by Farkel 747 Replies latest watchtower scandals
I MUST OF LIVED IN A TIME WARP OR SOMETHING.
IN THE 1940s MY MEMORY TELLS ME THAT THE MARRIAGE VOW WAS STRICTLY REQUIRED AND FORNICATION OF ANY KIND WAS A SIN. I CERTAINLY DO NOT RECALL ANY POLYGAMY BEING ACCEPTED.
MAYBE THERE ARE DIFFERENT BELIEFS IN DIFFERENT PLACES BUT IT IS MY EXPERIENCE THAT THE ABOVE APPLIED IN THE U.S. AND WAS A SHUNNING OFFENCE
Outoftheorg
Out,
I think you nailed it when you said:
MAYBE THERE ARE DIFFERENT BELIEFS IN DIFFERENT PLACES BUT IT IS MY EXPERIENCE THAT THE ABOVE APPLIED IN THE U.S. AND WAS A SHUNNING OFFENCE
I think the position was that if the law of the land allowed polygamy, then so did the Society,,I think you can verify this from a search in the Proclaimers book and WTs.
BTW I knew a Nigerian brother who used to tell me that in Africa they allowed all sorts of things back in the pre 60s.
WELL FRANIKE, I GUESS THAT WOULD EXPLAIN IT.
AFTER ALL, THEY ARE KNOWN HYPOCRITS, LIARS AND DOUBLE SPEAKING MASTERS.
ANYTHING, TO GET THEIR BELIEFS IN SOMEONES HEAD AND TAKE CONTROL OF THEM.
AT 68 I MAY NOT LIVE LONG ENOUGH TO SEE THEIR DEMISE, BUT I SURE WOULD LIKE TO.
Outoftheorg
OFF TOPIC: (sorry)Common law marriages were not surprising among JWs when they lived in countries where divorce was forbidden even on the grounds of adultery. The WTS finally got around that by regulating an "in-house" divorce process.
***
w62 5/1 pp. 287-288 Questions from Readers ***In
the Watchtower article of September 15, 1956, "Marriage Ceremony and Requirements," paragraph 20 states that a consensual wife who accepts the truth and wants to have the marriage legalized and registered, but cannot get the man she lives with to agree, may sign a written statement that she will be faithful to her consensual marriage partner as to a husband and will get the marriage legalized as soon as she can get the man to legalize it, and then she may be baptized. Does this apply in all countries of the world, to all or any forms of consensual marriage?The
Watchtower was here discussing consensual marriage and showed a difference between it and common-law marriage. This same paragraph was referred to in the Watchtower of November 15, 1960, under the heading "The Need for Legalizing Marriage."While common-law marriage is legally recognized in some states or provinces of the land and is a legal marriage, in other states or provinces of that land or in other lands it may not be recognized as legal. Therefore the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society requires that those living together in common-law marriage should have a legal marriage ceremony performed and that this should be definitely registered in the registry of the civil government. Not before then will the Watch Tower Society recognize the dedication by the parties to common-law marriage and consider them worthy of water baptism and admission to the New World society. This procedure will provide for proper legal standing for their children in any land or state and is in full accord with the law of God.
However, if a woman who is living in common-law marriage in a state where common-law marriages are recognized as legal is not successful in persuading her common-law husband to have the marriage legally registered, the Society makes a concession. It allows such a woman who learns the truth to present evidence to the congregation committee that she has made a conscientious effort to persuade her common-law partner to register the marriage legally. The congregation committee will then allow her to sign a declaration vowing faithfulness in marriage relationship to the unwilling man and she may be accepted for baptism and share in the activities of the congregation. The same would hold true for a man who cannot get his common-law wife to register the marriage.
In states or provinces where common-law marriage is not recognized as legal, unmarried persons living together consensually or by mutual consent would be living together in fornication. Such persons cannot be admitted to baptism by the New World society until they have legalized their position with an appropriate legal marriage ceremony. There is no law preventing them from legalizing their marriage, since they are single persons. In all lands single persons have the privileges of marriage; so this legal marriage requirement applies in all parts of the world. Therefore in such cases the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society does not accept a signed statement from single persons living together consensually. They must either have the appropriate legal marriage ceremony or else separate, before they may be accepted for water baptism.
