A few facts concerning Charles Taze Russell and "Miracle Wheat":
Charles Taze Russell did not, himself, sell any of the Miracle Wheat at all. Kenneth Stoner (who was NOT associated with Russell or the Bible Students), the discoverer of the wheat, had sold the wheat at $1.25 a pound. It was Mr. Stoner, not Russell, who named the wheat "Miracle Wheat".
In 1910 one of the Bible Students, who had raised some of this wheat, sold it for seed at $1.00 per pound (25 cents less per pound than Stoner had been selling it), and donated the proceeds to the Watch Tower Society. In 1911 the same Bible Student, having raised more seed, asked that THE WATCH TOWER give the benefit of this to its readers at $1.00 a pound post-paid (25 cents less than Stoner had been selling it), and appropriate the net results to the furtherance of its work. Another Bible student, who had some of the same seed, also donated similarly, the total amount being twenty bushels. Russell did not set the price for the wheat; Russell did not originate any claims for the wheat; Russell simply printed the government report as it had appeared in the newspapers, and printed reports from farmers who had used the wheat.
Everything that was said respecting the wheat was fully proven at in the court case of Russell vs. the Eagle by expert witnesses, interested and disinterested, and their testimony was not shaken. It was also shown that farmer Stoner and his business partner, Mr. Knight, made no sales of this wheat under $1.25 per pound until September, 1911; and that they had a written contract between them that none of the wheat was to be sold at any price until the following year — 1912. Suddenly in September, 1911, they changed their plans, considering that they had wheat enough accumulated, put the price down to $5.00 per bushel, about the time that the wheat was announced in the Watch Tower at a dollar a pound. This The Eagle’s attorney claimed was proof of fraud on the part of THE WATCH TOWER — sufficient excuse for the slanderous assaults of The Eagle upon Russell.
In order to win his suit against The Eagle, Russell needed to prove malice on the part of The Eagle. It was in vain that Russell's attorney sought to show the jury The Eagle’s malice — that it really was attacking Russell along religious grounds; that it had set itself as the champion of certain clerical enemies of Russell, and was seeking to destroy Russell's influence and, if possible, to drive Russell from Brooklyn. In the court-room sat about twenty-five who were ready to testify on behalf of Russell, who had come long distances at their own expense to have an opportunity to speak a word in Russell's behalf. Through some intricacies of the Law respecting evidence, these were unable to be heard in Russell's behalf. At any rate, Russell lost the case because of not being allowed to prove malice on the part of The Eagle.
Instead, the Court gave The Eagle’s attorney the privilege of saying all manner of evil against Russell falsely. He was allowed to picture Russell, as The Eagle had done in its cartoon — as a thief and robber, masquerading in the garb of a minister of Christ. He was allowed to ridicule the “Miracle Wheat,” although Russell had nothing whatever to do with it, nor with the naming of it; and notwithstanding the fact that its superiority was proven.
For a more detailed documented report regarding Russell and Miracle Wheat, see:
Charles Taze Russell and the Miracle Wheat Story – Part 1
Charles Taze Russell and the Miracle Wheat Story – Part 2
Charles Taze Russell and the Miracle Wheat Story – Part 3
Charles Taze Russell and the Miracle Wheat Story – Part 4
Stoner's "Miracle Wheat" gradually faded away evidently because farmers failed to head Stoner's instructions for keeping the strain separate from other strains. Today, however, due to the work of Norman Borlaug, a new stable strain of "Miracle Wheat" exists.
http://ctr.reslight.net/?p=629
Russell, however, was certainly not a member of any of man's "secret societies". The message he proclaimed would not be in harmony with such ideologies. The tens of thousands of pages of his works prove that he was not in support of any of man's "secret soceities", exceot that Russell did express that to belong to Christ is to belong to a secret society, since the world does not recognize Jesus nor do they recognize the followers of Jesus.
See:
Nor did Russell believe that "the church" could be recognized by any "outward organization", such as the "Jehovah's Witnesses" organization. Russell did not believe in such an organization.
Russell stated:
I hold, and few, if any, will dispute it, that the one catholic or general Church of Christ is that mentioned in the Bible -- "the Church of the Firstborns, written in Heaven." If this be admitted, my next proposition is that the Lord in Heaven records as members of His true Church all the saintly - whether Roman Catholics, Anglican Catholics, Greek Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, or Presbyterians, etc. -- and none others.
Have we not here the one Church, catholic, universal, the only Church which the Bible recognizes? In the past we have been too narrow and have supposed that God was as narrow as ourselves. It was on this account that Presbyterians, Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Baptists, Methodists persecuted and were persecuted, each thinking itself the true Church. Are we not all getting broader conceptions of our God and of His Church? Do we not see that we were mistaken in calling the outward organization the Church of Christ instead of remembering that the Lord alone writes the names of the Church, that He alone reads the hearts, that He alone is the Judge, and that He alone has the right to blot out the names of reprobates?
St. Paul wrote against sectarianism, already manifest in his day-some saying :"I am of Paul"; others, "I am of Peter"; etc. The Apostle asks, "Is Christ divided:" ( 1 Corinthians 1:10-13 ) He explains that these sectarian names signified a spirit of division that failed to recognize the true Head of the Church, His true representatives and His true members. The entire foundation of divided Christianity would disappear and the true Church of Christ be speedily manifest, if true catholicity were acknowledged. -- Bible Students Monthly , Volume 7, Number 9 (1915), Under the title, "The Catholic Church -- St. Peter's Kingdom Keys."
Christian love,
Ronald