Was CT Russell a CHILD MOLESTOR? (WTS says: Child Molestation NOT IMMORAL)

by Gamaliel 39 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse

• 

  Gamaliel

  Before I get to the evidence of the claim above, I need to offer the following explanation. Most of you will know exactly where I am going with this story, but I'd like the opinions of those who don't have any idea. They might be free from the kinds of biases that I know I already have. So here goes:

  The following DID NOT HAPPEN TO BILLY GRAHAM, but something very much like it did happen to a respected elder with whom some of us are well acquainted. (The years I mention are accurate, or very close, at least.) I'm using Billy Graham's name in vain, so I apologize to him. I am trying to avoid overly prejudicing the case, so I have changed the name of the accused to someone for whom many of us would more easily consider truly innocent.

  In '88 the Grahams pretty much adopted, a 10-year-old orphan girl. According to Mrs. Graham, when the girl was 15 years old, around '94, she confessed to Mrs. Graham that the Reverend had kissed and touched her inappropriately. When the girl allegedly said "But I'm not your wife" the Reverend had said it was normal that a little girl like her could have "almost all the privileges of a wife." The girl allegedly confessed to Mrs. Graham that the Reverend had also said that he touches other females to see which ones "respond." I think, the exact quote was: "I touch this one and that one, and if she responds I take her to me, and if not I float on to others." Mrs. Graham, during the case, said that upon hearing the story, she confronted her husband, and that he admitted it was true and said he was sorry.

  Of course, Reverend Graham flatly denied this, during the trial, and the judge agreed with Rev. Graham's attorney that this should be stricken out. The reason, according to the judge, was because the events in question for this case had to have happened no more than 7 years ago. Even though the attorneys let Mrs. Graham refer back one extra year, this still wasn't enough to get those events in question admitted into the case.

  Throughout the case, Mrs. Graham, among other things, accused him of the following:

  • accused him of improperly kissing and touching the teenage girl
  • said he had admitted to the truthfulness of the teenager's confession to her
  • accused him of sending all the other workers home and would keep the girl alone with him in his office (a few blocks from their home) even late at night
  • said she had personally caught him on more than one occasion alone with the girl, and that one time he caught him in her room with the door locked behind them.
  • she claimed that he had committed "indignities" with the girl.
  • said that she had confronted him and stated her objections on the grounds that it was wrong, that it hurt her deeply, and if found out it would ruin the reputation for the good work he was doing.
  • she said that more than once she had objected to his being alone with this teenage girl (and also with another young girl in the house). She claimed that she said "What kind of name will be attached to this place if you do that that kind of thing?" and that he would just get angry.

  It would later be argued that her accusations may not be true because she didn't actually separate from him until '97, fully 3 years after the incident of the alleged confession. In fact, she had met with a committee of elders to try to help patch things up between them in '97. At the trial, Mrs. Graham claimed it was for financial reasons that she couldn't leave him earlier, and the evidence that he had threatened her since '95 with a lack of financial maintenance was implicitly admitted by Reverend Graham and therefore Mrs. Graham actually won her case against him.

  Surprisingly, in court, Reverend Graham indirectly admitted that his wife's accusations had some merit as he attempted in court to explain those alleged "indignities," as merely an innocent but special closeness with the child, that he kissed her goodnight, that he was the one who was called upon to administer medicines when she was sick, and he even gave an innocent explanation for why he had been caught in her room with the door locked behind them.

  To clarify, Mrs. Graham's attorney had said, "We make no charge of adultery" and, "You don't mean that your husband was guilty of adultery." She answered, "No."

  Some have pointed to the lack of the adultery charge as evidence that Mrs. Graham actually thinks he is innocent. But some circumstantial evidence leaves others to think Reverend Graham looks more guilty. The girl who turned 16 later in '94 has since married and Rev. Graham obviously had a hand in a reassignment that put her husband in an important position oversees (before the trial). But she and her husband left the religion (and the assignment, of course) shortly afterward. Oddly, shortly after their reassignment, Reverend Graham wrote something about it and spent more time praising the wife than her husband. Even more oddly, when they left the religion, he inexplicably wrote that he believed it was the wife who had turned the husband away.

  If this really had happened to Billy Graham, would you assume he was guilty or innocent of paedophilia or child molestation? Would we give him more or less of the benefit of the doubt based on his respectability?

  If you got this far... thanks. There's more to come.

