Thanks, I'm glad that anyone is interested enough to read this; it's certainly a lot more succinct than the original material. Those people did go on and on!
Apognophos
JoinedPosts by Apognophos
-
26
How exactly did J.F.Rutherford wrest control for himself over the Watchtower Society?
by Terry in[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:officedocumentsettings> <o:allowpng /> </o:officedocumentsettings> </xml><![endif].
[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>normal</w:view> <w:zoom>0</w:zoom> <w:trackmoves /> <w:trackformatting /> <w:punctuationkerning /> <w:validateagainstschemas /> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:saveifxmlinvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:ignoremixedcontent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext> <w:donotpromoteqf /> <w:lidthemeother>en-us</w:lidthemeother> <w:lidthemeasian>x-none</w:lidthemeasian> <w:lidthemecomplexscript>x-none</w:lidthemecomplexscript> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables /> <w:snaptogridincell /> <w:wraptextwithpunct /> <w:useasianbreakrules /> <w:dontgrowautofit /> <w:splitpgbreakandparamark /> <w:enableopentypekerning /> <w:dontflipmirrorindents /> <w:overridetablestylehps /> <w:usefelayout /> </w:compatibility> <m:mathpr> <m:mathfont m:val="cambria math" /> <m:brkbin m:val="before" /> <m:brkbinsub m:val="--" /> <m:smallfrac m:val="off" /> <m:dispdef /> <m:lmargin m:val="0" /> <m:rmargin m:val="0" /> <m:defjc m:val="centergroup" /> <m:wrapindent m:val="1440" /> <m:intlim m:val="subsup" /> <m:narylim m:val="undovr" /> </m:mathpr></w:worddocument> </xml><!
[endif][if gte mso 10]> <mce:style><!
-
-
-
6
How did Rutherford come to Power?
by Daniel1555 inin the last wt article it was said that 4 of the 7 directors rebelled against the decision to install rutherford as president in 1916. then it is said that they left in 1917; a cleansing happened indeed.. .
does anyone of you know the details how rutherford came to power?.
if 4 out of 7 are against it, that doesn't seem to me allright.
-
-
Apognophos
Wow, I didn't know there was a WP article about it. The most detail in any one thread on the board might be here: http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/230352/1/How-exactly-did-J-F-Rutherford-wrest-control-for-himself-over-the-Watchtower-Society
I've done my best to fill in some of the blanks there recently, though I freely admit to not understanding all the details. But it looks like what I've written agrees with the WP article, and my posts have some interesting details as quoted from the 1917 publications by Rutherford and his foes, for anyone who's interested in "the long story".
-
11
Could RUTHERFORD be the magic key to open blind minds?
by Muddy Waters inso, according to the new light, as presented at the agm (annual general meeting) last year in october 2012, (and being studied from the july 15/2013 wt in this month of september), whereby the faithful & discrete slave (fds) is now designated to mean the governing body only (and only when they come together as a group!!
haha, what rubbish!
) -- this is what i'm understanding:.
-
-
Apognophos
Sorry, but there's plenty of flawed men in the Bible that God used. Noah in particular had his little drinking episode. When I was a believer, the least convincing argument an apostate could bring to the table was an ad hominem one about Rutherford, especially since there's only anecdotal evidence from people who he wronged.
-
44
Who came up with the phrase TTATT? When?
by dazed but not confused inwho came up with this term and when?
is there a specific member that the credit goes to or did it just develop over time?
was it used in the beginning of this site or is it taken from another site?.
-
-
Apognophos
1999, well, that pushes it back a decent amount of time! Thanks 1009.
-
44
Who came up with the phrase TTATT? When?
by dazed but not confused inwho came up with this term and when?
is there a specific member that the credit goes to or did it just develop over time?
was it used in the beginning of this site or is it taken from another site?.
-
-
Apognophos
I don't disbelieve you, Seraphim23 , I was just being neutral and I wasn't clear on exactly where you were claiming to have said it :-) Thanks for the added info.
And nice find, 1009!
