Rutherford Exposed: The Story of Berta and Bonnie (redux)

by Leolaia 119 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  Leolaia

  Here is an interesting mention of a biblical example of lying down with someone of the opposite sex in a situation that could be misconstrued as adultery, while at the same time denying that this biblical example could be used as a justification for indecent behavior:

  *** w32 11/15 pp. 343-344 Jehovah's House Desired ***

  Arriving at the threshing-floor in the field, and seeing Boaz asleep, Ruth came softly and uncovered his feet and lay down. Thus is pictured how those who please God "present their bodies a living sacrifice, wholly acceptable unto God, which is their reasonable service". (Rom. 12:1) There is not one word in the divine record to indicate that there was any sensual or improper desire on the part of Ruth in taking this step as she did. On the contrary, she being a young woman, it must have been a self-denial on her part to thus proceed. In any event, she was carrying out her part of the divine drama and doing what the Lord would have her do.... Without doubt the angel of the Lord was there. If Satan could have had his way at that time he would have had upon the scene some of the outwardly pious and hypocritical clergy to lift their hands in holy horror and call some officer to arrest Ruth and have her dragged before the court charged with adultery and quickly stoned to death. But it was not permitted that Satan or any of his agents should interfere with this great divine drama which God was causing to be enacted to the honor of his own great name...

  Any man who would seize upon the events of this divine drama as a justification or excuse for pursuing an indecent or immoral course would show that he has no faith in God and does not believe his Word and has no desire to obey him. There is nothing in God's Word that furnishes any excuse or justification for man or woman to do that which is immoral, improper and wrong.

  Here is a similar statement about Samson:

  *** w35 12/1 p. 362 Sustaining His Servant ***

  At Gaza Samson saw a harlot and went in unto her. That was not the only time God has used a harlot woman in making a picture of his purpose. The house of the harlot was a public establishment and was probably the only place that would receive Samson and give him lodging for the night. The fact that Samson is not reproved in his conduct shows that he was at the house of the harlot for a legitimate purpose and in harmony with God's will.... There is no evidence that Samson had sexual intercourse with the harlot or even any conference with her. The words, "And [he] went in unto her," do not necessarily mean that he had relations with her.... Regardless of what the argument may be, and regardless of how human creatures pretend to be shocked at the fact of Samson's spending a night in the house of a harlot, he was there at Jehovah's direction and therefore all presumptions must be indulged in his favor.
• 

  Leolaia

  What do you make of this statement?

  *** w29 9/1 p. 271 The Sin That Will Never Be Forgiven ***

  Yielding to the inherited or acquired weaknesses of the flesh is not the sin unto death, and yet the Devil has led everybody to believe that lying, stealing, swearing, committing adultery, getting drunk or losing one's temper, or any other of the long list of fleshly weaknesses, constitutes sin unto death. But, on the contrary, all these things are forgivable. This explains why David could be called a man after God's own heart. His heart was loyal, but his flesh was weak.

  I think this mention of King David is quite interesting....his flesh was weak but since his heart was loyal to God, he is still "a man after God's own heart", i.e. a righteous man, when all is said and done. The sins of swearing, getting drunk, and losing one's temper also has an interesting resonance with Rutherford's personality at the time. Not that this is necessarily evidence of Rutherford's situation per se, but it does take on added meaning when read in light of Berta's remark.

  There was a similar article several months earlier. In "Who Are God's Worst Enemies?", Rutherford claimed that those who commit adultery, steal, lie, or sin in other ways are often "victims of circumstances, environment, or improper education and training. Ofttimes they are hampered by fleshly weaknesses which they are powerless to resist" (15 March 1929 Watchtower, p. 93). He goes on to claim that the Bible distinguishes between sinners and wicked people. Those who are truly wicked are those who "seek to injure, oppose, misrepresent, hinder or thwart the work of Jehovah God and to slander his name"....these people are worthy of the second death and are "represensible in God's sight". Sinners, on the other hand, commit offenses like adultery but "have no desire to oppose or misrepresent God... They are sinners; but not wicked people, because their hearts are not wicked. It often happens that such people are credited with being the 'best-hearted people in the community.' They are sinners, and commit offenses because of weaknesses or because of ignorance. God pities the sinners and makes allowances for their weaknesses and their ignorance" (pp. 94-95).
• 

