, springing to his side, took his hand off my arm. [...] I declined to leave because of my appeal to the Board. Thinking that he would fulfill his threat, and not desiring my things put out in confusion, I packed up. Later Bro. Macmillan, on my still refusing to leave, said, "You will either leave, or by night you will be bruised or be in jail."

  Besides the physical manhandling of the "quite muscular" Johnson, here was something I meant to mention earlier that was left out of Terry's summary. Rutherford had a vote held to make the office of the President as powerful as it had been under Russell, shortly before JFR himself was voted President. Johnson writes:

  I learned that Bros. Rutherford, Van Amburgh and Macmillan conspired to gain for Bro. Rutherford Bro. Russell’s full power and authority in the work and business of the Society. They began this conspiracy before the election. They prearranged every detail of the voting shareholders’ meeting Jan. 6. At Brooklyn Bro. Rutherford prepared and Bro. Van Amburgh approved the resolutions that among other things were to secure for the President executive and managerial authority. These Bro. Van Amburgh gave Bro. Margeson, (this I state on the latter’s authority), the chairman of the Resolutions Committee, for which they also arranged, . A week before the election Bro. Rutherford furnished a brother with an account of the proceedings of the voting shareholders’ meeting for publication in the press of the country, telling of his election by the Secretary casting the ballot of the convention and of the unanimity of his election, and giving some of his speech of acceptance. The Editor of the New York Herald commented on the prophetic gifts of "those Bethel people" in being able to foretell just what would happen at the election! In this account Bro. Rutherford failed to state that by his prearrangement the nominations were so closed, that there could be no other Presidential candidates for whom thousands of voting shares were instructed, and that he prepared the resolution recommending that he be made Executive and Manager. No political convention was ever more completely or more smoothly "bossed" than the voting shareholders’ meeting Jan. 6. Certainly the remark that Bro. Rutherford made to me in July, when he explained how he arranged for the election of Bro. Hirsh to the Board, applies to the proceedings of the Jan. 6 meeting. "Of course, Bro. Johnson, you know all things of that character are arranged beforehand, just like matters connected with a political convention!"

  This sounds like something that Rutherford would say, given that he had experience with political campaigning, as explained here: http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/scandals/112796/1/Rutherford-and-William-Jennings-Bryan

  To flesh things out, here's how Rutherford's plan was outlined by the ousted board members:

  (1) That during the lifetime of Brother Russell, he exercised complete control and management of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, and all of its affairs, for the reason that he created the Society with his own money and intellect under the special guidance of the Lord’s spirit, which he possessed in large measure.

  (2) That as he looked forward to his death, it was not his thought that he would have a successor in this special office, but rather that the Board of seven Directors should "come to the front" and be his successor, and exercise complete management of the Society and its affairs.

  (3) That the Charter of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, written by Brother Russell, stated in plain terms the form of government by which the Society was to be governed. This, he declared, was intended to apply especially after his death.

  (4) That at his death, Brother Russell left a will (see "Watch Tower," December 1, 1916), in which he explains why be had control of the Society during his lifetime and the manner in which he desired the affairs to be continued after his death.

  (5) That Brother Russell had not been dead more than a few days when his Will was declared to be illegal and, therefore, not binding, and that its provisions need not be observed by those who took charge, thus beginning the real murmuring against Brother Russell’s arrangements, which has continued ever since.

  (6) That Brother Rutherford, being well assured in advance that he would be elected President of the Society, drew up some by-laws before his election, which were taken to the shareholders’ meeting at Pittsburgh, January 6, and placed in the hands of a committee of three brethren, with the instruction that they suggest before the shareholders’ meeting that these by-laws be adopted by the Society for the government of its affairs.

  (7) That these by-laws, prepared by Brother Rutherford, expressly stated that the President should be the executive and manager of the Society and that he should have full charge of all its affairs, both in foreign lands and in America.

  Ultimately, though, the reason Rutherford was able to pull this off despite being opposed by the majority of the board was that he was able to prove that the four board members who coincidentally opposed him were also not legally board members. Terry explained this above, but notice what JFR himself wrote:

  Having in mind the experiences of the meeting of the Board held on the 20th day of June, and seeing that these brethren were showing a bad spirit, I saw it was necessary for to disclose what I had known since January, 1910, but which no one else except Brother Russell knew, so far as my knowledge goes or had occasion to find out.

  What he knew, and had verified by an outside attorney, was that three of the four board members were elected over a year ago and according to Penn. law, their terms had expired. The fourth member was elected in the last year, but at a meeting held in Brooklyn, NY, and the election was done by the existing board members, not the shareholders. The attorney explained:

  The right to fill the vacancy at that time rested with the President and the act of the Board, so called, was a usurpation of the authority of the President, and in direct conflict with the charter, and for that reason, of no avail. An additional reason why that the election of Hirsh was wholly illegal, is that the meeting was held in the State of New York, while the charter provides that the meetings shall be held in the City of Allegheny, Pennsylvania. His election to the Board was wholly extra-territorial and for that additional reason, absolutely and indisputably illegal and void. [...]

  As to who are the legal representatives of the Society, it is apparent that Messrs. Rutherford, Pierson, and Van Amburgh are the only persons who are qualified to act as such. They were elected to office at the annual meeting of the Society's members or shareholders on the 6th day of January 1917, in pursuance to a vote of the shareholders legally present and represented in Allegheny, Penna.

  Rutherford then had four replacement board members installed, who sided with him. JFR explained that the lawyer had advised him that...

  [...]neither Wright, Ritchie, Hirsh nor Hoskins were legal members of the Board of Directors and that the President had the right to appoint four members. The directors of the corporation should have been elected at Pittsburgh at the annual election in January.

  So, in short, Rutherford allowed an election to take place knowing it wouldn't hold up legally. Pretty clever, eh? He outmaneuvered his foes at every turn because he knew all the legal ins and outs of the Society's affairs. Russell must have been spinning in his grave. He even admits that he arranged some of this in advance:

  Naturally, you will ask, Why, then, did you not give such advice at this election? My reply is that I had known this condition since 1909 [He said 1910 above, but okay. -Apo]; but had I so stated at Pittsburgh in January, I would have laid myself open to the criticism that I was at once beginning to upset the course taken by Brother Russell, and subsequent criticism by certain brethren proves that my conclusion in that respect was right.

  The Ousted Four likewise wrote:

  The friends did not know that they could have elected a new Board of Directors and could then have elected a President and Treasurer from the new Directors. Brother Rutherford knew, but did not tell them. He states in his "Harvest Siftings" that he did not wish to disturb the friends.

  Having taken more time to consider all these details since making my previous post, I have to therefore withdraw my statement that the ousted board members should have fought him legally. They never stood a chance against the ol' Judge. I'll let P.S.L. Johnson conclude this post:

  In explanation of this mental attitude I desire to quote a remark made of him by one of his best friends in the Truth, who knows him thoroughly: "There are two Rutherfords. Bro. Rutherford whom I dearly love, and Lawyer Rutherford of whom I cannot approve."

  ----------

  All quotes from Harvest Siftings, Harvest Siftings Reviewed, and Light After Darkness, all from 1917.
• 

  Frazzled UBM

  Thanks Apognophus - very illuminating!
• 

  Apognophos

  Thanks, I'm glad that anyone is interested enough to read this; it's certainly a lot more succinct than the original material. Those people did go on and on!