-
14
COBE's Mom Dies And "Eulogy" Was All About Praising Her And It Went For Over An Hour!
by minimus ini heard it was unlike anything ever heard in a local congregation.
they even got a bethelite to come sing the woman's praises..
-
-
Apognophos
Yes, I've seen this happen at a distinguished elder's funeral. It was nothing like the normal sales pitch outline.
-
44
Who came up with the phrase TTATT? When?
by dazed but not confused inwho came up with this term and when?
is there a specific member that the credit goes to or did it just develop over time?
was it used in the beginning of this site or is it taken from another site?.
-
-
Apognophos
It looks like, so far, AnnOMaly's 2005 reference (apparently claimed by Seraphim23) is the oldest one to the full phrase "the truth about the truth", and my reference to the JWStruggle page from 2011 is the earliest use of the acronym "TTATT".
-
26
How exactly did J.F.Rutherford wrest control for himself over the Watchtower Society?
by Terry in[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:officedocumentsettings> <o:allowpng /> </o:officedocumentsettings> </xml><![endif].
[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>normal</w:view> <w:zoom>0</w:zoom> <w:trackmoves /> <w:trackformatting /> <w:punctuationkerning /> <w:validateagainstschemas /> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:saveifxmlinvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:ignoremixedcontent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext> <w:donotpromoteqf /> <w:lidthemeother>en-us</w:lidthemeother> <w:lidthemeasian>x-none</w:lidthemeasian> <w:lidthemecomplexscript>x-none</w:lidthemecomplexscript> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables /> <w:snaptogridincell /> <w:wraptextwithpunct /> <w:useasianbreakrules /> <w:dontgrowautofit /> <w:splitpgbreakandparamark /> <w:enableopentypekerning /> <w:dontflipmirrorindents /> <w:overridetablestylehps /> <w:usefelayout /> </w:compatibility> <m:mathpr> <m:mathfont m:val="cambria math" /> <m:brkbin m:val="before" /> <m:brkbinsub m:val="--" /> <m:smallfrac m:val="off" /> <m:dispdef /> <m:lmargin m:val="0" /> <m:rmargin m:val="0" /> <m:defjc m:val="centergroup" /> <m:wrapindent m:val="1440" /> <m:intlim m:val="subsup" /> <m:narylim m:val="undovr" /> </m:mathpr></w:worddocument> </xml><!
[endif][if gte mso 10]> <mce:style><!
-
-
Apognophos
Nothing that extreme was necessary, Frazzled, because Rutherford could simply shout them down and threaten them with legal action. He was something of a bully, going from their testimony. To illustrate that, here's a bit from Johnson's testimony about his final confrontation with Rutherford. I've highlighted a part that really amused me, though it's off-topic; Johnson was certainly a character.
He shouted out, "You broke up the British Church [i.e., London Bethel! -- Apo]." I replied: "If it is broken up, before God and this family I charge you with the responsibility." Then still more angry he shouted, "Bro. Johnson stole $1500.00." I replied "that is a false statement, and you know it is." Still more wrathful he ordered me to leave Bethel on pain of legal proceedings. I replied that I had appealed to the Board from that decision; and that since I recognized the Board as in control, and, in the case of an appeal, as having the right to decide the question, I awaited its decision; that if it ordered me to leave, I would do so at once. At this he completely lost self-control. To enforce his order he rushed at me crying out "you leave this house." Grabbing me by the arm, he almost jerked me off my feet. So violently did he squeeze my arm that, if it were not quite muscular, I feel sure, he would have made black and blue marks on it. I called the family’s attention to the fact that he exercised physical violence on my person. Bro. Macmillan, springing to his side, took his hand off my arm. [...] I declined to leave because of my appeal to the Board. Thinking that he would fulfill his threat, and not desiring my things put out in confusion, I packed up. Later Bro. Macmillan, on my still refusing to leave, said, "You will either leave, or by night you will be bruised or be in jail."