  Gamaliel
• 

  DJ

  Honestly, I wouldn't know what to think. It's too vague. For instance: Where is the girl in all of this? What does she claim (in court) that he did? What is considered adultery here?
• 

  Celia

  Charles Taze Russel's story.................... guilty !
• 

  Gamaliel

  It's too vague. For instance: Where is the girl in all of this? What does she claim (in court) that he did? What is considered adultery here?

  The girl, Rose Ball Henninges, was in Australia in '06, at the time of the trial. As Celia pointed out, the accuser was Mrs. Russell, of course. If you just replace every occurrence of Reverend Billy Graham with Pastor Charles Russell, and replace Mrs. Graham with Mrs. Russell, you have the story almost exactly as it has come down to us in court documents and newspaper reports about the trial. In '06 it would have taken quite a while by ship to get Rose into court, and I really doubt that Mrs Russell wanted her there that badly.

  One reason I repeated the story here was to get a better idea of whether people now see CTR as potentially more guilty, now that so many more cases of paedophilia and child molestation have been uncovered in the courts. A hundred years ago, of course, this accusation wasn't as common in the courts. I'd need to look at more cases to get a better idea of the likelihood that accusations such as this were more likely to come up in divorce cases 100 years ago. Today, I also believe it is more likely for a judge to consider such accusations as false if divorce is the issue.

  I'm wondering how many here might think that apologists for Russell have seemed a bit too "generous" in this matter.

  Gamaliel
• 

  Gamaliel

  What is considered adultery here?

  I forgot to respond to that question. Mrs Russell wrote "The Twain One" shortly after this incident. She took seriously the idea that "what God has yoked together, let no man put apart." I think she felt that divorce was extremely serious and that a charge of adultery should therefore be provable beyond a doubt, if made. I believe it is clear that her own opinion and the opinion of the courts, (then and now), was that even if a married person had fondled and kissed a 14 or 15 year year old girl, that this was not adultery in any legal sense. I do believe, however, that Mrs Russell mentioned this behaviour because she had come to see it as a Biblical equivalent of adultery, and if she wanted her separation to be validated Scripturally, she had to mention it.

  As an aside, long-time elders here may remember that throughout most of 1972 when the Watchtower held the absurd opinion that a wife could not get a divorce on the grounds of her husband's homosexuality or bestiality. That stance was changed within 11 months, when the backlash/outcry/letters to the Society quickly broadened the Watchtower's definition of the Greek word "porneia."

  Gamaliel
• 

  Celia

  I remember reading somewhere that Charles T. Russell and his wife never consumated their marriage....
• 

  DJ

  I see what you are getting at. As a person with a legal background though....I have to say that Mrs. Russell's testimony is merely hearsay. Where is the girl now? Has she ever accused him with her own mouth? I'll be patient and wait for your evidence. I do think that it may be good for some here to read, as you stated. I think that if you'd entitled the thread w/ Russell's name in it, you'd have a better chance of them reading it.

  It's pretty coincidental to think that Russell just may have started the child molestation ball rolling......isn't it? dj
• 

  Gamaliel

  I have to say that Mrs. Russell's testimony is merely hearsay. Where is the girl now? Has she ever accused him with her own mouth? I'll be patient and wait for your evidence.

  dj, It's definitely hearsay, and it definitely may be untrue. But that wouldn't affect the title of this thread. The fact that it was Russell is also not necessarily relevant. The evidence that the Watchtower Society says: CHILD MOLESTATION IS NOT IMMORAL is simply based on what the 1975 yearbook said on page 69 and 70 under the heading "NOT IMMORAL." It says:

  And that Mrs. Russell actually never believed her husband was guilty of immoral conduct was shown by the record (page 10). Her own counsel asked Mrs. Russell: "You don't mean that your husband was guilty of adultery?" She answered: "No."

  That's the whole point: that the Watchtower Society claimed that Mrs. Russell actually never believed her husband was guilty of immoral conduct, just because she accused him of some kind of paedophilia or child molestation rather than adultery. That's very telling even though I think it probably speaks more to the writer's naivete and lack of critical thinking skills. Gamaliel
• 

  Gamaliel

  Celia,

  I remember reading somewhere that Charles T. Russell and his wife never consumated their marriage....

  That's what is claimed and repeated in several places. The primary reference is usually considered to be the 7/1/06 Z WT. Russell used the WT to print an excellent defense of himself, where he included several letters which supported himself or his contentions. One letter in that issue from an old brother to CJ Woodworth said:

  "there has come to me indefinite information of some past agreement between Brother Russell and his wife, as mentioned in `I Cor. 7:1`, wherein, in marital relations, Brother Russell had resolved to an entire consecration of soul and body to the work to which he was called. I can well believe it of such a man, and if true, how absurd even the thought that he would be guilty of the charge preferred against him.

