Posts by stev

27

Was Charles Taze Russell A Drug User, Drug Abuser, or Even An Addict?

by West70 in

in his lengthy address at russell's funeral, menta sturgeon disclosed the following: .

"you know that our dear brother was so considerate of the feelings of others that he never drew much on the sympathy of the friends --so considerate was he, that but few knew that he had been a physical sufferer for thirty years.".

only a few months after sturgeon made the above disclosure at russell's funeral, this "different version" was published on page 57 of the finished mystery book: .

stev

The quote below comes from the Dec. 1, 1916 WT, and was spoken at the time of Russell's funeral. I find this testimony credible, and not supportive of the topic of this thread. First, it was spoken shortly after Russell's death, so is a contemporary account. It is spoken by a doctor that treated Russell. The doctor acknowledges that Russell had a peculiar ailment, which the doctor does not reveal, but must have known more about it if he treated it. He also acknowledges that Russell "suffered," was "very, very weak", "could hardly go on with his discourses for pain", and "was usually under stress and pain." Certainly this is told to invoke sympathy from the audience for Russell. However, it is also revealed that Russell failed for two years to take the medicine that the doctor prescribed. Russell's admission seems credible, because he is admitting that he failed to take the doctor's prescription, and subjecting himself to the criticism of the doctor for not taking care of his health. The doctor's admission of this failing is also credible, for some in the audience might also fault Russell for not taking the medicine. That Russell failed to take the medicine available to him for two years, and had a "grin and bear it" attitude seems credible, and would not support the allegation made on this thread.

Steve

::R6010 : page 372:: RENEWAL OF CONSECRATION DAILY BY DR. E.A. McCOSH--DETROIT I esteem it an honor to be here on this occasion. I wish to convey to you from the Detroit Church their greeting and their desire to let you know that they will be loyal to the memory of our dear Pastor. It was my privilege to know our dear Brother personally; and I wish to state one thing with regard to him that possibly not all know. For years he suffered with a peculiar ailment, which rendered him very, very weak at times; and he could hardly go on with his discourses for pain. We can better appreciate the wonderful character of our beloved Pastor when we know that he was usually under stress and pain. I prescribed for him at one time; but when two years after, I asked him if he had taken the medicine, he remarked, "Dear Brother, I have not had time."

39

Rumors about Russell

by Lady Lee in

i am getting rather tired of all the russell scandals.

however, if there is something to find out i'm all for it.

i have a connection to one of russell's followers.

stev

This quote is from Rutherford's funeral oration for Russell. In light of the Rose Ball story, I post it to indicate what Russell said about himself. I am not sure what the attacks were. He insisted on his innocence, and I find it to be a frank and yet embarrassing admission for a man to make. Although it was meant to answer questions and clear his name, for some it would raise other questions and reflect poorly on him. It is puzzling.

Truly it can be said that Pastor Russell's character was and is without blemish. He was the cleanest, purest and best man I ever knew. His enemies sought to make him of no reputation. By insinuation--the most cruel of weapons--they sought to destroy his power and influence, and hence his work. They utterly failed. I feel constrained, under the circumstances, to read to you a paper signed by Pastor Russell.

In the year 1911 he was starting on a trip around the world. At that time the fiery darts from the enemy were coming thick and fast. He wrote out this instrument, made oath to it, and placed it in my hands, saying, "You may

::R6015 : page 376::

make it as public as your judgment dictates." It reads:

"In view of my soon departure for a foreign shore, and in view of the increasing virulence and threats of my enemies, and under the assumption that they may await my absence to make a fresh attack, by advice of my counsel I make under oath the following sweeping statement; namely,

"THAT I never was guilty of immorality toward any person.

"FURTHERMORE, I never cohabited with any person at any time and,

"FURTHER, I have never desired so to do.

"WITNESS my hand and seal to this declaration this Twenty-Eighth day of Sept., 1911, at Brooklyn, N.Y.

(Signed) CHARLES T. RUSSELL.

