by Leolaia 198 Replies latest watchtower scandals
And people wonder why and when did the forcibly strong excommunicating DFing of this
religious organization originated from.
Take one paranoid strong willed arrogant asshole power player ( Rutherford ), willing to
quickly dispose of any dissenters around him and Wallah.
Again what better way to enforce his power and control over the subservient flock !
Sorry this PS is added a bit late, but regarding Russell's disfellowshiping,
Rutherford-style, of Maria (see earlier post suggesting it's a precursor to all
this): wouldn't Russell by that stage in his life have taken counsel from Ruther-
ford on how to handle his divorce?
wouldn't Russell by that stage in his life have taken counsel from Rutherford on how to handle his divorce ?
Most likely since Russell used him on making other financial decisions concerning the operations of WTS.
It was said or read somewhere that during his separation from Maria, Russell dump just about all of his financial assets into the WTS Corporation
so to make him look personally cash poor.
One could very well assume that it was Rutherford who made the initial advise toward Russell.
Ah lawyers and religious charlatans, what a mixing blend they make !
That, but I also mean the instruction for people not to even say "Good morning"
to her because she was so mentally ill she was under the influence of wickedness
and her word wasn't reliable (similar to the recent UK Watch Tower controversy,
too), and making a public case of his own unquestionable virtue, seem to have the
same Rutherford touch shown later.
Some significant highlights in Charles' divorce from Maria Frances Ackley Rus-
sell:
- the marriage was an 18 year celibate marriage based on a mutual commitment
to writing the literature that Russell put out. She played a significant role
in the success of his business as a contributor and associate editor.
- She quoted him as claiming to be adulterous, which he denied, and she didn't
pursue the charge.
http://www.sixscreensofthewatchtower.com/roseballtranscript.html
- Charles said he disapproved of her becoming a supporter of women's rights,
overly-ambitious, and said she had Satanic mental illness to the degree that her
word wasn't reliable.
1911: "And even outside of the Scriptural question, in human affairs, we
seen no way in which a woman's interests are endangered, because every woman
is either a sister of a man or the mother of a man or the daughter of a man.
Hence the two sexes are so intimately related that it is unnecessary, for in-
stance, that the whole family should go to the polls to vote, but the family
is represented by the man and thus all have share in whatever shall be done
in a city or town or country.
"If this were otherwise we could imagine a very unsatisfactory condition
indeed. It would imply that man had lost one of the very prerogatives which
is an element of manhood. On the other hand, it would imply a dereliction
on the part of the woman. The Apostle reminds us of a woman's sphere. And
any mother whose son does not respect her should keep very quiet. She has
that child during all the years of infancy and youth. And if in all those
years she does not command respect from that child, she is to blame.
"We believe that if women would get the proper focus on this matter there
would be an end to woman-suffrage. They would feel that they had a duty at
home. There are exceptions to every rule. But Christian parents have said
to us, If I had known the Truth sooner, I would have known how to be a better
father, a better mother; but I was not taught anything as to the responsi-
bilities upon me as a parent and what was meant by the proper training of a
child." "Watchtower Reprints," Jan.15, 1911, p.4749
His lengthy defense of himself in the matter, which reads like one of his
Watch Tower articles meant to explain the reasonableness of seeing him as a
saint and any critics as slanderous enemies yet not let on a glimmer of why the
reader should think they had any reason to criticize (gee, I wonder how this
marriage broke up?), is at the next link:
http://www.biblestudents.com/htdbv5/r3808.htm
- He wrote advising others that it would be improper to say things like "Good
morning" to her (a precursor to current JWs leaders' shunning rules).
In a letter of July 9, 1896, Russell wrote: "To avoid misunderstanding, let me
say, under the circumstances it properly devolves upon you to make the advances
on the line of social amenities between us. It would be improper for me to take
the initiative in the matter of amenities such as, 'good morning,' 'good night,
'etc." (Exhibit 2, Superior Court)
Reviewing the evidence, Justice Orlady ruled in Mrs. Russell's favor with
barely concealed anger:
"The indignities offered to [Mrs. Russell] in treating her as a menial
in the presence of servants, intimating that she was of unsound mind and
that she was under the influence of wicked and designing persons, fully
warranted her withdrawal from his house, and fully justified her fear
that he intended to further humiliate her, by a threat to resort to legal
proceedings to test her sanity. There is not a syllable in the testimony
to justify his repeated aspersions on her character and her mental condi-
tion, nor does he intimate in any way that there was any difference be-
tween them other than that she did not agree with him in his views of
life and methods of conducting business. He says himself that she is a
woman of high intellectual qualities and perfect moral character. While
he denied in a general way that he attempted to belittle his wife as she
claimed, the general effect of his own testimony is a strong confirmation
of her allegations.
