Where it all went wrong for the WT - JF Rutherford

by LoveUniHateExams 68 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Sea Breeze

  I was thinking a bit about this the other day. CT Russell, from what I remember about him, kinda seemed like a genuine, nice(ish) guy, although he had a few eccentric but harmless ideas.

  I know this is a common and carefully crafted view about Russell. The facts show otherwise. The book below:

  https://archive.org/details/allaboutonerusse00cook
  

  was written only 2 years after Russell started printing the WT. It was written by his peers in the New York area.

  It shows that he:

  1. Had zero bible training what so ever

  2. Was a clothing salesman for his father

  3. Assumed the title Pastor without ever having pastored anyone.

  4. Fostered and promoted the idea that he himself was named in scripture as the faithful and wise servant.

  5. Was a shameless self-promoter and had no problem lying on stage

  6. Went on a world-tour to investigate missionaries. This was exposed as a complete fraud. He then packed out the Hippodrome in NYC and denounced all missionaries in the most negative terms.

  7. Was divorced by his wife (she was known for having impeccable character & from a good family) for "inappropriate behavior".... like locking himself in the maids bedroom and not coming out for 10 minutes when his wife was knocking on the door. She accused him under oath of doing things like this to both of the women who lived in the Russell home.

  8. He set up multiple corporations to try and deny her the alimony he was ordered to pay.

  Russell filled a niche. He provided a religion to tickle the ears. It was religion for the hard-working albeit uneducated common man:

  1. No consciousness after death. So nothing to worry about if you get it wrong in this life.

  2. No judgement after you die

  3. Second chance theology for almost everyone - wake up in paradise

  4. You get to take credit for your hard work you do for God

  I believe Russell was the ultimate narcissist sociopath who had no trouble deceiving others.... for their own good of course. Rutherford was just a little angrier.... same BS, same kind of affairs, probably with more alcohol.

  ALL of the subsequent WT leaders and many of the R & F have followed in these footsteps that glorify ignorance, the uneducated and self-righteousness.
• 

  slimboyfat

  Sounds to me like you’ve carefully crafted your own story about Charles Russell there, Sea Breeze. Opponents said lots of things about Russell, many of them false. Where is your evidence he didn’t tell the truth on stage, for example? What is beyond dispute is that he was well liked by a large number of people. That doesn’t happen by accident, or unless you treat others well, and indeed there are many stories of kindness. If I recall correctly, Maria Russell specifically distanced herself from the claim that Russell had not been faithful, which puts a different complexion on the whole episode. During the divorce Charles Russell was probably guilty (in common with many in that situation) of attempting to limit his financial liability - not his greatest moment. His theological opponents naturally raked over the mud wherever they thought they could. You talk disparagingly about his theological training, but which theological school did the apostle Peter attend, or James or John? Paul said that God chooses to use the uneducated on purpose. This is a mark in Russell’s favour, not against him. The theological point Russell was most famous for in his own lifetime, that you don’t mention specifically, was his opposition to the hellfire teaching. He was known as the “man who turned the hose on hell”. I find it noteworthy that, a century and a half later, many in the mainline churches would now agree with Russell on that point.
• 

  Zilgee

  Hitler too was a good orator. Had huge support. It does not mean he was good.
• 

  Sea Breeze

  slimboyfat :

  “Sounds to me like you’ve carefully crafted your own story about Charles Russell there”

  No it doesn’t. This is what his contemporaries mostly said in the link I provided.
• 

  slimboyfat

  Hitler too was a good orator. Had huge support. It does not mean he was good.

  What a bizarre comment. Russell didn’t just have “support”, he made many friends who had genuine affection for him. He spent his time and energy spreading a message of peace and hope for humanity from the Bible as he understood it, and many other people were moved to help him spread that message. Where exactly does the comparison with Hitler come from? That sounds completely detached from reality.

  This is what his contemporaries mostly said in the link I provided.

  Have you cited a tract from his opponents and repeated it as if it is unbiased?
  
  
• 

  slimboyfat

  Another huge discrepancy in your presentation here, Sea Breeze: you claim this source was published “2 years after Russell started printing the Watchtower”. That would make the year 1881. Yet many of the points you raise occurred years, even decades later, such as Russell’s worldwide tours and his divorce. A moment’s reflection should have caused you to realise this is incongruous. You don’t seem to have applied even the most basic critical thought to what you are saying.
• 

  TonusOH

  There was a site that I read a year or two ago that had some pretty extensive info on Russell, specifically his business dealings and his relationship with his wife, which apparently ended in a bitter divorce. I thought it was the ad1914.com site (and it might be) but I can't find the articles about him.