  Interestingly, it was used at least partially as a defense against the charge of child molestation. (In addition to making Russell look like a saintly martyr.)

  The same letter to Woodworth as published here by Russell, curiously shows Russell had followers who believed that even if he was guilty, it wasn't all that bad: David was 1000 times worse and Russell's great monumental work would still live on to overcome public outcry and the subsequent lapse of Russell's influence:

  If it were possible to admit the charge, David fell a thousand times lower, but in repentance became the "Sweet Psalmist of Israel." Peter fell and Jesus prayed for him, and he became the strength of the brethren, and was privileged to feed Christ's lambs. Knowing as we
  do the consecration, the labor, self-renunciation, the Christ-like spirit, nothing short of an angel from heaven or his own admission would convince us. If guilty, he would well know that a mere social ostracism to himself alone would not be the result, but a public ostracism
  of his teachings and a lapsing of his influence. That the direst denunciation of Babylon even now, true or not, will fall upon his work is to be expected. And yet the monumental work of MILLENNIAL DAWN, establishing from the prophecies the God-given "Plan of the Ages," will go
  down to posterity as certainly as the epistles of Paul!

  Russell went on to explain (in the 1906 ZWT) that the celibacy agreement was mutually accepted with Mrs. Russell:

  Mrs. Russell's bill of complaint admitted that there had been no cohabitation between herself and her husband, and her attorney attempted to make out of this that she was deprived of one of the chief pleasures of life. The Court would not permit this. The fact is that the matter was in Mrs. Russell's own control. She did understand that her husband preferred to live a celibate life, but she agreed and expressed the same as her preference. She knew his teachings on the subject, as now expressed in DAWN, VOL. VI., chap.12--that neither the husband nor the wife may <"defraud"> the other of reasonable marital rights.

  For years I have heard JW friends suggest that Russell was merely impotent, which might explain why this was more often treated as a "delicate" matter.

  I need to make a correction: In my first post of the thread, and in my explanation of what Mrs. Russell accused him of, I was oversimplifying the story and did not mention that the person Mrs. Russell caught Mr. Russell with behind a locked door was not Rose, but a house-servant named Emily. In each of the girls' cases Russell published the probable explanation that he was merely handling his duties as house "doctor" and needed some quiet in the room to hear Emily tell him what was wrong with her. (Russell had also suggested that the supposed hand-holding at Rose's bedside was explained by him taking her pulse when she was sick.)

  Russell in 1906 claims that Mrs. Russell had already threatened to use the locked door story as a kind of "blackmail" way back in 1897 (to try to get herself more editorial power in the WT magazine). Russell's explanation of Rose sitting on his lap and kissing him also contains an embedded swipe at Mrs Russell. He says that he had found Rose sobbing and sat her on his lap to ask her about it, whereupon Rose explained that Mrs Russell was overworking her and making her feel badly. Mr. Russell said he explained that Mrs Russell surely meant no harm, whereupon Rose kissed him. Subtly, Russell explains that he felt at fault for not having noticed this problem as a better "father" would have and explains that she was treated more like she was "adopted" after this incident.

  Perhaps someone knows what rumors and falsehoods Mrs Russell had supposedly been saving money (since 1898?) to finally publish in 1903 when most of the brethren rejected her charges, "characterizing the request as mean, despicable, insulting to their manhood." What I'm getting at is that Russell claims on one hand to (generally) have not heard of these charges in 1906, but admits on the other hand to at least obliquely knowing of many slanders as far back as 1897 and implies that such slanders might have been included in Mrs. Russell's 1903 pamphlet or even much earlier in the 1898 "campaign" about which Russell says:

  In January, 1898, Mrs. Russell returned to Allegheny, to the home of her sister; and herself, sisters and friends began a campaign of vilification of every kind, regardless of the truth, going hither and thither wherever they could find any one willing to hear them, bound on injuring me in some manner. This lasted for about a year, at the end of which time my wife gave me her solemn assurance that she had ceased to bear false witness against me before others, whereupon I gave her possession of a house...

  Russell admits to making great efforts to control her from visiting her own relatives, and from allowing her access to financial support, but he finally gives her a house with potential rental income in exchange for silence.

  I don't mean to read only negative ideas against Russell into this old situation. I know this is boring to most of us; but I'm mostly trying to walk through my own feelings on it to see if something might have been missed.

  Gamaliel
• 

  Francois

  DELETED