by Terry 35 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
This is a fascinating page I found on ROSE BALL. I can't vouche for any of it.
Looks like a 17 year difference between Russell and Ruth Ball.
None of us can say YES or NO with any certainty about the relationship, can we? We can only say that Maria was upset by it.
http://users.adam.com.au/bstett//JwHenningesRoseBall130.html
That all seems accurate. I'm not sure there is a lie here, though. The only photo of her I have is from very late in life. I'd like to see a photo of her at 25 or so.
As my granddaughter would say, "Russell was a creeper." But probably not in the ways everyone assumes. Russell's enemies presume that Rose told the truth, or that Maria repeated what she said accurately. I see no reason to do that. From the point of view of "proof" everything is third-hand.
I've suspened judgment until I can find something more substantial.
What makes all of this probably more fascinating than mere gossip is the fact Russell refused sex to his marriage mate from the get-go.
That is a Red Flag.
He was a human male without physical deformity. His organs worked the same as everybody elses.
If you have an attractive wife and a bedroom are we to assume you are NORMAL if you DON'T WANT SEX?
Let's say it was all for inhibition's sake and religious mania---then, why all they creeping about, kissing, fondling of a much younger woman?
Scandal among the clergy is nothing new. The fact that Russell was Jehovah's choice as his ...uh hum...."Faithful" and discreet slave is mortifying!
You're still presuming, on second hand testiony from someone with an agenda of her own, that it happened. Bad practice. "Where there's smoke there's fire," is a bad basis for a conclusion. Personally, and without any better proof, I believe something happened. I don't believe it happened as Maria told it. The ideal find would be personal papers of Rose Ball's tellling her version of the story.
The no-sex agreement was mutual. If Russell had a 'problem' here, so did Maria. Who knows, a good romp in the hay might have solved their disagreements.
Contemporary were the Shakers, established in 1758 and 5,000 strong in 1840 at their peak. An article of their faith was celibacy. This was the Victorian era, and the role of sex in the marriage was very much different than today. I was under the impression that Charles and Maria enjoyed a mutually celibate relationship.
http://www.pastor-russell.com/misc/bio.html
If so, I could understand Maria's outrage if she found out that Charles was sowing his oats elsewhere!
"Awake! May 8,1951 "who is preaching the teaching of Pastor Russell? Certainly not Jehovah's Witnesses! They can not be accused of following him, for they neither quote him as an authority nor publish or distribute his writing"
Proclaimers Book Page 621 says :
As Jehovah’s Witnesses today review the work that he did, the things he taught, his reason for teaching them, and the outcome, they have no doubt that Charles Taze Russell was, indeed, used by God in a special way and at a significant time............
This bit, page 622 is somewhat disengenious :
"Noteworthy too is what Brother Russell did with other highly significant truths that he learned from God’s Word. He discerned that Christ would return as a glorious spirit person, invisible to human eyes. As early as 1876, he recognized that the year 1914 would mark the end of the Gentile Times. "So he discerned that Christ "would return?" Surely he taught that his invisible prescence had begun already in 1874? and his expectation for the year 1914 was entirely different to that which is today seen as the end of the Gentile Times??? They never miss a trick in massaging their past mistakes.
To me, personally, this celibacy insistance is indicative of a "problem" psychology.
It is so very contrary to human nature, for one thing.
What the basis of this neurosis was---is beyond reckoning at this late date.
Isn't it more likely Maria went along with it thinking eventually he would come around to a more natural affection?
Who knows?
Who really can say?
One thing that can be certain is that he exploited the publics existing belief and importance of the bible to exacerbate
his own notoriety and attraction to his publications, like a true religious charlatan.
He so much loved and became self focuses onto himself from this newly found notoriety that even his wife became of less importance.
I think its both ironic and hilarious that the WTS. now, holds up Russell and Rutherford as champions of the faith and true willing and faithful servants
god, when all they did was create their inherent lies and corruption endeavoring themselves to make the Watchtower Publishing Company flourish
and expand, through corrupt commercially appealing doctrines of their own making.
A notable exercise of freedom in America I suppose.
I am saying that celibacy was de rigueur at the time, and would not have been perceived as so very odd. It is also just as possible that they made the pact on her urging.