"Subscribed and sworn to before me this 3d day of October, 1911. C.H. MERRITT,

"Commissioner of deeds for the City of New York."

[Seal.]

39

Rumors about Russell

by Lady Lee in

i am getting rather tired of all the russell scandals.

however, if there is something to find out i'm all for it.

i have a connection to one of russell's followers.

stev

Of all of these "rumors", the Rose Ball story is the only one that I suspect that there are more clues left to be discovered that will reveal what actually happened. Russell sued a Washington newspaper twice over the "jellyfish" story, which Maria claimed that Rose told her that he said, and Russell won the suit both times. I would be interested in reading what was said during the court case. And I understand Barbara Anderson is writing on the Russells, and I hope that she will have more details about this.

Maria's Rose Ball story, if true, could lead the charge of sexual harassment, minister sexual abuse, a mutual affair, or a flirtation. The implications of the story could be serious, and Maria would surely have known that, and might have surmised that this would be enough to destroy his ministry. I question her fairness then in telling the story in court and NOT making it a part of her suit. Maria about 1903, I believe, had publicly written her grievances against her, at that time, present husband, which was distributed publicly. A Bible Student on the internet had a zip file of this that I downloaded, and Maria failed to mention the Rose Ball story at that time, and I wonder how she could fail to mention this when she was willing to mention her other grievances. When she filed for suit in 1903 she did not begin her complaint in 1894 with the Rose Ball story, but in 1897. It appears that she mentioned it for the first time in court in 1906. Maria was morally outraged at her husband's wrongdoings toward her, was willing to air publicly her grievances against him as a husband to discredit his ministry. However, the most damaging piece of evidence against him and the most morally outrageous to her as a wife - his unfaithfulness to her - she neglected to mention until 12 years later in 1906, nor did she make it a part of her suit, and it was stricken from the records. To me this undermines the credibility of her story. However, Charles's story does not make sense either. I don't know who is telling the truth.

Yes, Charles admitted that Rose Ball kissed him, but he placed the event shortly after she arrived, which would have been around 1888 or 1889, when she was about 19. Then she kissed them both for several years. Maria's story occurred in 1894, when she would have been 24.

Steve

39

Rumors about Russell

by Lady Lee in

i am getting rather tired of all the russell scandals.

however, if there is something to find out i'm all for it.

i have a connection to one of russell's followers.

stev

On the pyramid in the cemetary: the quotes above do not say that Russell ordered the pyramid to be built, only that he thought a fitting symbol. Who instructed it to be built? Rutherford? There is no mention of a pyramid in Russell's funeral instructions.

On the murder story: even assuming that Russell had been poisoned before, that does not necessarily prove that he died by poisoning. How did the writer of that murder story possibly know he was murdered? He does not know who committed the crime, or there is no mention of what poison was used. There is a lack of specific details other than what can be found alfready in Menta Sturgeon's account.

On his being a drug addict: it first has to established that he took a drug that was addictive.

On his being a Mason: Russell himself said "...I have never been a Mason."

Steve

27

Was Charles Taze Russell A Drug User, Drug Abuser, or Even An Addict?

by West70 in

in his lengthy address at russell's funeral, menta sturgeon disclosed the following: .

"you know that our dear brother was so considerate of the feelings of others that he never drew much on the sympathy of the friends --so considerate was he, that but few knew that he had been a physical sufferer for thirty years.".

only a few months after sturgeon made the above disclosure at russell's funeral, this "different version" was published on page 57 of the finished mystery book: .

stev

West70 writes:

FACT: He diagnosed minor health problems and acted as drug dispenser for his ow family and other relatives. It is a reasonable assumption then, that Russell did the same for himself, which means that he self-medicated with painkillers his entire adult life.

Here is where you are making an assumption.

