Hello Earnest,
: My own view is that Jehovah has always used people who were at the right place at the right time to accomplish his purpose and this is equally true of JWs and other movements in modern times.
Interesting, and I understand your view completely. My own view is that people who want to believe in a God that is controlling things generally ascribe far more than is advisable to the workings of their God.
: I found especially interesting your argument that Rutherford has shaped and continues to shape the WTS. It is certainly true that there seems to be a lack of the vision that existed in the past and this may be because "men of vision were weeded out" or it may simply be that we live in different times...it is difficult to think of any leaders with vision since JFK (except Mandela).
A good point about political leaders. However, the men ruling the WTS today are of the same generation as some of the great political leaders of the 20th century. They were trained by the previous generation -- in particular, Rutherford. Because Rutherford brooked no dissent, and according to the 1961 JW book Let Your Name Be Sanctified there was an explicit "passing of the mantle" of power just before Rutherford died from him to Knorr and Franz, the latter two men inherited Rutherford's intolerance. This intolerance of variant opinions has especially characterized the JW organization since the 1940s, and has been particularly evident since 1980. Various people I've talked to who have left Bethel over the years are unanimous that the men who today run the everyday business of the Society are purely yes-men. The older Governing Body men were Rutherford's and Franz's and Knorr's yes-men at one time, but enough time has passed that they march to their own drummers somewhat, but still mainly act in line with their training. The younger GB men largely just bow down to the older, so far as I've been informed. So these days we have almost exclusively either ancient and intellectually ossified GB members, or GB members largely subservient to the older guys, or non-anointed who actually run the day-to-day business of the Society but have been stripped of vision and imagination by long years of subservience to "God's anointed" and have been stripped of conscience by their constantly having to implement decisions they know are morally wrong. These latter men can only react to new situations, rather than anticipating them. That is why the JW organization today is almost purely reactive in character -- it reacts to outside events rather than anticipating them. This situation, probably more than anything else, proves that the JW organization is no more divinely directed than The Rolling Stones are. And showing that is one of my main purposes in posting on forums like this.
: But while I have read allegations about Rutherford's problems with alcohol this is the first I've heard of adultery. I do not dismiss it entirely without considering the evidence but I would have thought his critics would have publicised it at the time if it was known, just as they publicised innuendos at Russell's divorce case. I respect the argumentation and documentation you provide in your contributions but I think in this instance you have detracted from your main argument (which is sound) with hyperbole (which is not).
Again I understand exactly what you're saying. However, I'm faced with the problem of what to do with the information I've been given about Rutherford's adultery. Because I've received it in private conversations, as I've written, I cannot document it. Should I then forget it? Some people might, but I think that posting the allegations for public consumption can be valuable in that it might strike home with the right person who can provide better documentation. Until then, the best I can do is to relay the information I've been given and let readers decide for themselves whether my sources are credible or not.
Do keep in mind that every reader is free to check with the Watchtower Society about any and all of these things. If the Society believes that certain allegations are false, they can say so and the inquirer can ask for their reasons for saying so. Obviously the contrary holds true. The interesting scenario would be for a relatively loyal JW to call Bethel and see if he or she can get a straight answer from Bethel about these allegations. My guess is that the allegations would not be explicitly denied, but that all sorts of excuses as to why the questioner ought to quit questioning would be given. Thus no clear, public answer would be given, although "Bethel insiders" would certainly know the truth.
As for specific allegations of Rutherford's adultery, as I have posted, forthcoming books will give much better documentation than I can, for reasons I've explained earlier in this thread. I suspect that part of the reason these allegations were not given publicity long ago is that they are so sordid by the standards of the time (the late 1920s) that the Bible Students who left Rutherford's organization at the time preferred to let the matter rest and go on with their own business. Those who left in the late 1920s, such as the Buffalo, New York, Bible Students group, were not nearly as aggressive in publicizing their views as were earlier splinter groups. Remember that today the various Bible Students and related groups are not exactly well known.
Given the above, I don't think that my comments about Rutherford's excesses are hyperbole at all, but are simply a relaying of information from various sources that I find credible. The reader is free to make his own decision and to criticize my sources, which various posters have done.
At any rate, I'm glad that we agree on my main thesis.
FYI, since a good deal of what I've stated in this thread is based on conversations I've had with many people for a decade, by its very nature it isn't documentable. Some of the people are unwilling to speak publicly for fear of retribution from the Society, some no longer care enough to make the effort, and some I've lost track of.
AlanF
