In the thread about whether Charles Russell was gay or not, a topic was brought up that I believe deserves a new thread. As card-carrying apostates we all need to be careful about our information. Even one mistake, whether intentional or not, gives dubs the chance to jump up and say, "see those apostates lied about that thing. Therefore, nothing they say can be believed." We all know the hypocrisy in such thinking, since dubs make lying a high art form, but nonetheless, we must hold ourselves to a higher standard than they hold themselves.
In that thread Aguest said:
:made against Mr. Russell. Child molestation was... from the young charge who resided with him and Mrs. Russell. Mrs. Russell was aware of it, and separated from Mr. Russell shortly afterward, but was adamant that that was not the reason. I will not speculate on the truth of the accusation, nor Mrs. Russell's reason's for separation. She loved him... even to the end."
Then, Little Toe asked:
: "Shel:
: "I hadn't heard of that one, and would have thought that that would have been hollered from the rooftops, too. Just out of interest, how old was his charge?"
These charges of child molestation against one "Rose Ball" were brought out in the divorce trial between Chuckie and Maria in 1906. Russell allegedly said to Rose, "I am like a jellyfish. I float around here and there. I touch this one and that one, and if she responds, I take her to me, and if not, I float on to others."
Maria also testified that Rose told her that "one evening when she came home with him, just as she got into the hall, it was late in the evening, about eleven o'clock, and he put his arms around her and kissed her...and he call her his little wife, but she said, 'I am not your wife,' and he said, "I will call you daughter, and a daughter has nearly all the privileges of a wife."
Just how old was Rose Ball when these alleged things happened? That quintessential liar Grudge Rutherford said "Miss Ball came to them in 1889, a child of ten...She was an orphan." ("A Great Battle in the Ecclesiastical Heavens", page 19.) Marley Cole, a noted Watchtower stooge stated the same thing in "Jehovah's Witnesses: The New World Society", page 63. The 1975 WTS Yearbook on page 69 states, "The girl in question came to the Russell's in 1889 as an orphan about ten years old...Mrs. Russell testified that the alleged incident occurred in 1894, when this girl could not have been more than fifteen years old."
If all of these statements were true, it wouldn't be hard to believe that Russell was a child molester, or at the very least highly inappropriate towards a young girl. But are they true?
The "jellyfish" statement Russell allegedly made was stricken from the Court record by the judge. Why? Because that alleged incident occurred several years before the dates Maria charged in her complaint for divorce. This does not make the accusation false, however. It was just not allowed in the divorce testimony.
If Rose Ball was 10 years old in 1888 or 1889, she would have been 15 or 16 years old in 1894, when Russell kissed her and called her his "wife." However, in the April 25, 1894 Extra Edition of Zion's Watch Tower the name "Rose J. Ball" appears as one of the seven directors of the Watch Tower Society. Does it seem logical than a 15 years old girl would have that position?
When Maria asked Chuckie if Rose could come and live with them so she could be close to her brother, Chuckie said "If you could teach her how to take care of the correspondence, that would relived you from that for the more important parts of the work." Does it seem logical that Chuckie would want a 10 year old girl to handle correspondence for the Watch Tower Society?
On page 67 of the trial transcript of "Russell vs. Russell" Maria states that Rose "was about 19 or 20 when she came to us..." That would make Rose at least 25 years old when Russell kissed her and called her his "wife." Hardly a case for child molestation, albeit highly inappropriate for any "Faithful and Discreet" slave wannabe.
Lastly, Rose Ball was NOT an orphan as Rutherford and the WTS later claimed in the 1975 Yearbook. The divorce trial states that Russell told Rose she could take his name, yet she declined. Russell then tells us why: "She said the only reason she didn't do that she was afraid if her father heard of it he would think she had lost her respect for him."
No matter what Russell did or didn't say to Rose Ball; no matter what Russell did or didn't do to Rose Ball, he most certainly was no child molester.
Farkel
In that thread Aguest said:
:made against Mr. Russell. Child molestation was... from the young charge who resided with him and Mrs. Russell. Mrs. Russell was aware of it, and separated from Mr. Russell shortly afterward, but was adamant that that was not the reason. I will not speculate on the truth of the accusation, nor Mrs. Russell's reason's for separation. She loved him... even to the end."
Then, Little Toe asked:
: "Shel:
: "I hadn't heard of that one, and would have thought that that would have been hollered from the rooftops, too. Just out of interest, how old was his charge?"
These charges of child molestation against one "Rose Ball" were brought out in the divorce trial between Chuckie and Maria in 1906. Russell allegedly said to Rose, "I am like a jellyfish. I float around here and there. I touch this one and that one, and if she responds, I take her to me, and if not, I float on to others."
Maria also testified that Rose told her that "one evening when she came home with him, just as she got into the hall, it was late in the evening, about eleven o'clock, and he put his arms around her and kissed her...and he call her his little wife, but she said, 'I am not your wife,' and he said, "I will call you daughter, and a daughter has nearly all the privileges of a wife."
Just how old was Rose Ball when these alleged things happened? That quintessential liar Grudge Rutherford said "Miss Ball came to them in 1889, a child of ten...She was an orphan." ("A Great Battle in the Ecclesiastical Heavens", page 19.) Marley Cole, a noted Watchtower stooge stated the same thing in "Jehovah's Witnesses: The New World Society", page 63. The 1975 WTS Yearbook on page 69 states, "The girl in question came to the Russell's in 1889 as an orphan about ten years old...Mrs. Russell testified that the alleged incident occurred in 1894, when this girl could not have been more than fifteen years old."
If all of these statements were true, it wouldn't be hard to believe that Russell was a child molester, or at the very least highly inappropriate towards a young girl. But are they true?
The "jellyfish" statement Russell allegedly made was stricken from the Court record by the judge. Why? Because that alleged incident occurred several years before the dates Maria charged in her complaint for divorce. This does not make the accusation false, however. It was just not allowed in the divorce testimony.
If Rose Ball was 10 years old in 1888 or 1889, she would have been 15 or 16 years old in 1894, when Russell kissed her and called her his "wife." However, in the April 25, 1894 Extra Edition of Zion's Watch Tower the name "Rose J. Ball" appears as one of the seven directors of the Watch Tower Society. Does it seem logical than a 15 years old girl would have that position?
When Maria asked Chuckie if Rose could come and live with them so she could be close to her brother, Chuckie said "If you could teach her how to take care of the correspondence, that would relived you from that for the more important parts of the work." Does it seem logical that Chuckie would want a 10 year old girl to handle correspondence for the Watch Tower Society?
On page 67 of the trial transcript of "Russell vs. Russell" Maria states that Rose "was about 19 or 20 when she came to us..." That would make Rose at least 25 years old when Russell kissed her and called her his "wife." Hardly a case for child molestation, albeit highly inappropriate for any "Faithful and Discreet" slave wannabe.
Lastly, Rose Ball was NOT an orphan as Rutherford and the WTS later claimed in the 1975 Yearbook. The divorce trial states that Russell told Rose she could take his name, yet she declined. Russell then tells us why: "She said the only reason she didn't do that she was afraid if her father heard of it he would think she had lost her respect for him."
No matter what Russell did or didn't say to Rose Ball; no matter what Russell did or didn't do to Rose Ball, he most certainly was no child molester.
Farkel