Steve

39

Rumors about Russell

by Lady Lee in

i am getting rather tired of all the russell scandals.

however, if there is something to find out i'm all for it.

i have a connection to one of russell's followers.

stev

If I am not mistaken, in libel and slander cases, the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof lies with the accuser to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt. I recently saw the movie "Good night, and Good Luck" It was about Edward R. Murrow. He did a TV program back in the 1950's about Senator Joe McCarthy, who was accusing people of being Communists based on innuendo and guilt by association. Murrow exposed McCarthy's tactics. Murrow wished that all be given a fair trial. Against McCarthy, he said "accusation is not proof."

In the book
"The Art of Reasoning" by David Kelley, pages 120-123, the fallacy of the ad hominem argument is discussed:
"An ad hominem argument rejects or dismisses another person's statement by attacking the person rather than the statement itself...But the goal is always to escape the responsibility of dealing with a statement logically, and the method is always to try to discredit the speaker. The ad hominem argument has the form: (X says p) + (X is a bad person)/ ---> p is false. This is a fallacy because the truth or falsity of a statement, or the strength of an argument for it, has nothing to do with the character, motives, or any other trait of the person who makes the statement or argument....In its crudest form, the fallacy involves nothing more than insults - calling one's opponent an idiot, slob, lowlife, airhead, fascist, pinko, nerd, fairy, bleeding heart, wimp, Neanderthal, and so on through the rich vocabulary of abuse our language offers. "

Steve

27

Was Charles Taze Russell A Drug User, Drug Abuser, or Even An Addict?

by West70 in

in his lengthy address at russell's funeral, menta sturgeon disclosed the following: .

"you know that our dear brother was so considerate of the feelings of others that he never drew much on the sympathy of the friends --so considerate was he, that but few knew that he had been a physical sufferer for thirty years.".

only a few months after sturgeon made the above disclosure at russell's funeral, this "different version" was published on page 57 of the finished mystery book: .

stev

Russell might have had chronic illnesses and known something about medicine. But it does not follow that all people who have chronic illnesses are drug addicts, nor that people who know something medicine, whether quackery or not, are drug addicts.

Do we know if he took any medication? If so, what? I have not seen any evidence yet. If there isn't even any evidence that he took any medication, then this is just another rumor.

Steve

27

Was Charles Taze Russell A Drug User, Drug Abuser, or Even An Addict?

by West70 in

in his lengthy address at russell's funeral, menta sturgeon disclosed the following: .

"you know that our dear brother was so considerate of the feelings of others that he never drew much on the sympathy of the friends --so considerate was he, that but few knew that he had been a physical sufferer for thirty years.".

only a few months after sturgeon made the above disclosure at russell's funeral, this "different version" was published on page 57 of the finished mystery book: .

stev

West70

Your quote left out cistitis, which is included in the quote below.

http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/Contents/history/laodicean%20messenger.htm

Though for fifty years he was a victim of sick headaches, for forty years a sufferer from cistitis, and for twenty-five years was afflicted with distressing hemorrhoids, to such an extent was this true, that often he could not rest comfortably in the easiest chair, yet he never "slackened his hand" nor abated his energies, neither did his purpose intermit.

49

Charles Taze Russell & His Secret Mission To S. California That Killed Him

by West70 in

the last 5 months of charles taze russell's life was quite hectic, and according to reports in the watch tower magazine, russell's health was declining throughout.

in september, 1916, russell went on a convention train tour which lasted nearly the entire month.

this train tour included stops in several southern california locations around the 8th through the 12th.

stev

On that California trip:

It seems unusual that Russell would return to California in October when he just been there in September. He had to travel by train, it was across the country from East Coast to West Coast, and took at least a week to get there. It looks like he had already planned to go to the Dallas Convention in October because it was mentioned in the Sept. WT, however the Oct 1 WT does not mention a trip to California, but the Nov 1 issue does. One could infer that there was unfinished business from the previous trip to Calif. for which he had to return. From Sturgeon's account, he attended to unstated business matters that were not going his way. For him to make the trip at all, the matter must have been urgent, and it can be inferred that it must have involved a large sum of money, and that he or someone lost money. It could be that this is the source of the rumor, and there are no more details than that.

