by frankiespeakin 45 Replies latest watchtower bible
You know, I have to say that I have wondered about this myself, but for other reasons. Didn't he claim that he never consumated his marraige? And weren't there some unusual circumstances surrounding it? I believe it was a marraige of convenience to a much younger woman, and he was never associated with any other chick.
Not that there's anything wrong with being gay, but wouldn't that really be a scandal for the Witnesses to deal with.
Not that there's anything wrong with being gay, but wouldn't that really be a scandal for the Witnesses to deal with.
It wouldn't matter. They ALREADY know he was a Miracle Wheat peddler, a False Prophet, and a few other things. As long as he preached a few truths they still cling to.......he's OK by them. He's was just imperfect......that's all.
Gumby
made against Mr. Russell. Child molestation was... from the young charge who resided with him and Mrs. Russell. Mrs. Russell was aware of it, and separated from Mr. Russell shortly afterward, but was adamant that that was not the reason. I will not speculate on the truth of the accusation, nor Mrs. Russell's reason's for separation. She loved him... even to the end.
Peace to you all...
A slave of Christ,
SJ
I'd rather stick to the facts about doctrine rather than wonder if he was gay. But that's just me.
Ever do a search online under "sexless marriage" you'd be surprised what you find.
RR
You beat me to the punch, RR.
Just because he allegedly never consummated his marriage doesn't make him gay. I think you do gay people a disservice by suggesting this without any evidence.
Shel:
I hadn't heard of that one, and would have thought that that would have been hollered from the rooftops, too. Just out of interest, how old was his charge?
RR,
So are you saying just put "sexless mariage" in my search engine??
LT,
Just because he allegedly never consummated his marriage doesn't make him gay. I think you do gay people a disservice by suggesting this without any evidence.
Well I will tell you some one in Russell's position who leads a mind control cult who has a sexless marriage rightly raises suspicion of being gay,,or do you have some other theories as to why ever get married in the first place if your not going to co-habit and share intamacy??
And could you please explain to me why you think I'm doing a diservice to gay people by makeing the sujestion CTR was gay if he never had sex with his wife if 17 years???
To every one else that has negative feelings about exploring this legitamate question I say:
"Get over it,, the guy made himself a public figure and his actions raise suspicion,, and I'm surprised no one ever brought this question up,,it is long over due in MHO".
After nearly a century, there is absolutely no way anything can be proved. All the people are gone, and the written record provides only vague clues, that are subject to misinterpretation. Even if it could be reasonably surmised based on some new evidence, it would be buried and discredited. Hell, JWs don't even believe the true stuff about their organization that was printed in black and white - for example, very few JWs know that the theme of the talk "Millions Now Living Will Never Die" was based on the failed 1925 prophesy. Another example - official court records can be used to straighten out their story about the Olin Moyle case, Rutherford's takeover, and the 1918 imprisonment. Yet, even official court transcripts are ignored and they continue to believe their own lies.
If they don't know, care, or believe something that was officially printed in their own documents or in court records, then there's not much chance of either proving or publicizing something that is just conjecture.
I must admit I thought it was strange, then my wife toldme about so called "victorian marriages". I did some research, and it was quite common in those days, even today. For people to sacrifice fleshly desires, to give themselves to the Lord. The apostlePaul stated that it be better for a Christians to be single, than to get married, why? because it hinders service to theLord, because the spousebecomes the first object and then the children.
However, there were those who decided to get "married" for the sake of having companionship in their service to the Lord. Some decide to not marry at all and to remain chaste. Someone once mentioned that Russell remained a virgin because the 144,000 were said to be virgins, "defiled not with women" but this doesn't jive with his comments on that verse.
Apparently, Maria Russell, who by the way was older from my calculations...entered the marriage with sacrificing their sex life. Although Russell admits to affectionately kisssing his wife several times a day.
It's possible that with Maria's sister getting married and having children, that maria began to feel maternal and wanted to break those vows of chastity, and Russell was not willing, and it caused a strain in the relationship.
Today there are sexless marriages, some by choice, others by fate.
RR
I'm just curious,but according to the Bible and the purpose of marriage, doesn't it sound odd that a couple would marry in the 1st place?
