Yeah, I miss Farkel too.
The Complete Scammer's Guide - by "Pastor" Russell (New Light!)
by Focus 109 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
DogGone
Focus,
Using reduction ad absurdum, as they were clearly not setting themselves up to be hammered in the courts and lose their reputation and a lot of money, to someone they did not love too well, it follows that the article is absolutely accurate.
Actually, it does not follow. You don't actually think that because a publisher could be threatened with court action, lose reputation, and lose money that therefore, as a matter of logical necessity, they must be telling the truth? You don't really, do you? I won't insult your intelligence by continuing this rather obvious point.
What you have is evidence and lines of reasoning. Present them as such. EdenOne is expressing that further hard evidence is warranted, at least in the opinion of Eden. You may, of course, respctfully disagree.
-
Focus
EdenOne:
I'm not the enemy. Pick your enemies more wisely.
, OK, I'll be indulgent. Starting with the very bottom of the barrel, then:
minimus:
Focus
Feces
Farkel is so missed.
Why would you miss him? He thought you were an empty-headed waste of carbon, just like I do, and presumably even you knew this, lol.
AlanF and I have every right to miss Farkel. We often ran a competitive tag team knocking down WTS-apologists, who were a lot more effective back then than the lily-livered, half-witten poltroons we find here today, lol.
But, minimus, while I have you dangling on the bait - how you manage to write tens of thousands of content-free posts? 36,000 now? This was beyond not just Farkel and I, though... lol. Keep at it, if you're good at something - just do it, I say. I'm probably jealous, of course, of this ""skill"".
Old Goat:
At the time of the 1911 trial, the Brooklyn Eagle was Catholic leaning ... extremely biased, not just religiously but politically.
Ah, we have your opinion. But, opinions are like assh*les. Everyone has one.
Mine are based on research. What is your one based on?
It is my opinion that the Brooklyn Daily Eagle was not biased towards Catholicism in those days.
I have skimmed through literally thousands of editions of the paper in the process of hunting out WTS related material.
Religious coverage was widespread and, if anything, biased numerically towards Protestant beliefs, churches and sects.
There was regular coverage written BY a variety of Protestant clergymen, as feature articles.
Indeed, the coverage of - and advertising by - the Peoples Pulpit (Association) and Russellite activity was steady during the early 1900s - I'm just looking at a friendly tidbit from 1903. Russell was a regular advertiser with the paper.
But then it was clear a steady stream of protests about the wily, crooked, perverted "Pastor" were filtering in, originating both from scam-victims and rival religious leaders, objecting to the generous coverage of the fraudster by the Eagle.
So, they began to dig a bit, and the result was a stream of exposes starting aroung 1909.
Guessing, he threatened to stop advertising with them, and indeed stopped, never to resume. But they continued undaunted. They were one hell of a lot better paper than the cowardly pap we encounter nowadays.
Old Goat, kindly prove your contention the paper was biased towards Catholics and that it engaged in yellow journalism...
IMO, that's just a load of baseless poppycock from you. PROVE WITH ILLUSTRATIONS - just like I do.
If you need help grasping what "proof" means, then the following poster, now adjusted, may exist:
DogGone:
There is an element of correctness in what you write - but there may also be fallacious reasoning. I'll explain.
First, though, I note you ignore 2 out of the 3 justifications I provided for my POV; presumably because you agree with them.
So lets focus on the third - the proof by contradiction, congruent to a reduction to an absurdity.
It all comes down to what constitutes "proof". The "logical necessity" that you mention is a mathematical formalism.
And, proof comes in many flavors and degrees. To wit, in a civil case, on the balance of likelihood. On a criminal one, beyond a reasonable doubt. And where there isn't a lawsuit, on the preponderance of evidence. Where were Russell's defenders, aside from cult-members and fellow-crooks? There were none (the court transcripts of his endless lawsuits shows this only too well). And there was a reason for this that doesn't need spelling out.
The preponderance of evidence is what I've supplied. And yet to be countered, except by baseless smears or innuendo.
Trying to look at "proof" to the standards of those of mathematics is itself absurd. That doesn't mean I can't use logical tools to establish it, so I did, and that's what you picked on.
We are talking of history going back 100-105 years or more, of an obscure minor whacko fundamentalist kook-cult. It didn't because of lucky timing and a lot of hard graft by that filthy swine Nathan Knorr. Else all this would have never arisen; by the time it was seen what a danger this evil child-murdering, pedophile-enabling, family-destroying disease posed, it was already 50 years on. So most of the evidence has been lost to us.