On the murder conspiracy theory:

This seems to be just a rumor but nevertheless has some plausibility. The cause of death is bit of a mystery, Rutherford arrived very quickly to Brooklyn after the death, and if the "opposition" can be believed, Rutherford-Macmillan-Van Amburgh conspired and plotted together for Rutherford to take over, and bullied their way into power., and acted so quickly that they must have some advance knowledge and planning. However, Russell's health was declining, Macmillan was his assistant and could have observed him daily, Rutherford was chairman of the L.A. convention in Sept. and likely saw Russell's condition, and both of them could have concluded that he did not much longer to live. The murder conspiracy theory is not necessary to explain what happened.

Steve

49

Charles Taze Russell & His Secret Mission To S. California That Killed Him

by West70 in

the last 5 months of charles taze russell's life was quite hectic, and according to reports in the watch tower magazine, russell's health was declining throughout.

in september, 1916, russell went on a convention train tour which lasted nearly the entire month.

this train tour included stops in several southern california locations around the 8th through the 12th.

stev

Thank you for retyping this document. After reading it, I have some questions on matters that affect its credibility.

What was the original language - Polish?
What is the language of the document?
Who is the author of "Letter to Christians"?
Is it Mr. Stanley or someone else?
Who is Mr. Stanley?
If it is not Stanley who wrote the letter, how did the writer get to possess Stanley's letter?
Who were Stanley's parents?
What was the direct connection of his parents to Russell, such that they would have had access to the information about attempts to poison him?
The letter mentions three attempts at poisoning Russell. How would his parents have known about each of these attempts?
If these attempts were public knowledge among the brethren at the time, why is that there is no record shortly after his death of any suspicion that he might have been murdered?
If the attempts were not public knowledge, how were Stanley's parents privy to such knowledge?
The letter mentions attempts on Russell's life in 1907, 1910, and 1911. Were these attempts by poisoning, or some other method?

The July 1916 Watch Tower does mention a convention that month in Newport, R.I.
Menta Sturgeon does mention a public meeting in Fall River the day before Russell's last trip.
The letter lists the destinations of the train. The towns are mentioned by Menta Sturgeon, except for San Diego, which was mentioned in the Watchtower. The letter does not mention the towns intended for visiting between Los Angeles and Brooklyn - Topeka, Tulsa, and Lincoln.
The crucial incident in the letter is when the author claimed the final poisoning occurred. Yet here the letter is not certain whether it occurred in Dallas or Galveston. Menta Sturgeon stated that the meal was at the Hotel Galvez, but does not mention the city. Sturgeon said that there nine brethren there. The author of this letter could have gotten this information from Sturgeon's account.
How does the author know that Russell was poisoned there? Were his parents part of the nine brethren that poisoned him? Were they part of the plot? What evidence is there?
The author does not know the identity of the murderer(s).
Yet if the author does not know their identity, how does he know that "they plotted against him" and "organized a plot", and "persuaded him to take a trip"?
The letter stated that "The official doctor in Penhadle issued the certificate of death." Menta Sturgeon's account does not state this doctor issued the death certificate, but a reader might infer it from the account. "Penhadle" should be spelled "Penhandle." There are other spelling errors, and I don't know whether they were in the original letter or not. The letter lists possible murder suspects. There are two names that should not have even made the list: Morton and John Edgar. They did not even live in the United States, and John Edgar had been dead for several years.

My take on this: there might have been a rumor of poisoning that Stanley's parents had heard many years ago, and retold it to Stanley. Could it be that his parents had heard that Russell suffered at times from "food poisoning"? Russell suffered from indigestion constantly. This rumor could have been aided by all the secret political maneuvering that occurred short after Russell's death. Stanley then could have added the facts mentioned in Sturgeon's account of Russell's last days, and gotten a list of brethren at that time.
I do not find any evidence of poisoning.

I would be interested in seeing the rest of this letter about the divorce. Perhaps there is information that would show that the author or parents had intimate knowledge of the Russells.

Steve