If we tell a history, we should get the facts straight, and not forward a lot of imagination.
"Miracle wheat- Russell claimed"
Russell made no claims at all for Stoner's Miracle Wheat. He did present Stoner's claims, the Government report, and claims made by farmers who used Stoner's Miracle Wheat.
"that for $60 per bushel [which was very expensive!]"
And yet this was $15 per bushel LESS than what Mr. Stoner and his associates had been selling the wheat for. Russell, however, is not the one who offered the wheat for sale, nor is he the one who set the price for the wheat. All he did was place an announcement that Bohnet and others had offered the wheat for sale, and that the monies would be donated to the WTS.
"you too could buy his miracle wheat"
Russell had no wheat.
"which he claimed grew 5 times faster thatn regular wheat."
This keeps circulating, but no one has offerred any proof that anyone at all ever claimed that the Stoner's wheat would grow 5 times faster than regular wheat. I certainly have not found any such claim made by anyone. Russell himself, however, made no claims at all for the wheat.
"Government experts testified that his wheat yeilded less than regular wheat."
This is very misleading. Many farmers testified to the validity of the Stoner's claims for the wheat. Only one "goverment" witness appeared who presented alledged testimony from some unnamed "experts" who claimed that the wheat was inferior. The very fact that many newspapers carried articles showing the farmers who submitted this miracle wheat found it to be superior shows that that Stoner's claims were not false.
"Russell was sued"
Russell was not sued. Russell sued the Brooklyn Daily Eagle for libel. Since a libel suit requires evidence of intent of malice, Russell lost the suit because his evidence of malice was not permitted to be presented.
"nd found guilty and forced to return all the money."
This is out of someone's pure imagination. Russell was not found guilty of anything!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Russell voluntarily offered to return money to anyone who requested it, but not one person requested a refund.
"The Brooklyn Daily Eagle [jan 27, 1913 and Nov 1, 1916]"
For the actual facts, see:
"Lies in Studies in Scripture about his divorce."
I have not read of anything at all in Russell's "Studies in the Scriptures" about Russell's divorce. Where does one find these alleged "lies" in the Studies in the Scriptures?
"After 17 years of marriage the courts awarded Maria Frances Ackley a divorce finding Russell at fault. Russell said it was about management of his journal [Charles Taze Russell, Studies in Scripture, 1925-1927 1:1-His wife stated that the grounds for divorce included 'his conceit, egotism, domination, and improper conduct in relation to other women' author Bruce M. Metzger wrote. Russell appealled the divorce 5x, all rejected.'
At least this more truthful than the other statements made in the post I am responding to. Nevertheless, one can find all kinds of wild accusations on the internet concerning Russell's divorce. At least Metzger did not claim that Mrs. Russell accused her husband of adultery or child molestation (which she did not). Mrs. Russell, however, twisted many situations that had happened to meet the goal of endeavoring to destroy her husband's influence. (It was reported that she later stated that she regretted her testimony.) I do not know that Russell appealed the divorce 5 times; I could not verify that he appealed the divorce even one time, although I know he was brought to court around three times over the matter. Rutherford gave a history of this matter in his " Battle in the Ecclesiatical Heavens ", which gives the references to the court records. One can also find a summary of Russell's divorce in the book, "Charles Taze Russell: A Messenger of Millennial Hope."
Nevertheless, when Russell died, it is reported that Mrs. Russell laid flowers on his casket, with a ribbon attached, which stated: "To My Beloved Husband."
"Russells claims of higher learning were also suspect as he claimed to know Hebrew, Greek and Latin."
In fact, Russell never made such a claim at all; the truth is he denied that he had any formal training in any of these languages.
"He later admitted that he was never ordained after first stating that he was."
Russell admitted that he was never ordained by a self-proclaimed "orthodox" institution of whom he was being questioning him about; he was not admitting that he had never been ordained at all. In other words, he admitted that he had never been ordained as a "clergyman" (Russell did not believe in a clergy class) by any of man's self-appointed ordaining institutions that claim the orthodox right to ordain, and which institutions do not recognize the right of others to ordain. (Which gets to be confusing, because often one self-proclaimed "orthodox" denomination will not recogize the right of an institution of another self-proclaimed "orthodox" denomination to ordain) Russell did not have opportunity to explain himself in court, but he did explain later.
"He later admitted that he had only 7 years of school and dropped out at the age of 14 years old."
What this does not say is that Russell had a lot of private tutoring as well as his own self-education. By the time he starting printing the Watch Tower magazine, his secular education would probably have rivaled that of most college graduates. Additionally, he had also had about nine years of theological training, mostly from Adventist ministers, but, of course, that training in the eyes of the self-proclaimed orthodox crowd does not count; thus, in the context of being asked it had such an "orthodox" ordination by a self-proclaimed "orthodox" insitution, Russell answered "no."
"It was an Adventist named Nelson Barbour who first convinced Russell that Jesus had returned [invisibly] in 1874."
Nothing wrong with that. Russell believed until the day that he died Jesus had returned in 1874. I also believe this, but, like Russell, I would not be dogmatic so as to claim that every Christian has to believe this.
"The Watchtower itself has been distancing itself from Russell's teachings as is proved in the Awake [May 8, 1951 pg 26] 'Who is preaching the teachings of Russell? Certainly not the Jehovah's Witnesses!"
While the JW leadership often misrepresents what Russell taught, the above statement is true. The Jehovah's Witnesses preach a gospel (really of bad tidings for most of the earth's inhabitants) that is almost the opposite of what Russell proclaimed. Russell taught that every man, woman and child who has descended from Adam (and Adam himself) will benefit from the ransom sacrifice. The JWs proclaim that millions, perhaps billions, for who whom Jesus died will never receive any benefit from the ransom, almost the opposite of what Russell taught. I believe the good news as Russell believed; I do not believe the "good news" of bad tidings proclaimed by the JWs.