By the standards of history where in most cases single sources are available - I am moving next to the Washington Post, note - this level of proof is good enough, doggone it.
History isn't mathematics and as I'm pretty hot at both, you can take my word for it, doggone it!
Relativity issues: let me tell you of a case which I (successfully) argued many a year ago. It all hinged on what the word "instantly" meant. I showed that while to a quantum physicist, a period of even 0.00000000000000000001 seconds (10^-20 s) is often like an eternity (look at Planck's constant to understand this), to a cosmologist a period of 1000000000000 seconds (10^12 s) is like the blinking of an eye.
I won't insult your intelligence by belaboring this point.
Yes, of course the reductio I supplied does not meet the necessarily inflexible and rigid requirements of a mathematical proof, a chain of proven implications. Some of the "implies" are weak. And I haven't defined the terms precisely. And I haven't even proven existence ("Did Russell exist? Did the Eagle exist? are the sillier ones, but here are others).
But it simply can't meet these standards. We're doing history here, and that too where sauces or sources are rare, not maths.
So, by the standards of what can reasonably be found, indeed "proof" is what you've had. And you'll get a lot more of it - I have nearly a hundred items on Russell. Many of them are Old Light, but repackaged by me, sometimes with new insights, always with new scans.
There's no evidence in the opposite direction, supporting Russell. Today's Bible Students are simply absurd - they even argue about Miracle Wheat's efficacy, lol, and suggest the agricultural testing was biased against Russellites.
And the lies in the jW 1993 Proclaimers book have been long ago refuted by myself and many, many others, and the replacement WTS "history" (sic) book does not even attempt to defend Russell's wholescale scandals - with few exceptions, it omits entirely. What an admission!
Again, I gave 3 justifications for my view - you've questioned but one. Retain balance, boy. I recognize the obvious attractiveness of getting Focus's scalp, figuratively speaking, in a logical debate. But lets not do it at the expense of fairness and justice, Brothers (& Sisters, if any are so unwise as to be around), right? I readily admit error when I'm wrong.
__
Focus
("F iend" Class)
Focus ---> Old Goat
SPACE RESERVED BELOW FOR THE RATHER DIM-WITTED "Old Goat" TO FAIL TO SUPPLY EVIDENCE, LET ALONE PROOF, OF HIS INACCURATE CONTENTION (he's only repeating what his Spiritual Mother taught him, lol, this is all Old Light from the Whore) THAT THE BROOKLYN EAGLE WAS BIASED TOWARDS CATHOLICS.
Rather easy to picture him as a highly unpleasant "Elder" (lol!!) warning his poor, hapless flock of victims about the Dangers of Independent Thinking... hahahaha!
-
Old Goat
Prove just like you? You mean use coloured fonts and exagerated claims? You mean use ad hominem instead of reason? Or do you mean engage in wild speculation instead of appealing to fact?
-
DogGone
I didn't question your view or your overall point about Russell. I questioned one of your "proofs". This is a discussion forum, not a shut up and listen because Focus is the smartest guy in the room forum. A wise person would appreciate having arguments sharpened through criticism. The overall conclusion can be correct, even if one or two points must be discarded.
Since you brought it up:
Your first point was that the story has credibility; Ross had means, money, and motive. Definitely, that belongs on the evidence pile. Your third point was that the WTS has had over 100 years to provide contrary evidence and has not. You also state that the WTS would have seized on even a word being untrue. I don't have any certainty about what the WTS would or would not do, so I'm discarding that statement. However, the general point that the WTS has not responded to the Eagle's coverage but has attacked the Ross pamphlet is persuasive, at least to me.
Your second point is that with "reductio ad absurdum" you can arrive at another "proof". I criticized this and you pointed out that there are different proofs. It would be unfair for me to demand "proof" to the standards of mathematics. I agree. However, your so called "proof", in this instance, would not stand up, not even in a civil trial. The problem with your "reductio ad absurdum" is that you didn't bring the "absurdum". The whole point of this logical tool is to prove a point by showing that the opposite is completely absurd, illogical, and incredible. Therefore, with "reductio ad absurdum" you have to, out of logical necessity, accept the opposite is true or accept a truly absurd possibility. This is not mathematics.
