^^^ What she said. Beth Sarim...really?!?!
Who's the biggest WT villian? Russell/Rutherford/Knorr/Franz?
by Las Malvinas son Argentinas 21 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
wha happened?
That's a tough call. They all contributed to the course the organization took, although Russell seemed the most tolerant
-
james_woods
I have to agree Rutherford should probably win the poll. But I do think Russell was a rather more sinister character than many like to imagine.
I agree with Slimboyfat on this - we tend to overlook the gross dishonesty of Russell in view of the certainly horrible actions of Rutherford.
How can you expect anything other than what the Witnesses are today - when you consider the very faulty foundation on which they were built?
-
Band on the Run
It is definitely Rutherford for me. Long before I knew that WT doctrines were either drole or tragic, I heard tales of his personal animosity towards Witnesses of good will and character. He was thoroughly despised by my relatives and their close JW friends. Knorr was no hero for them but Rutherford was awful. Freddie Franz had so much brain power (falsely reported) that Brooklyn would arise above all academics elsewhere. Even as a child, I was impressed by intellect. Oh, if I could ever have a slight fraction of Freddie's brain power.
Rutherford was the dictator. He had absolute control. Most awful JW policy started under his tenure. When I was bored out of my mind, I found Russell's lit and screached to be rescued. Somehow Armageddon was less fearsome after I stumbled upon the treasure trove.
-
Las Malvinas son Argentinas
True, it would be too easy to treat men with relatively pleasant demeanours a bit more fairly than they should be treated. Russell was always looked upon as a grandfatherly type figure, and in person he seemed to be an amiable character. F.W. Franz also was popular among the Bethel crowd. On the other hand, Rutherford was and is an easy man to detest because he basically was a complete bastard to everyone he had dealings with. Knorr was probably second for his prudish manner and stern moral code. But for all of Knorr's faults, he had nothing to do with writing or the doctrinal part of it. When I think of the 1975 debacle, I don't think of him, but rather of F.W. Franz. As for Russell, he was a part of the original deception, and despite being proven wrong on so many things he stubbornly stuck to his belief that he was right. Even N.H. Barbour at one point gave up and let his magazine go out of print. Not Russell. He died thinking the Gentile Times had ended exactly as he had predicted.
But I'll keep to my pick of Rutherford, and I'll try not to let the fact that he was a complete asshole cloud my judgment. One of the worst aspects of being a Witness was the whole 'faith by works' dogma. I see it now as my ailing grandmother puts Watchtowers out by her bed and calls her unbelieving sisters in order to count her time. Russell didn't make door-to-door preaching as a pre-requisite to salvation. He had his colporteurs. Not Rutherford. Every man, woman, and child was expected to be on the front lines to do battle while he took luxury liners around the world. His obstinancy purposely started fights on the streets and in the courts, which is exactly how he wanted to publicise his JW reboot. Not that Knorr was much of an improvement, but at least he did remove the marriage ban and the field service quotas.
Rutherford to me took the crazed prophecies of Russell, the Knorr prudishness and stern business-like acumen, the intellectual condescension of F.W. Franz and wrapped it all up in a drunken racist douchebag package that was all about him. I can scarcely think of a decent quality Rutherford might have had. He took a organisation that wasn't even his and built a mansion for himself based on a convenient deception. While the others have had similar misgivings about them, none of them approach the level of grandiosity and pompous nature of that vile man.
-
reslight2
Las Malvinas son Argentinas posted (5/7/2013):
The Bible Student movement of Russell was badly splintered after the usurpation and was destined to fade away like the other Russellite movements.
The Bible Student movement has continued to exist to this day. It has never faded away.
-
reslight2
As for Russell, he was a part of the original deception, and despite being proven wrong on so many things he stubbornly stuck to his belief that he was right.
What is "the original deception"? I have proven to myself from the Bible that Russell certainly had very little wrong.