Besides the physical manhandling of the "quite muscular" Johnson, here was something I meant to mention earlier that was left out of Terry's summary. Rutherford had a vote held to make the office of the President as powerful as it had been under Russell, shortly before JFR himself was voted President. Johnson writes:
I learned that Bros. Rutherford, Van Amburgh and Macmillan conspired to gain for Bro. Rutherford Bro. Russell’s full power and authority in the work and business of the Society. They began this conspiracy before the election. They prearranged every detail of the voting shareholders’ meeting Jan. 6. At Brooklyn Bro. Rutherford prepared and Bro. Van Amburgh approved the resolutions that among other things were to secure for the President executive and managerial authority. These Bro. Van Amburgh gave Bro. Margeson, (this I state on the latter’s authority), the chairman of the Resolutions Committee, for which they also arranged, . A week before the election Bro. Rutherford furnished a brother with an account of the proceedings of the voting shareholders’ meeting for publication in the press of the country, telling of his election by the Secretary casting the ballot of the convention and of the unanimity of his election, and giving some of his speech of acceptance. The Editor of the New York Herald commented on the prophetic gifts of "those Bethel people" in being able to foretell just what would happen at the election! In this account Bro. Rutherford failed to state that by his prearrangement the nominations were so closed, that there could be no other Presidential candidates for whom thousands of voting shares were instructed, and that he prepared the resolution recommending that he be made Executive and Manager. No political convention was ever more completely or more smoothly "bossed" than the voting shareholders’ meeting Jan. 6. Certainly the remark that Bro. Rutherford made to me in July, when he explained how he arranged for the election of Bro. Hirsh to the Board, applies to the proceedings of the Jan. 6 meeting. "Of course, Bro. Johnson, you know all things of that character are arranged beforehand, just like matters connected with a political convention!"
This sounds like something that Rutherford would say, given that he had experience with political campaigning, as explained here: http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/scandals/112796/1/Rutherford-and-William-Jennings-Bryan
To flesh things out, here's how Rutherford's plan was outlined by the ousted board members:
(1) That during the lifetime of Brother Russell, he exercised complete control and management of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, and all of its affairs, for the reason that he created the Society with his own money and intellect under the special guidance of the Lord’s spirit, which he possessed in large measure.
(2) That as he looked forward to his death, it was not his thought that he would have a successor in this special office, but rather that the Board of seven Directors should "come to the front" and be his successor, and exercise complete management of the Society and its affairs.
(3) That the Charter of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, written by Brother Russell, stated in plain terms the form of government by which the Society was to be governed. This, he declared, was intended to apply especially after his death.
(4) That at his death, Brother Russell left a will (see "Watch Tower," December 1, 1916), in which he explains why be had control of the Society during his lifetime and the manner in which he desired the affairs to be continued after his death.
(5) That Brother Russell had not been dead more than a few days when his Will was declared to be illegal and, therefore, not binding, and that its provisions need not be observed by those who took charge, thus beginning the real murmuring against Brother Russell’s arrangements, which has continued ever since.
(6) That Brother Rutherford, being well assured in advance that he would be elected President of the Society, drew up some by-laws before his election, which were taken to the shareholders’ meeting at Pittsburgh, January 6, and placed in the hands of a committee of three brethren, with the instruction that they suggest before the shareholders’ meeting that these by-laws be adopted by the Society for the government of its affairs.
(7) That these by-laws, prepared by Brother Rutherford, expressly stated that the President should be the executive and manager of the Society and that he should have full charge of all its affairs, both in foreign lands and in America.
Ultimately, though, the reason Rutherford was able to pull this off despite being opposed by the majority of the board was that he was able to prove that the four board members who coincidentally opposed him were also not legally board members. Terry explained this above, but notice what JFR himself wrote:
Having in mind the experiences of the meeting of the Board held on the 20th day of June, and seeing that these brethren were showing a bad spirit, I saw it was necessary for to disclose what I had known since January, 1910, but which no one else except Brother Russell knew, so far as my knowledge goes or had occasion to find out.
