Rutherford's 1913 Convetnion Speech - A Coverup?

by VM44 31 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  VM44

  In the January 1, 1914 Watchtower this letter from Rutherford was published. In the letter he essentially denies the written record of the discourse he gave at the 1913 Springfield Convention.

  Notice how Rutherford tries to discredit the written record of his talk. He never actually says that it was inaccurate, but he does try to cast doubt upon it.

  What did Rutherford say at that 1913 Convention that he didn't want published for the record?

  Does anyone have a copy of that Convention Report?

  --VM44

  WITHOUT HIS CONSENT

  DEAR BROTHER RUSSELL:--

  A copy of 1913 "Convention Report" has just come to my attention. It contains what purports to be a report of a discourse delivered by me at the Springfield Convention.

  I have not the disposition nor the power to control the actions of others in the publication of what I say at Conventions; but I would like to have the friends know that such publication is without my consent. A stenographic report of the above mentioned discourse was handed me at Springfield, but I declined to read it, not wishing to have anything to do with its publication.

  Yours in His service, J. F. RUTHERFORD.
• 

  Gill

  'Declining to read' things seems to have started quite early in the history of the WTBTS. Pretend it wasn't said and didn't happen, and don't read anything that might make the Society look bad....Where have I heard that before?
• 

  badboy

  WHAT EXACTLY DID HE SAY?
• 

  fullofdoubtnow

  We might have known that cover - ups have been the way of things in the wts all the time they've been around. They have it down to a fine art nowadays.
• 

  VM44

  WHAT EXACTLY DID HE SAY?

  That is what I want to know. Whatever it was, Rutherford did not want it in print!

  --VM44
• 

  Jim_TX

  I guess I don't understand...
  
  "A stenographic report of the above mentioned discourse was handed me at Springfield, but I declined to read it, not wishing to have anything to do with its publication."
  
  This sounds like he was handed an outline to read from the podium, and he refused to do so - probably going off on his own tangent instead of reading from a manuscript. It then sounds like the manuscript got printed as what he said - which he didn't, according to this letter.
  
  Am I missing something?
  
  Regards,
  
  Jim TX
• 

  VM44

  Hi Jim,

  My understanding is that the stenograph report was taken down as Rutherford gave the speech, a transcription of what he actually said at the convention.

  Perhaps Rutherford said things while speaking at the convention that he later wished he had not, hence his desire that the stenographic record of his discourse not be published.

  --VM44
• 

  greendawn

  It sounds dodgy, he doesn't want the things he said to be published it sounds like evasive behaviour. It would be interesting to know what he said that apparently incurred Russell's displeasure or suspicion.
• 

  VM44

  If Rutherford had altered the published transcript, then people who had heard him speak would know that that was not what he truly said. If he said it was accurate, then he would be admitting whatever he said that he had wished he had not said. So he had to think of some way to discredit the published version without actually saying anything one way or another as to how accurate it was.

  Rutherford found a clever way to non-endorse the published transcript of his discourse without saying anything at all whether it was an accurate version of what he had said at the convention

  Perhaps it was Rutherford's lawyer training that led him to neither confirming or denying the printed materal. Whatever the case might have been, one thing is obvious, the published letter was Rutherford's attempt to distance himself from whatever words he had spoken.

  --VM44
• 

  badboy

  it has been suggested that it had something to do with a speech that Russell made about war.