Dear Listener,
You misapprehend the nature of what you read. We do not
write either a polemic or defense of the Watch Tower. We write history based on
the original documents. What you read is a partial of a much larger work, not
even a complete chapter. We deal with Russell’s predictive failure elsewhere.
For instance in volume one of Separate Identity we included a chapter entitled
Aftermath of Failure. That chapter discusses the 1878 failure. We have another
that will appear in volume two [the extract you read is part of vol. 2] that
discusses Russellite expectations for 1881.
You ask about the Gospel Age, calling it “up-coming.” Our
text makes it clear that in Russell’s dispensationalist view it was ending. He
thought it would end at or near 1914. We deal with that in another chapter.
Do we have proof that the tracts were primarily paid for by
Russell? Yes, we do, and we include a chapter [vol. 2, nearing completion]
entitled Organizing and Financing the Work. Put briefly, in the 1880s
Russell’s readers were relatively poor due to a series of post-Civil War recessions
and depressions. We have some pages from the Watch Tower ledger, sent to us by
someone connected to the Watchtower’s writing department and by the Watchtower
itself. Most of these list expenses. One lists the major contributors by name
and amount. Russell leads the list by far. We include the full text of that
page in a later chapter. Additionally, over his lifetime Russell contributed a
quarter million dollars to the WTS. WT ‘shares’ were issued if requested for
each ten dollars in contributions. The number of Russell’s shares reveals the
amount he contributed. He was majority share-holder until his death, and outstanding
shares did not pass his in number until near his death.
Court testimony (Russell v. Russell and Russell v. Brooklyn
Eagle] shows that Society publications were sold at a loss or simply given
away. The partial chapter you read concentrates on the years 1879-1886. All
publications were given away free except for a few remaining copies of Object
and Manner which were available in large lots for ten cents. Colporteurs got
everything for free, keeping money from subscriptions obtained to defray
expenses. In this period there were no “more substantial publications.” Money for Paton’s Day Dawn went to Paton and
A. D. Jones, his publisher; not to Russell. Russell paid for copies and gave
them away at no cost to those who would circulate them. This was at a financial
loss to Russell.
He offered a few Bibles and concordances at a break-even
discount. From 1881 when Zion’s Watch Tower Tract Society was founded until
1887, the cut off year for Separate Identity, our book, the Society was deeply
in debt. A donation of Florida lands by the Russells reduced the debt but did
not put the Society in the black.
You write: “It is possible that what was printed ... about
the funding at that time was deceptive.” Historians shouldn’t speculate. And
that’s what this is. Ethically, we can’t make things up. We must be guided by
available documentation – by that I mean original material, not secondary
sources – unless there is a compelling reason to reject the original claims. If
you can find proof that the WTS financial statements are deceptive, we will
happily include it in this chapter. But ‘proof’ isn’t speculation; it is
something in a trustworthy contemporary document.
In the period on which we concentrate [to 1887] ZWT operated
at a loss. Later when forced to open the books in the two court cases I
mentioned earlier, it was demonstrated that even Studies in the Scriptures
circulated at a net loss. The books did not pay their way.
By message of “fear,” Russell meant Hell-Fire doctrine. We
should clarify that. You wrote: “This doesn’t mean there was no fear being
taught through his doctrine.” You mistake current Watchtower practice with
Russell era practice. Your statement exemplifies a common logic fault. You
presume something was true because you want it to be true. At this point you
give us unfounded speculation. Speculation drives research, but alone it is
unsound. If you can find in something Russell wrote some form of fear
mongering, point me to it. We’ll happily use it in the next volume of Separate
Identity.
Simply because the narrowly focused extract from this
chapter leads to a conclusion differing from a commonly expressed opposition
narrative is no reason to call us biased. We present in footnotes our sources.
You have no sources except personal opinion. “Could be” and speculation are not
a refutation. Evidence from original sources would be.
https://www.amazon.com/Separate-Identity-Organizational-Readers-1870-1887/dp/1304969401