It is not at all absurd to imagine that a publication would risk libel, court challenges, and loss of reputation in order to publish a sensationalist story against someone with whom they have had a public battle. This, after all, is shortly after the nadir in New York journalism known as "Yellow Journalism". Falsehoods, libel, and exaggerations were, for a long time, the order of the day.
I feel I need to say this again. This does not make your overall narrative invalid. You have pointed out recently that you have read a great deal from this paper around the same time period and find it credible. I take your word for it. It all adds credibility to your narrative. However, I recommend you discard the lack of a libel suit as any sort of "proof".
This line of arriving at "proof" is popular, see if any of these sound familiar:
- Obama must have been born outside of America. Trump and other birthers were clearly not setting themselves up to be hammered in the courts and lose their reputation and a lot of money, to someone they did not love too well, it follows that what they say is absolutely accurate. If Obama had proof that would stand up in court he would sue for libel.
- Bush must have known about 911 in advance. Authors of the many "truther" books were clearly not setting themselves up to be hammered in the courts and lose their reputation and a lot of money, to someone they did not love too well, it follows that what they say is absolutely accurate.
It doesn't follow. It isn't even a remotely credible argument. I’ll use the logical tool on you. It is absurd to believe that in every case, each and every time there was a published falsehood about Russell, a public libel suit has been pursued by Russell or his associates. Therefore, it is logical to agree that, at least on occasion, such libel suits were not filed when falsehoods appeared.
Stick to your other evidence. Don't present the lack of a libel suit or the risk of one as some sort of guarantor of absolute accuracy.
-
Focus
What a reasonable post! Perhaps brains haven't entirely migrated from this place. DogGone, you have now - IMO, you hadn't before - cogently and coherently stated your case. So I will address it.
Your second point is that with "reductio ad absurdum" you can arrive at another "proof". I criticized this and you pointed out that there are different proofs. It would be unfair for me to demand "proof" to the standards of mathematics. I agree. However, your so called "proof", in this instance, would not stand up, not even in a civil trial. The problem with your "reductio ad absurdum" is that you didn't bring the "absurdum".
Let me now clearly state, in my own words and going a litte further than you did, what I'm sure is your POV:
The Eagle could have made a cold-blooded calculation and put in a false, semi-false or misleading statement, weighing the likelihood of being sued, of such action being successful and the likely quantity of damages and costs if successfully sued, against the increase in circulation (and perhaps indirect advertising revenue, based perhaps on circulation) achieved by sensational coverage.
Believe it or not, I'd considered exactly that when making my second point. Note that if I state everything I consider and think about, my long articles would be twice as long as they already are. Roofers and carwash-boys can't deal with long arguments, and we write here for the enormous "Lurker" Class - not the forum regulars.
Now to the "ad absurdum", bearing in mind your point (which I have re-made for you, above).
Let me re-state what I state (and still state) to be the concluding absurdity (and in doing so, re-phrase and perhaps re-emphasize, as in alter the emphasis within it).
By the time of the Ross trial:
(a) The Eagle had for years been exposing Russell. I'd say, since (and including) 1910.
(b) The Eagle had been sued by Russell, and in the course of the trial each side had gone hammer and tongs at the other. Russell had lost - twice, and humuliatingly too given the length of time the jury was "out".
(c) The Eagle had since further stepped up its campaign against Russell.
(d) It is evident from such evidence as has come up (again, which I will later bring up in this thread, given time) that Russell was, in the last several years of his life, a very, very rich man. Income streams from the Watchtower and capital appreciation of shrewdly-chosen real estate and much more besides. He was almost certainly a multi-millionaire in terms of the $ of a century ago - so, while not quite a billionaire in today's money, he was phenomenally wealthy. As this was well hidden within complex trust structures, no one but Russell and Van Amburgh (if indeed he knew all of it) really knew how much.
(e) Russell was thus a very dangerous enemy.
(f) It had become personal. During the Miracle Wheat cartoon libel trial (I mean, who sues over a cartoon - but that is the sort of malevolent bully Russell was), Russell's lawyer had tried to make out the malicious nature of the Eagle's editorial team. Clearly, the jury was unpersuaded.
(g) There was a certainty that Russell would sue if he was given even a tiny chink of opportunity.