What he knew, and had verified by an outside attorney, was that three of the four board members were elected over a year ago and according to Penn. law, their terms had expired. The fourth member was elected in the last year, but at a meeting held in Brooklyn, NY, and the election was done by the existing board members, not the shareholders. The attorney explained:
The right to fill the vacancy at that time rested with the President and the act of the Board, so called, was a usurpation of the authority of the President, and in direct conflict with the charter, and for that reason, of no avail. An additional reason why that the election of Hirsh was wholly illegal, is that the meeting was held in the State of New York, while the charter provides that the meetings shall be held in the City of Allegheny, Pennsylvania. His election to the Board was wholly extra-territorial and for that additional reason, absolutely and indisputably illegal and void. [...]
As to who are the legal representatives of the Society, it is apparent that Messrs. Rutherford, Pierson, and Van Amburgh are the only persons who are qualified to act as such. They were elected to office at the annual meeting of the Society's members or shareholders on the 6th day of January 1917, in pursuance to a vote of the shareholders legally present and represented in Allegheny, Penna.
Rutherford then had four replacement board members installed, who sided with him. JFR explained that the lawyer had advised him that...
[...]neither Wright, Ritchie, Hirsh nor Hoskins were legal members of the Board of Directors and that the President had the right to appoint four members. The directors of the corporation should have been elected at Pittsburgh at the annual election in January.
So, in short, Rutherford allowed an election to take place knowing it wouldn't hold up legally. Pretty clever, eh? He outmaneuvered his foes at every turn because he knew all the legal ins and outs of the Society's affairs. Russell must have been spinning in his grave. He even admits that he arranged some of this in advance:
Naturally, you will ask, Why, then, did you not give such advice at this election? My reply is that I had known this condition since 1909 [He said 1910 above, but okay. -Apo]; but had I so stated at Pittsburgh in January, I would have laid myself open to the criticism that I was at once beginning to upset the course taken by Brother Russell, and subsequent criticism by certain brethren proves that my conclusion in that respect was right.
The Ousted Four likewise wrote:
The friends did not know that they could have elected a new Board of Directors and could then have elected a President and Treasurer from the new Directors. Brother Rutherford knew, but did not tell them. He states in his "Harvest Siftings" that he did not wish to disturb the friends.
Having taken more time to consider all these details since making my previous post, I have to therefore withdraw my statement that the ousted board members should have fought him legally. They never stood a chance against the ol' Judge. I'll let P.S.L. Johnson conclude this post:
In explanation of this mental attitude I desire to quote a remark made of him by one of his best friends in the Truth, who knows him thoroughly: "There are two Rutherfords. Bro. Rutherford whom I dearly love, and Lawyer Rutherford of whom I cannot approve."
----------
All quotes from Harvest Siftings, Harvest Siftings Reviewed, and Light After Darkness, all from 1917.
-
88
If the big change at the AGM meeting is dropping the literal 144,000...
by slimboyfat inthe best conjecture seems to be that the gb are going to drop the literal 144,000 teaching, especially in view of the december watchtower that pointedly does not mention the 144,000 number.
if they are dropping the literal 144,000 number, but still claim that only a small number are anointed, and can partake, and that only a few are left on earth, then it is fair to ask what has really changed?
they are simply clearing up the embarrassing situation that there were obviously more than 144,000 "anointed" believers from 36 ad until now, and that the number of partakers has been increasing in recent years.
-
-
Apognophos
Plasma fractions were allowed in 1958.
Technically some JWs have been taking in fractions a lot longer than that. You'll recall that at the Last SupperFirst Annual Memorial, Jesus told his apostles and Judas Iscariot, who was half out the door, to drink, for "this means my blood fractions mixed with water". Oops, that was from my Revised New World Translation advance copy, pretend you didn't see that.
-
-
-
Apognophos
Well they can't seal themselves off forever, not in the face of better education and unprecedented access to information right in your own home.
They can try, though. Cue the new light about homeschooling all JW kids despite the fact that this might not make sense from a "strategic or human standpoint". As far as information access in the home, they already have instructions to place the PC in an open family area to make sure kids can be monitored (not an entirely bad idea, frankly, as long as it's for the right reasons and not for WT information control).