For those of you who have an interest in JW history, and have studied it, what do you see as the similiarities and differences between Russell and Rutherford. Now, I am not looking for superficial answers like, they were both full of shit. I am looking for some content here. Your thoughts will be much appreciated.
Question for xJW historians
by larc 23 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Prisca
ok, I'll put my hand up.
It has always seemed to me that Russell was genuine, whereas Rutherford saw an opportunity for power and ran with it. Thus the Organisation was born, which Knorr et al then used to make the Org into a money-making racket. Franz thought he had the power of prophecy, and this was used to keep his position as head of the Org. Henschel kept the whole thing running as a matter of sentmentality, and has since lost his headship, due to old age and incompentancy.
-
Satanus
Both were very shrewd, though russel was nicer about it. Russel set up puppet holding companies and printing companies.
They both knew how to set up a power base and maintain it.
They both were renegades against the religious systems of their times.
Differences: as prisca said, russel really believed in what he was doing, rutherford didn't. What motivated rutherford may have been pure thirst for power, or anger. He was a failed liberal politician. He may have been mad at the system because of his failure.
SS
Edited by - saintsatan on 11 October 2002 23:6:58
-
Amazing
Larc: Likely most will recall the differences of Rutherford being a mean cult leader and Russell being kind and moderate ... but I imagine that the best way to know the men is to review their writings and see ... and Rutherford was far more dogmatic, bombasic, sensationalistic, and inflamatory ... Russell could show those qualities himself, but he tended to be more accepting of others, and allow room for error, whereas Rutherford had to stae things as 'unquestionable, indisputable, irrefutable, incontrovertable, without question, and so on. Russell was more eccentric with his notions and theories, whereas Rutherford was not a creative. Rutherford simply borrowed from Russell and repackaged. Rutherford was more diciplined and routine ... Russell was more personally flamboyant, and Rutherford was more flamboyant in his writing. This is all I can think of in a few minutes ...
-
sonoita
Russell disliked organized religion and produced a kinder, gentler generation of people, more Christlike. This was my grandparents generation. Rutherford was bombastic and intolerant which put a chip on the shoulder of many in the organization and its subsequent generation.
I could be corrected on the following: I have my doubts if Rutherford wrote any books that carry his name, I would guess there was a silent author (Franz, F?).
-
Athanasius
Hi Larc,
Russell and Rutherford came from very different backgrounds. Russell came from a an affluent urban setting. He and his sister were their parents only children so Russell got more attention from his father and mother than Rutherford who came from a more humble rural background. Rutherford was only one of eight children. Since he wasn't the baby of the family its doubtful that his mother would have doted on him as Russell's mother had done. Russell came from privilege, Rutherford had to fight for his position in life.
As a young man Russell remained aloof from politics, where Rutherford dove in head first into the local political arena. In 1896 Rutherford campaigned for William Jennings Bryan, the famous Democrat-Populist, whose Cross of Gold speech is a classic. Though Bryan lost Presidency to William McKinnley, Rutherford adopted many Populist ideas, which he later incorporated into the Watch Tower belief structure once he seized the presidency in 1917. A politican skilled in backroom tactics, Rutherford easily outmaneovered his opponents and established a 25 year dictatorship over the Watch Tower. Rutherford, not Russell, was the true founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses.
Sincerely,
Athanasius
-
Simon
I think Russell *may* have been sincere but terribly misguided (and full of his own self-importance) whereas I Rutherford comes across as being interested in the power and a bit more ruthless. He was definitely full of himself.
-
refiners fire
For a long time i viewed Russell as a sweet genuine guy, and Rutherford as a jumped up little usurper of Authority. A coniving snake. But Ive changed my mind now. What kind of a man would you be to believe you were the chosen instrument of a dispensation from God ?? Well, thats the kind of man Russell was. And I hope he is burning in hell.
-
UnDisfellowshipped
And I hope he is burning in hell.
Don't worry, cause that's where he's at, unless, right before he died he repented of all his sins and all of a sudden believed in the TRUE Jesus Christ.
Seems highly unlikely to me.
Edited by - UnDisfellowshipped on 12 October 2002 5:51:38
-
mustang
I go with Prisca & SS on them: genuine vs. opportunist.
"Rutherford, not Russell, was the true founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses."
Right; there are Russell followers who survive to this day. However, early JWs were called Russellites. Actually, it is the case that JWs should properly be called "Rutherfordites".
Mustang