(h) This coverage was itself of another libel trial! Russell's prodigious litigiousness is not in doubt, lol. Using courts to silence opponents was his forte. He tried it with the Washington Post and others, the best he ever got was one dollar damages (i.e. derisory and token) but no costs (so, a huge loss for him)
(i) In all my skimmings of thousands of copies of the Eagle (over many months of my time), I have yet to see a single apology of theirs for libelling someone. Or anything vaguely like that. And they certainly did expose politicians of all hues, so there was plenty of chance to go wrong. I conclude they did not, or it was so rare I missed it. No account of other libel trials too - while the present one was covered throughout (they were certain they would win, as they did). It follows that the Eagle was NOT part of the gutter press.
(j) Using the Old Goat (TM) fallacious logic, most papers in those days engaged in so-called yellow journalism, therefore the Brooklyn Daily Eagle did so too. No proof offered, of course. Or evidence. Boing!! Wrong, bottom of the class. Having read so much of the Eagle, it strikes me as a paper extremely proud of its reputation for honesty and accuracy.
(k) They would not wish to tarnish this hard-earned reputation for accuracy and fairness** (more on this below)
(l) Were Maria Russell really not there, it would be easy to prove even without her help (e.g., neighbours). And travelling wasn't quite as mundane as it is now.
(m) Russell would certainly sue, and win if what was reported was not true.
(n) And it was personal on both sides - being humiliated by Russell would have been utterly intolerable for the Eagle, which had been maintaining the moral high ground throughout.
(o) So the only way they would deceive here on such an objective matter is if they, a corporation themselves, would intentionally self-harm and face the fury of their shareholders too.
(p) I believe I have now established the absurdity upon which the contradiction was predicated.
Quoting you:
The whole point of this logical tool is to prove a point by showing that the opposite is completely absurd, illogical, and incredible. Therefore, with "reductio ad absurdum" you have to, out of logical necessity, accept the opposite is true or accept a truly absurd possibility.
And this is what I did.
So, I was right. It follows that you were not right, or less right.
I suggest the article is absolutely valid. It is clear, further, given the massive weight of other evidence of Russell's character, anyone who gave the benefit of any small doubt that there is to Russell is either mad or bad or both.
Now, i turn to:
hard-earned reputation for accuracy and fairness
I have a hard-earned reputation for accuracy and fairness in anti-cult matters going back two decades and involving more fights than you can probably imagine.
Now, I've been away from here for 11 years, fighting for other worthy causes.
The WTS is only one of enemies. I've dropped clues before. They might even be valid. The nymserver at M.I.T., the Church of Scientology anti-privacy war, clambake, "our" setting up of a bullet-proof way of whistleblowing, etc.
Only a handful of those who knew me then are still posting here, and of these only three are posting regularly and while the other two are excellent, the third is, well, a nincompoop.
Most will not look at the j-w.n archives - not that they will see much there, as many of the best threads have been "disappeared" after my fight with the Nazi-apologists (and worse).
All my work I gave freely, permitting its free usage for non-commercial purposes (and, in some cases, even commercial ones).
But, in a few days of my return here, I was:
* directly accused of plagiarising a lampoonery article I had authored myself. When presented with proof (yes, proof, of the highest standard that will be achievable in such cases) the filthy accuser, instead of apologizing, accused me of self-plagiarism.
* accused by another of plagiarising a group of articles which are, if anything, themselves adapted plagiarised versions of anti-WTS material I had written; the same person also suggested I was various other people I don't know, that my original research wasn't that original etc. At least he has attempted some mealy-mouthed (though inadequate) apology - I give credit where it is due.
* accused by yet another of ignorance, while almost every "fact" this aged creature produced was either prima-facie erroneous or based on some incorrect reasoning by him - and none of mine were; moroever, while accusing me of speculation he would make throw-away claims of breathtaking stupidity (associating the Brooklyn Daily Eagle with the yellow press).
* accused by YET another of some form of intellectual dishonesty for some grounds he kept changing as he was systematically refuted by me. The work was my flow-chart, created and implemented solely by me, to "prove" that no god possessing certain attributes could exist. His first objection was that it was I put "(c) Focus" on it, which I have every right to do, especially given that it seems acceptable for me to be accused of plagiarising that which I wrote in the first place. Being uninterested in copyright, I added that it could be freely distributed without any condition other than the copyright ownership note should remain part of what was distributed. He then said it wasn't about copyright at all (lol) but I was accused of dishonestly not acknowledging that most of the idea was originally that of Epicurus from more than two millennia ago. Well, it probably isn't - Epicurus was quite probably a _theist_; there is no historical clarity about who did what, as any amateur philosopher, theologian or historian would now Two other known people may have been responsible for the idea (ideas can't be copyrighted, anyway). Further, I substantially added to the original ideas, targeting it at an alleged monotheistic, vaguely Abrahamic god. And happily acknowledged that even the idea of "god" was not my creation. But he still continues his abusive trolling.