If one of the parties to the consensual cohabitation would happen to be still legally married to someone else, he or she would be required to obtain a divorce decree dissolving the legal marriage by the laws of the land and then get legally married to the consensual partner before presenting himself for water baptism.
In certain lands under strict religious domination no divorces are allowed. It sometimes happens that an undivorced married person has been living for many years with a single person because his legal mate deserted him and took up living in adultery with someone else. This undivorced person then comes to a knowledge of the truth and wants to serve Jehovah. But he is unable by law to obtain a divorce. He may have a family in his consensual union and in fact the woman may also desire to serve Jehovah and raise the children in the admonition of Jehovah. In such lands we have made the concession to the pair who are living together without the benefit of marriage when they learn the truth.
Though unable to get a divorce from a legal married mate, they must take whatever legal steps are available to record the separation from the legal married mate; and then they must write a confession and set forth a declaration vowing faithfulness to each other in the marriage arrangement and that they will stay together despite legal ties to others which cannot be dissolved according to the existing law. They must also agree to having their relationship to each other legalized as soon as the legal obstacle would be removed, which would mean the death of the separated legal marriage mate.
We do this because the country?s law is unreasonably prohibitive and refuses divorce because it does not recognize God?s law, which allows divorce on the grounds of fornication or adultery. If the couple had been living in another land where divorce was available they would doubtless have straightened out their marital situation long before now and presented themselves to the New World society as legally married persons. Because of Jesus? statement at Matthew 19:8, 9, the Society has made this concession, and we trust this meets with God?s approval.
Suppose an individual is living in such consensual arrangement, where the legal obstacle exists in a land where there is no divorce. If now he should learn the truth but the one with whom he is living does not recognize the truth and will not cooperate in signing a written statement vowing faithfulness, then the New World society will accept a statement signed by just the person who has learned the truth and who wants to make a dedication and serve God. It is in such consensual union situation that the declaration vowing faithfulness is accepted, as mentioned in paragraph 20, page 573, of the September 15, 1956, Watchtower. The declaration would not be accepted in a land where divorce is permitted under the law.
(Congregations having Kingdom Service Questions on file should make a note of this matter in the booklet for future reference, especially in connection with page 11.)
As to polygamy up until 1947 it was accepted in the WTS. Notice how they don't given any scriptural reason why it was allowed between 1879-1947.
Proclaimers Book chap. 13 p. 176 Recognized by Our Conduct ***
As their work got under way in Africa in this 20th century, the Witnesses taught there, as they do everywhere, that Christian marriage allows for just one marriage mate. (Matt. 19:4, 5; 1 Cor. 7:2; 1 Tim. 3:2) Yet, there were hundreds who accepted the Bible?s exposure of idolatry and gladly embraced what Jehovah?s Witnesses taught concerning the Kingdom of God but who got baptized without abandoning polygamy. To correct this situation, The Watchtower of January 15, 1947, emphasized that Christianity makes no allowance for polygamy, regardless of local custom. A letter sent to the congregations notified any who professed to be Jehovah?s Witnesses but who were polygamists that six months was being allowed for them to bring their marital affairs into harmony with the Bible standard. This was reinforced by a discourse given by Brother Knorr during a visit to Africa that same year.
Notice though that the WTS did not feel the same way about segregation tolerating it until the government finally outlawed it but even still observing local custom into the 70's.
Blondie
FreePeace,
Sorry, I mistakenly posted 1950's, but the time period regarding Worth Thornton, should have been mid 1930's - 1940's.
Cyberguy
Athanasius,
This quote caused me concern:
" Arthur said: "If a brother and sister wanted to get married, all they had to do was to inform the Company Servant of their intentions and then they would live together as husband and wife." It was that simple. Apparently Rutherford did the same with Berta and Bonnie."
