New post to the history blog: https://truthhistory.blogspot.com/2023/05/typical-nonsense.html
I agree that in the Russell and Rutherford eras there was little actual scriptural refutation. Fine! True ... But, if 'truth' pours out the the mouth of a disreputable man, is it ethical to note his behavior as part of one's refutation? I hope that sentence made sense. I'm thinking in general terms. Much of what is written about Russell and Rutherford's character is myth. And, of course, those reporting accusations should verify them first.
When mom was assisting uncle B write the first two Separate Identity books, she talked B into removing part of a footnote that reported the prison sentence of the author of an academic article. So the footnote only focuses on the man's sloppy research. What do you think?