There is no suggestion or belief that the above four fools are connected, lol.
So, view my responses in the light of the above, DogGone, and you will see I am being proportionate.
I can quite understand why the Leading Lights of the past refuse to post here - the count of abusive and ignorant fools and trolls is too high.
Focus, however, is rhinoceros-hided, and perfectly willing, capable and eager to move disputes into RL, as one of the transgressors will shortly be discovering. For I have another
hard-earned reputation
to maintain.
DogGone, I have responded to you with dignity, courtesy and respect, and while I believe I have shown you are wrong, I have not insulted you. Further, I concede your point has some validity.
As you have treated me well, so you are treated well. A distant uvariant of the Golden Rule, not (c) Focus, lol.
I'll leave turning the other cheek to those who enjoy being slapped.
__
Focus
("Repercussions" Class)
-
EdenOne
This is a side note, but I've found this on the Brooklyn Daily Eagle of March, 3, 1910.
It's unrelated with "Pastor Russell" controversy, but at least shows that the Brooklyn Daily Eagle conducted exposés on other clerigy men just the same way they have done to Russell, and around the same time, which leads me to conclude that they didn't have a 'personal vendetta' against Russell in particular, but clearly it was an editorial line that the newspaper pursuited.
In this particular case, the target was Rev. Victor Patterson.
Eden
Edit: To see a larger, readable version, look here.
-
Focus
Yes, EdenOne, well done. "I told you so."
The Brooklyn Daily Eagle is now available online pretty much in entirety...
No reasonable person could flick through more than (say) a few hundred pages and come away with the conclusion that it was other than a responsible, sober, balanced. fair-minded, honest and socially-responsible broadsheet newspaper.
The irresponsible, gossip-oriented, fact-challenged, offensive and ignorant Old Goat had the sheer audacity to maintain that it was pro-Catholic around the time of the Russell exposes (say, 1911-1916). Not only is that complete garbage (the coverage of Catholicism and Catholic churches and issues was, if anything, an under-representation, given the religious composition of its readership, but it shows his attempt to put in his own bias.
And it is further based on his own ignorance of WTS history - he is too ignorant to even do a proper smear, lol!
It was RUTHERFORD, and not RUSSELL, who launched into the full-scale attack on Catholicism!
Russell's combatants were usually members and clergy of other competing Protestant churches. That is self-evident through literally dozens of encounters in the Eagle and thousands of derogatory references in Russell's own publications.
Old Goat, with your truly filthy WTS-apologist drivel, which I see through in an instant, perhaps we should be grateful that you are so ignorant of WTS history as to not even know how to smear properly.
A harder smear to refute would be that the Eagle was
anti-Catholic
and not that it was
pro-Catholic
which is patent nonsense. LOL!
... and.... (for the avoidance of doubt, this is to Old Goat):
WHACK !
In everything I've read, I see nothing to disbelieve in the Eagle's coverage, which is often corroborated by outside evidence (plus the three reasons I gave as to why it would NOT lie), and everything to disbelieve in the account
And, coming soon, lots and lots of material about Russell's tax disputes, which Old Goat libelously insinuated were my inventions.
Also, about another attempted abduction of a young girl by the filthy pedophile Russell - new name. NEW LIGHT.
__
Focus
("Accuracy" Class)
-
EdenOne
After the case against the Brooklyn Daily Eagle was lost, Russell wrote on the Watchtower: (February 15, 1913, p. 62)
"THE CASE BRIEFLY REVIEWED
I am interested in everything progressive and tending to prove that we are entering the great Thousand Years of earth’s blessings under Messiah. In the columns of THE WATCH TOWER I have noted the coming of Divine blessings in fulfilment of the prediction that “The wilderness shall blossom as the rose,” “The earth shall yield her increase,” etc. Five years ago we quoted in THE WATCHTOWER columns reports respecting “Miracle Wheat.” We gave the name and address (Mr. Stoner) of the farmer who discovered this new wheat and his reports of its remarkable qualities. We published also the report of Mr. Miller, the Government expert, who thoroughly investigated it and pronounced upon its superior qualities.