  quietlyleaving

  makes sense Leolaia

  There was a similar article several months earlier. In "Who Are God's Worst Enemies?", Rutherford claimed that those who commit adultery, steal, lie, or sin in other ways are often "victims of circumstances, environment, or improper education and training. Ofttimes they are hampered by fleshly weaknesses which they are powerless to resist" (15 March 1929 Watchtower, p. 93). He goes on to claim that the Bible distinguishes between sinners and wicked people. Those who are truly wicked are those who "seek to injure, oppose, misrepresent, hinder or thwart the work of Jehovah God and to slander his name"....these people are worthy of the second death and are "represensible in God's sight". Sinners, on the other hand, commit offenses like adultery but "have no desire to oppose or misrepresent God... They are sinners; but not wicked people, because their hearts are not wicked. It often happens that such people are credited with being the 'best-hearted people in the community.' They are sinners, and commit offenses because of weaknesses or because of ignorance. God pities the sinners and makes allowances for their weaknesses and their ignorance" (pp. 94-95).

  I've heard that reasoning used even today -

  fleshly weaknesses which they are powerless to resist

  I vote that such ones wear a sign warning the congregation - lol - cos I've heard such reasoning applied to pedophiles/wife batterers/child batterers who otherwise slave for the borg. Imo that just shows Rutherford's ongoing influence in the organisation. I did not know that this sort of reasoning originated with him using the bible wherein ititself justified the behaviour of men in positions of power and influence.
• 

  VM44

  Rutherford's explanation is nothing but a lot of hot air, of which he had an endless supply of.
• 

  Leolaia

  Here is a relatively new piece of information. In April 1937, former Canadian branch overseer Walter Salter wrote a letter to Rutherford criticizing him purchasing liquor with the Society's money and smuggling it from Canada, as well as calling attention to his luxurious and hypocritical lifestyle. A response to this letter appears in an article by Clayton J. Woodworth published in the 5 May 1937 Golden Age (pp. 498-504). Now Salter and Woodworth were very close associates with Rutherford, so what Woodworth says about Salter is quite noteworthy. In response to Salter's criticism of Rutherford's personal life, Woodworth alluded at length to Salter's relationship with his "ladifren" stenographer. What he says about Salter, who was married to another woman, strikingly resembles what is alleged about Rutherford:

  "....the purchase of a fur coat for his ladifren with a portion of those funds..."

  "Sometimes he spent the afternoons dictating personal letters to his ladifren stenographer."

  "At the hearing, the ladifren stenographer was so seated in the room that, as she read the letters, there was no way in which Salter could give her the wink."

  "Before being dismissed he did not engage in the service work to any extent, except when out with his ladifren at week ends."

  "His own good wife, not his ladifren, said that if she were to listen to him she would not be in the truth any time at all."

  It is pretty clear what he is insinuating. And while Woodworth here is sarcastically critical about Salter after the fact, it is clear that (as far as Woodworth was concerned) Salter had his relationship with his "ladifren" for quite some time and kept his lofty position....only after Salter "turned apostate" did his inappropriate relationship suddenly become a matter for villification. For me, the suggestion that Salter had such a relationship only raises the question of how common this was with the top officials, particularly those with female secretaries and stenographers.
• 

  Atlantis

  Leolaia:

  Many, many thanks for this Leo! This is classic stuff and a file well worth keeping! Dozen roses for all your hard work!---and a couple of brews, --

  N.
• 

  jgnat

  A very fine thread to resurrect. Thank you!
• 

  edmond dantes

  Keep hammering away at the expose, you never know what you might find under a stone.
• 

  dogisgod

  I wonder if that was my old hall. We lived in Palos Verdes and it seemed the hall was an old theatre in Long Beach. Bums peed in the entryway all the time. There was a Bro George Feliciano.
• 

  kurtbethel

  All the most accomplished screenwriters in Hollywood could never spin a tale as epic as the Russell and then later the Rutherford era.
  
  This is incredible. I would never use a story like this to question the veracity of a modern JW. The literature does an adequate job in self refutation. It is instructive to see the characters behind the genesis of the literature and doctrines, and realize that each creature reproduces after its kind.
  
  Thanks again, Leolaia.