While I appreciate the research you have done on Judge Rutherford, I'm hopeful that you submit your manuscript to someone on this board who is more familiar with actual Watchtower policy. Publishing inaccuracies such as the above will destroy the credibility of your research.
tms
The case for the defence, m'lord. The research done on this account by Farkel, Leolaia, Athanasius, VM44 and many others as well as the personal testimony of Larc makes a very strong circumstantial case against JFR. On the other hand, it is easy to criticise the dead and those who might defend him are unlikely to be found on this forum. However, testimony under oath in the case of Olin Moyle vs JFR, 1940-1943 puts many of these "circumstances" in context, particularly those involving his living arrangements at Bethel and at Beth-Sarim.
As Farkel testified, Bonnie Boyd came to Bethel in 1923 with her mother. I have some doubts that she was as young as 16, which Farkel suggests based on an article in the San Diego Union (February 18, 1942). In the census of 1930 it gives her age as 31 which would have made her 24 when she came to Bethel. I think this far more likely as she was invited (by William Van Amburgh, secretary-treasurer of the WTS) to Bethel as a stenographer and would have needed some experience for this. In the same year she became Rutherford's stenographer, together with Arthur Goux who was acting both as stenographer and secretary to Rutherford, and had done so since 1918. Rutherford had written a number of books in the early 1920s (Millions Now Living Will Never Die, The Harp of God) and was clearly getting into his stride writing several books a year as well as Watchtower articles and the legal work, so it is not surprising he needed more than one stenographer. In 1925 Goux was transferred to do radio broadcasting and was replaced by Donald Haslet, who Leolaia (who referred to him as Donald Hosbeth) showed was also living on the seventh floor in 1930 as was Bonnie's mum who was housekeeper on that floor. Whether or not Haslet and Bonnie had a "relationship" is pure speculation but I think they probably did, human nature being what it is. There was also another stenographer, Bessie Twaroschk, but she only worked there when needed. Haslet left in 1930, or shortly after, and Bonnie was then appointed to the post of secretary. She would have now been in her early thirties and have worked with Rutherford on a daily basis for the previous seven or eight years so I do not consider this appointment, or her acting as signatory for the deed to Beth-Sarim at about the same time, as suggestive that she "had something" on Rutherford. I do think he showed her favoritism and was fond of her, but my impression is that she was more of a daughter to him than a mistress. She described herself as his "adopted daughter" after his death, and even while alive addressed him as "Pappy". When Haslet left he was replaced by Ed Keller who continued to work with Bonnie until Rutherford's death.
So what I have tried to establish is that Bonnie was needed as a stenographer, and as she was later the only one responsible for writing up the Watchtower articles she was apparently good at her job. She did live on the seventh floor but so did her mother and other secretarial staff, and it seems there was always more than one stenographer at hand. This does not mean there was no opportunity for an illicit relationship but Rutherford could have ensured more privacy if that was his design. There is another reason why I doubt Rutherford was having an affair with Bonnie. We have heard that Bonnie married William Heath in 1938 but that is not the full story. Heath was a business man, he acted as a salesman for Coca-Cola in Atlanta and South Carolina and, as Farkel reports, was heir to part of the Coca-Cola fortune. He had studied at the University of Georgia and Columbia University, New York. He was baptised in 1932 and first met Rutherford in 1934. In June 1937 Rutherford invited Heath to Bethel to act as his secretary, that is, to have Bonnie's job although she stayed on as stenographer. Immediately on arriving at Bethel he went on a speaking tour to Europe with Rutherford and Bonnie for 6-8 weeks, and on their return they both continued working for Rutherford. Within six months they were married. Now I think that Rutherford engineered this little romance, as he saw Heath as a plum catch for his "adopted daughter". Why am I so sure. Because Heath was already married when Rutherford invited him to Bethel! And then he takes the two of them on a two month summer cruise to Europe where they get acquainted. Heath married Bonnie in Las Vegas a week after his divorce was granted. These are the actions of a doting father, not of anyone with a romantic or sexual interest in Bonnie.