Rutherford to me took the crazed prophecies of Russell
Despite Rutherford's claim that Russell was a prophet, Russell disclaimed being a prophet, and disclaimed that his expectations were to be considered as "prophecy"; thus, Russell never gave any prophecies at all.
By the early 1930s, Rutherford, however, in his zeal to find support in prophecy for his "Jehovah's visible organization" dogma, had rejected most of Russell's studies of Bible prophecy and replaced them with his own. By 1928, more than 75% of the Bible Students had rejected Rutherford's "Jehovah's visible organization" dogma and related dogma. Contrary to what the WTS has claimed, the Bible Students did not "go out of existence." They still exist to this day.
Russell, however, never presented his studies as being infallible, nor did he insist that all the Bible Students had to agree with his conclusions. Indeed, there were several different theories amongst the Bible Students movement concerning chronology and time prophecies even in the days of Russell. Russell humbly refused to accept authority over the local congregations; each congregation and individual was free to either accept or reject anything Russell (or anyone else) might present. -
rocketman
Reslight's comments do highlight a big reason why I personally don't hold Russell as responsible as Rutherford and subsequent WT leaders - there was freedom to disagree, and the Bible Students didn't claim to be organized "Theocratically", a notion which originated with Rutherford.
Without Rutherford, I think the entire history changes most significantly than it would have by subtracting Knorr or Franz or any other leader. In other words, by subtraction, removing Rutherford from the equation would have, in my theoretical scenario anyway, changed the organization the most because it would not have become so autocratic.
So yes, Russell started the whole thing, and the noose of 1914 is still attached, but I don't think that he in any way envisaged what we've seen from this religion since his passing.
-
Las Malvinas son Argentinas
reslight2 - The Bible Student movement has continued to this day, but my contention wasn't that it is non-existent, but that they have largely faded away. They consist of many different splinter sects, from the Dawn Bible Students claiming 60,000 members worldwide to the Australian Bible Student sect claiming 100 members. So having several thousand members scattered worldwide under several different sects to me would define fading away. I can't see any way how they can be described as thriving.
If C.T. Russell had in your mind had very little doctrinal matter wrong, and this was backed up from the Bible, I'm unsure as to approach this subject with you. I would start with the changed dates for Christ's return and 1914 as the date for Armageddon, but I don't wish to belabour you with all these statistics since you already have formed your own opinion. Just because Russell claimed he was not a 'prophet' does not mean that he did not make false prophecies. That's like publicly making all kinds of scientific claims, and then buggering off all responsibility just because you never claimed to be a 'scientist'. He did admit privately that he was the 'Faithful and Discreet Slave', so take that as you will.
Russell did not insist on complete ideological control over his flock, and minor dissentions and differences were tolerated. For this reason I have chosen Rutherford as the major destructive force in the modern-day JW religion. So I am unclear as to why you are calling me to task about Russell, since my focus was on Rutherford. To believe that Russell was not a false prophet, you would have to honestly believe in 1914 as the date for Christ's return (invisibly) and then conveniently ignore that Russell claimed with utmost certainty that 1914 was the year for Armageddon. Do you believe this?
-
EdenOne
To me, personally, the most damaging character was F.W. Franz.
Rutherford was a detestable character, a bigot with the diplomacy of a T-Rex, but the organization could have easily grow out of his leadership when he passed away. Problem was the intellectual eminence of Franz that pervaded the entire theology of the Jehovah's Witnesses since 1926 when he joined the editorial staff in Brooklyn. He was given free hand when he became head of the editorial department and vice-president of Knorr in 1945. Rutherford may have been a tyrant and Knorr may have been a cold bastard, but Franz is the brainy, delusional and charismatic snake behind most of the wrong doctrine that the Watchtower Society has put forward since the mid 1920's, that no one, until recent times, has successfully disputed. His tragic legacy still lives on and only recently is begginning to be quietly put aside.
Eden