Charles Taze Russel's story....................  guilty !

I forgot to respond to that question. Mrs Russell wrote "The Twain One" shortly after this incident. She took seriously the idea that "what God has yoked together, let no man put apart." I think she felt that divorce was extremely serious and that a charge of adultery should therefore be provable beyond a doubt, if made. I believe it is clear that her own opinion and the opinion of the courts, (then and now), was that even if a married person had fondled and kissed a 14 or 15 year year old girl, that this was not adultery in any legal sense. I do believe, however, that Mrs Russell mentioned this behaviour because she had come to see it as a Biblical equivalent of adultery, and if she wanted her separation to be validated Scripturally, she had to mention it.   

As an aside, long-time elders here may remember that throughout most of 1972 when the Watchtower held the absurd opinion that a wife could not get a divorce on the grounds of her husband's homosexuality or bestiality. That stance was changed within 11 months, when the backlash/outcry/letters to the Society quickly broadened the Watchtower's definition of the Greek word "porneia." 

Gamaliel

 

I see what you are getting at. As a person with a legal background though....I have to say that Mrs. Russell's testimony is merely hearsay. Where is the girl now? Has she ever accused him with her own mouth? I'll be patient and wait for your evidence. I do think that it may be good for some here to read, as you stated. I think that if you'd entitled the thread w/ Russell's name in it, you'd have a better chance of them reading it.

It's pretty coincidental to think that Russell  just may have started the child molestation ball rolling......isn't it? dj

Celia,

That's what is claimed and repeated in several places. The primary reference is usually considered to be the 7/1/06 Z WT. Russell used the WT to print an excellent defense of himself, where he included several letters which supported himself or his contentions. One letter in that issue from an old brother to CJ Woodworth said: 

Interestingly, it was used at least partially as a defense against the charge of child molestation. (In addition to making Russell look like a saintly martyr.)

The same letter to Woodworth as published here by Russell, curiously shows Russell had followers who believed that even if he was guilty, it wasn't all that bad: David was 1000 times worse and Russell's great monumental work would still live on to overcome public outcry and the subsequent lapse of Russell's influence:

Russell went on to explain (in the 1906 ZWT) that the celibacy agreement was mutually accepted with Mrs. Russell:

For years I have heard JW friends suggest that Russell was merely impotent, which might explain why this was more often treated as a "delicate" matter.

I need to make a correction: In my first post of the thread, and in my explanation of what Mrs. Russell accused him of,  I was oversimplifying the story and did not mention that the person Mrs. Russell caught Mr. Russell with behind a locked door was not Rose, but a house-servant named Emily. In each of the girls' cases Russell published the probable explanation that he was merely handling his duties as house "doctor" and needed some quiet in the room to hear Emily tell him what was wrong with her. (Russell had also suggested that the supposed hand-holding at Rose's bedside was explained by him taking her pulse when she was sick.)

Russell in 1906 claims that Mrs. Russell had already threatened to use the locked door story as a kind of "blackmail" way back in 1897 (to try to get herself more editorial power in the WT magazine). Russell's explanation of Rose sitting on his lap and kissing him also contains an embedded swipe at Mrs Russell. He says that he had found Rose sobbing and sat her on his lap to ask her about it, whereupon Rose explained that Mrs Russell was overworking her and making her feel badly. Mr. Russell said he explained that Mrs Russell surely meant no harm, whereupon Rose kissed him. Subtly, Russell explains that he felt at fault for not having noticed this problem as a better "father" would have and explains that she was treated more like she was "adopted" after this incident.

Perhaps someone knows what rumors and falsehoods Mrs Russell had supposedly been saving money (since 1898?) to finally publish in 1903 when most of the brethren rejected her charges, "characterizing the request as mean, despicable, insulting to their manhood." What I'm getting at is that Russell claims on one hand to (generally) have not heard of these charges in 1906, but admits on the other hand to at least obliquely knowing of many slanders as far back as 1897 and implies that such slanders might have been included in Mrs. Russell's 1903 pamphlet or even much earlier in the 1898 "campaign" about which Russell says:

Russell admits to making great efforts to control her from visiting her own relatives, and from allowing her access to financial support, but he finally gives her a house with potential rental income in exchange for silence.

I don't mean to read only negative ideas against Russell into this old situation. I know this is boring to most of us; but I'm mostly trying to walk through my own feelings on it to see if something might have been missed.

Gamaliel

G:

au contraire, but how I love a man that does his homework!

I'm currently working my way through the RAI 30s CDs, a "refresher" course on Ruthy's venomous animosity. Talk about self-torture LOL

I generally have a positive feeling about Russell, primarily because of his ecumenical attitude. However, his marital and family background certainly leaves room for speculation.

Craig

 

Francois,

Sorry about that. It never was a good idea for me to use Billy Graham's name like this. It's just that if you start out a thread with Russell, most of us know enough of the story to have already formed opinions -- strong ones, too. I picked Graham, because he seems to have gained an international reputation much like Russell's was, but one that's still intact, in spite of that recent exposure of a secret recording.

I think that if I heard a story with similar evidence about Graham 10 years ago, I might not have believed it. These days, however, we've all learned a little more about paedophilia and the relationship to positions of power and trust. I would have once thought that it's a perversion that no JW elder could have kept hidden, that no child would have ever allowed it to remain hidden. But now I realize it's part of a much bigger problem that defies rational expectations about the ability of victims to expose it. Among JWs and other religions the factors of control, fear, guilt, sin (and the Bible's two-witness rule) are likely making their problem worse than in the general population, making exposure even more complicated and difficult.

Apologies again,

Gamaliel

AlanF,

I have a xerox of the court documents and it's true that the age recorded is as you say. But I see it (as Magnani does also) that it could likely to be a typo. It wasn't in a portion of the records that was to have any bearing on the case and could easily have been glossed over, rendered moot, or stipulated by the attorneys. My documents don't show that Emily was sworn in, does anyone know her age? 

If not a typo, it makes for an even more curious/interesting story about why Russell chose to add the details that no one knew her age exactly, only that she was still wearing short dresses (as young girls did) and that Russell says he became more conscious of his wife's potential jealousies when she was ready to wear long dresses. I have merely gathered that these extra details and the context made a typo seem likely.

Who killed Rose's brother? Does anyone know how Rose Ball's brother died?. He was ostensibly of about the same age, and was also with the Russell's for a time. Russell indicated that he died before 1894, and that this was a factor in the "comforting" that Rose needed. (If this were a movie, I know what Oliver Stone would do with that little detail.)

Funny how the yearbook in 1975 pretty much uses the argument: 'Well it's obvious Russell didn't do anything immoral, after all, Rose couldn't have been more than 15 years old at the time.' Today, I think they'd think twice about that argument. They might prefer the older age considering recent media exposure.

Perhaps someone has already looked through Allegheny's local papers for the years in question. Also curious about the "slander" in the paper Inter-Ocean Daily around April 1906. Does anyone have it? 

Gamaliel

Hi Gamaliel,

Barbara Anderson somehow found Rose Ball's birth certificate, I believe, so that's how she knows how old Rose was when Russell was fooling around with her. I'll contact you privately with more info.

Hi DJ,

: Is there any info about when it will be released?

No. It's not likely to be seen in less than a couple of years. Four or five is my best guess.

AlanF