  He does strike me as a con man, who put up a respectable front but found every which way to make money, including by selling snake oil to Bible students. He does seem to have been a sincere person early in his life and ministry, but his ego got built up and at some point he got to like it too much, IMO. His religious ideas were occasionally pretty well out there (the stuff about the Pyramids of Giza stands out).

  Rutherford, I think, wanted to leave his mark on the organization. At first, he seems to have followed Russell's lead, marking dates with supreme confidence and promoting world-changing events, but that caught up to him and I think he learned a lesson. After that, he decided to rebuild the organization from the ground up and made sweeping changes to doctrine and interpretation, essentially wiping a lot of Russell's work away.

  I think that they both had the gift of communication, be it in their writings or their public speeches. They also understood the importance of keeping firm control of the organization and presenting a clear and united front to the public. This is what helped keep the organization together during tough times and grow it quickly during good times. Knorr seemed to learn fairly quickly that the age of big pronouncements was ending and the organization really just needed a steady hand. If there's one thing he could have changed, I bet he would have told Franz to drop any talk of 6,000 years since man's creation and anything to do with 1975.
• 

  Sea Breeze

  @SlimBoyFat: Read the booklets on the link provided before you criticize others. The first one was published in 1881. The others listed at the bottom of the link cover the next few decades. There were many who were keeping track of Russell's scams (like miracle wheat) during his career.
  
  Russell sued one of the authors for libel. He tried to avoid defending himself in court. One of the booklets lists some of the questioning and testimony from Russell where he was caught in lie after lie. Many were eager for this stuff to come out in court so he could be exposed. If these transcripts are true, then he is a consummate liar; a defining characteristic of sociopaths.

  Excerpt:

  The High Court opened on March 1st, 1913, and the case came before the Grand Jury for considera- tion. The only evidence that was in was obtained from "Pastor" Russell himself under cross-examina- tion. After comparing the charges made in the leaf- let with the evidence thus obtained, the jury found absolutely no ground for libel and handed down the ^rdict "no bill." Thus the case was thrown out of court by the evidence furnished by "Pastor" Russell himself.

  
  I don't think you understand the significance of this material. The booklets are nothing short of explosive IMHO.

  This was not a good man. The conclusions I draw are appropriate with the material provided in that link. Read the booklets and draw your own conclusions.
• 

  slimboyfat

  The very first page of the booklet talks about the Brooklyn Tabernacle, the London Tabernacle, and the International Bible Students Association. You don’t need to read beyond the first few sentences to realise it could not have been published in 1881.

  You said the “book” (singular) was written in 1881. And “it (singular) shows” the points you outline.

  So what book are you claiming was published in 1881? And what other books are you now saying you linked? I don’t see any others on that link.

  Additional edit, because I’ve run out of daily posts:

  As I understand it he was given the title pastor by the ecclesias individually in a vote. That’s where it came from and claims legitimacy.

  You didn’t answer what theological school Peter, James and John attended. Or address the fact that Paul says God specifically chooses to use uneducated people.

  There are many complex ways of reading the book of Ecclesiastes. I thinks it’s you who is pushing a simplistic line.

  You seem to be avoiding your earlier claim the booklet you cited was published in 1881. I am sorry you appear stubborn as well as uninformed. I can’t justify wasting more time on this.
• 

  Sea Breeze

  SBF writes:

  He spent his time and energy spreading a message of peace and hope for humanity from the Bible as he understood it

  That's just it, he didn't have any understanding because he had no training and just started calling himself a "Pastor" without having been given that name by anyone.

  For instance:

  The bible says that "money is the answer for everything" . Sound doctrine doesn't not allow for this teaching because those trained in ministry know that the book of Ecclesiastes is a philosophical book written from a carnal point of view.... the one we are not supposed to have as a total worldview. It says that it's material from a point of view "under the sun" dozens of times so that the reader won't get the wrong idea.
  
  Yet, Russel picked out a verse in that book that says :

  the dead do not know anything, nor do they have a reward any longer, for their memory is forgotten. 6 Indeed their love, their hate, and their zeal have already perished, and they will no longer have a share in all that is done under the sun.

  This verse is talking about the carnal life of man, under the sun, in this world...ie. a man's body. Then, he takes this ignorant exegesis and forms a Christian doctrine out of it while ignoring perhaps a dozen or more NT scriptures that say the opposite. Millions of JW's still repeat this non-sense in trying to support the heretical doctrine of annihilation.

  SBF - Here's a link to the second booklet (1912 publishing date). Scrolling down on each of the links gives several more works.