"In an analysis of the testimony it is quite difficult to understand
the view of the respondent in regard to his duty as a husband to his
wife. From his standpoint he doubtless felt that his rights as a husband
were radically different from the standard imposed upon him by the law,
and recognized by all the courts of this country.... His course of con-
duct toward his wife evidenced such insistent egotism and extravagant
self-praise that it would be manifest to the jury that his conduct toward
her was one of continual arrogant domination that would necessarily render
the life of any sensitive Christian woman a burden and make her conditions
intolerable." (Records of the Pennsylvania Superior Court, Vol. 37, page 348
[1908])
http://books.google.com/books?id=iTt2EphfPr8C&lpg=PA17&ots=4E-eSY-gM1&dq=in%20the%20presence%20of%20servants%2C%20intimating%20that%20she%20was%20of%20unsound%20mind%20and&pg=PA17#v=onepage&q=in%20the%20presence%20of%20servants,%20intimating%20that%20she%20was%20of%20unsound%20mind%20and&f=false
http://associate.com/library/The_Reading_Room/False_Teaching_n_Teachers_3/Questions_for_Jehovahs_Witness.shtml
http://www.preachtheword.com/sermon/cults01.shtml
- She sought a limited divorce on the grounds of mental cruelty because it
brought support, and she was granted a divorce from bed and board--a legal sep-
aration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Taze_Russell#Marriage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_separation#A_mensa_et_thoro
Although Charles' plea for sainthood, at a link above, somehow overlooked
this, the court decided Charles falsified events--the dispute over editorship
began after the couple had separated, Maria didn't seem mentally ill, etc.--and
decided in her favor over the divorce, including about her claims about his
cruelty, such as in using slander to have their friends shun her.
Maria testified that though she was Secretary and Treasurer of the Watch Tower
Society, she was never allowed to look at the Society's financial records--only
Charles saw them. Unknown to her, his business involvements included the Bra-
zilian Turpetine Company, Pittsburgh Asphaltum Company, Silica Brick Company,
and Pittsburgh Kaolin Coke Company.
In court, Charles denied knowing about the Salon company or that it was organ-
ized in the Watch Tower building and run by three girls there. All three--Alice
Land, Gabrielle Logan and Laura Whitehouse--testified that Russell himself ap-
proached them and asked if they would allow their names to be used to create a
company--Logan, Land & Whitehouse--for the purpose of purchasing goods at whole-
sale prices from manufacturers for an association called the Solon Company or
association, and Mr. Russell was their representative.
Charles then told the court he remembered suggesting the idea to the ladies
and that Mr.John G. Koehne, of Cleveland, Ohio, and Mr. Clayton J. Woodworth, of
Scranton, Pa., were the two principals who transacted the business. (Clayton
shows up a lot in JWs history and "..."GTA Brooklyn.") (Thanks to Farkel for
the research at the next link.)
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/scandals/77218/1/Russell-the-Man
The article at the next link explains a bit about most of the Watch Tower
money going into the United States Investment Co. and the United Cemeteries Cor-
poration, a couple of dummy corporations Russell ran, while Russell claimed to
be unable to pay his ex-wife $1,200 a year.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/scandals/52873/1/The-secret-cor
porations
The web site at the next link is helpful if you'd like to try to convert the
cash amounts given in the articles listed above into the values they have today.
http://www.ex.ac.uk/~RDavies/arian/current/howmuch.html
According to one calculator found there, "measuringworth.com.," $1,200 in 1909
is worth $27,432 in 2006 U.S. dollars. The overall income of Russell's organi-
zations was in the millions in 1909, according to the same articles.
So what hapenned next Leolaia?? A gripping, jaw-dropping tale - I can't wait for the next exciting installment...
In the meantime, thanks Christ Alone for your post on page 3 which makes me laugh everytime I remember it:
"Our furniture is still on the way from Brooklyn. We are hoping it will get here before Armageddon starts anyway."
Sad...sad. This was back in 1939. I hope he's not still waiting for his furniture...
Incredible... many thanks for all your hard work Leolaia.. it's information like this that is invaluable!
Bump
this would make a great film or series
"previously on Moyle..."
Marking for later - Thank you Leolaia
Leolaia: Thank you for the work you've put into this. This has been a great summation of the shabby way Moyle was treated by the egotistic, bullying and narcassistic Rutherford.
Is there more to this account, or have you concluded your summary and research into this? Would love to hear more!
There is a lot more, but I've been sidetracked this month....I hope to get back to it in a few weeks.
