While preparing the JFR trial review, I found this little gem:
Government: "You must be against war in all forms?"
Rutherford: "So far as consecrated Christians are concerned; yes."
Government: "You don't take the position that while it is wrong for members of your association, it is all right for all the rest of us to go ahead - you don't advocate that?"
Rutherford: "Not advocate it, no."
Government: "You don't think it would be wrong for the rest of us?"
Rutherford: "No; I do not, but I will tell you the reason why. I would like to answer why."
Government: " 'Forbids its members to participate in war in any form, and are against war in any form.' You say that met with your hearty approval?"
Rutherford: "So far as it applies to consecretated members of our association, yes."
Government: "You wouldn't have anyone else do what you don't want to do, would you?"
Rutherford: "That is their business, not mine. I am not the keeper of the conscience of other people."
This is FASCINATING TESTIMONY - because - earlier under examination, W. E. Van Amburgh stated that the Bible Students each interpreted the Bible in his own way ... and that the Watchtower had no creed about conscientious objection ... but now Rutherford contradicts Van Amburgh (his own guy) and agrees that 'consecrated' Bible Students are FORBIDDEN to participate in war.
Then he agrees that it is okay for the rest of the people to go to war ... and says he is not the keeper of other people's consciences ... Rutherford seems confused to me ... what do you think?