Whether Berta Peale (aka Verna Peale) can be dismissed quite so clearly I'm not sure but I'll give it a try. In late 1937, Rutherford, William Heath, Bonnie and her mum moved to Beth-Sarim (and they popped down from there to Las Vegas for the wedding). It seems that after Rutherford returned to Bethel Bonnie's mum remained at Beth Sarim, probably because the room she shared with Bonnie was now required for the happy couple. Anyway, a new housekeeper was required for the seventh floor and Bonnie asked Rutherford to invite Berta as she was not only a personal friend (of ten years, and a JW for 20 years) but was also a dietician. Whether or not she was qualified, she had done dietician work in Ohio. So, the principal reason she was invited to Bethel was as a housekeeper, on Bonnie's recommendation. It seems that once she was working in Bethel she continued with her dietician work and also acted as a nurse. Was she really needed in that capacity ? Rutherford had not been a well man since his incarceration in 1918, and his lungs had been so affected that he had not been able to speak out in the open since 1922. By August, 1934 he needed a personal nurse/dietician to assist with his diet and health. The personal nurse in 1934 was Matthew Howlett (aka Malcolm Howlett) who had known Rutherford for the last twenty years. He had studied medicine in England and done some postgraduate courses in the United States. In July 1938 he left Bethel to do zone work (circuit work) in Cleveland, Ohio and that was when Berta arrived and took over as dietician. In August 1939 Howlett returned to Bethel and resumed as nurse/dietician to Rutherford until his death. So this clarifies why Berta was working as dietician to Rutherford although he already had a personal nurse/dietician, and it also shows she was living on the seventh floor (as well as Rutherford and the secretarial staff) as she was housekeeper for that floor. I would also suggest that this was for Bonnie's benefit, to have her long-time friend on the same floor. By the time Berta came to Bethel Rutherford was 68 and three-and-a-half years later he would be dead (from uraemia). He had required medical attention for the last four years. It is not impossible that there was an affair between them but I suggest that Rutherford's age and state of health as well as his constant involvement with books, Watchtower articles and legal work makes it unlikely.
How, then, do I explain Berta's confession to the elders ? Shit, I've just realised something. I assumed she didn't know Rutherford before 1938 but in her "confession" to the elders she told them she had a relationship over a 15-year period. We know that Bonnie had been friends with her for ten years before she was invited to Bethel. That makes a period of fifteen years between the time Bonnie first knew her and Rutherford's death. I was just about to rest my case but have to admit that I think the jury must still be out on this one.
Earnest
Hi TMS,
Thank you for your comments about my field notes. However, as I had mentioned earlier I am writing a political biography of Joseph F. Rutherford and so not all the documents and interviews that I have gathered will be included. Since many powerful men of his era kept mistresses, FDR, Joe Kennedy, William Randolph Hearst, just to name a few, it shouldn't surprise anyone familiar with history that JFR may have done the same. If I wrote about JFR's sexual activities, the audience I am seeking would just say "so what, everybody does it," and not read my book. Therefore, this part of his life, though it may have appeal to some on this site, will only get a footnote in my work.
The sad lesson we learn from JFR is not that he may have had a mistress, but that he took a religious movement with democratic traditions and turned it into a dictatorship that has harmed millions of people.
Ernest, I find your analysis to be very interesting. Your case regarding Bonnie is well presented. You provide a lot of detail in this regard, some of which I knew, and some I didn't. With regard to the detail, you made a mistake regarding Berta, which does lower your credability. You state that she was a dietician before coming to Bethel. There is no evidence of this whatsoever. In the 1930 Census she was listed as a clerical worker. She did not have a high school education or any specialized training. Rae's daughter Sue told me that Berta was considered the least intelligent of the sisters. She was above average. I can attest to that via personal observation, but the rest of the family was absolutely brilliant.
larc
Is there any family history that might motivate Berta towards getting involved with a much older man, or an alcoholic? (history of alcoholism or other addictions within the family, serious control issues regarding Berta's parents etc)
Some of this might come through the family gossip or just info that was "known" but never really talked about. I guess what I am looking for is a psych-soc assessment of the family and Berta to explain why she may have gotten involved with Rutherford (other than the God-complex he seemed to have had.)