Some of our readers purchased seed from Mr. Stoner at $1.25 per pound and approved it. In 1910 one of the friends of our Society, [note: turns out to be brother J. A. Bohnet] who had raised some of this wheat, sold it for seed at $1.00 per pound, and donated the proceeds to our Society. In 1911 the same friend, having raised more seed, asked that THE WATCH TOWER give the benefit of this to its readers at $1.00 a pound post-paid, and appropriate the net results to the furtherance of its work. (...) For the accommodation of our readers, we allowed this seed-wheat to be put up in pound packages and mailed from THE WATCH TOWER Office, just as the U.S. Government handles such seeds at Washington. We did the business at the request of others and in their interest, and credited them on our books with the results, setting aside to them proportionately voting shares in our Society. (...) It was in vain that my attorney sought to show the Jury The Eagle’s malice — that it really was attacking me along religious grounds; that it had set itself as the champion of certain clerical enemies of mine, and was seeking to destroy my influence and, if possible, to drive me from Brooklyn. (...) He was allowed to ridicule the “Miracle Wheat,” although I had nothing whatever to do with it, nor with the naming of it; and notwithstanding the fact that its superiority was proven. He was allowed to inveigh against the fact as criminal, that I hold the office of President of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, and to claim that I hold the office in some corrupt or unlawful manner, and that I misuse the Society’s income in some unexplained way to my own advantage. (...)"
What Russell failed to say in court - and the court failed to ask, apparently - was in whose land this "Miracle Wheat" was being farmed by brother "friend" J. A. Bohnet: No more, no less the land that was acquired for the Rosemount, Mount Hope end Evergreen United Cemeteries; coincidentally, or not, brother J. A. Bohnet was part of the original people who incorporated the entity that owned this land, back in 1905. So, it appears that, while Russell was waiting for the real estate value to climb, instead of using the land as a cemetery, he used it - via J.A.Bohnet - to cultivate the "Miracle Wheat" to sell to Watchtower readers.
So, the claim that the "friend" [Bohnet] donated the results of the "Miracle Wheat" sale for "furthering the work" is an attempt to cover-up a commercial endeavour by the Watchtower leader, Russell.
Edited to add:
In a letter addressed to Russell and published in Zion's Watchtower, (November 15, 1913, p. 350) brother/friend/Watchtower Farmer J.A. Bohnet wrote:
"DEAR BROTHER RUSSELL:--
Last spring a brother in the West sent me a supply of pea-beans, assuring me "they are very good." I planted them in rows similar to pea-planting and find they bloom and bear continuously from early summer until cut by frost in the fall. We are still picking them for table use at this date, October 14. We have more seed than we need. Am sending you a supply for such of THE TOWER readers as have garden space and may desire some to plant next spring. Should they wish to pay the postage on as many as you could apportion, that would,of course, be their privilege; I donate them. I might state, the stalk resembles a bean stalk, but within the long pods are peas, and suitable for cooking in the pods green, or, after ripening, shelled. They are tender and taste unlike beans or peas. We all like them. Until nearly ripe the pods are stringless or nearly so.In Christian love, your brother and servant in the Lord, J. A. BOHNET."
Funny how this "brother" fails to mention that he is an employee of the Watchtower corporation and the land that he's farming is controlled by the WTS, thus mocking the unwary readers of the Watchtower magazine, in that there's no "donation" whatsoever, as this is a letter of an employee to his boss.
Eden
-
EdenOne
Brother "friend" John A. Bohnet, Watchtower "farmer", sales executive and designer extraordinaire:
For his exceptional competence as a farmer extraordinaire and sales director for the "miracle wheat", J. F. Rutherford elected him as a director for the Watchtower Society in 1917.
(Second from the right)
He was so close to Russell that he even went on to design Russell's famous pyramid-shaped grave memorial.
From: Program of the 1921 Annual Meeting of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society : "The Pyramid monument erected at the grave of Brother Russell was sketched by Brother J.A. Bohnet and approved by Brother Russell several years ago. It was his desire that such a monument be erected on this lot and he set about to procure the materials before his death. After Brother Russell's death, Brother Rutherford, learning that Brother Russell had ordered the erection of this monument asked Brother Bohnet to proceed at once to get the material and let the contract for its construction and erection."
Eden
