Posts by stev

61

Charles Russell, Alleged Child Abuser

by Farkel in

in the thread about whether charles russell was gay or not, a topic was brought up that i believe deserves a new thread.

as card-carrying apostates we all need to be careful about our information.

even one mistake, whether intentional or not, gives dubs the chance to jump up and say, "see those apostates lied about that thing.

stev

Barbara

I appreciate your research, and I hope you will share the results, and I hope that I might get the opportunity to read it sometime in the future. It is not always easy to discern where the truth lies, and your research into the Mason claim is an example. Yes, just searching the internet, there is so much information out there. I never did believe the Mason claim, but it shows that you can't believe every attack about Russell either. It is apparent now that the child molestation is not true, but how many people have believed it? This causes me to be skeptical of rumors on Russell, expecially when there is no hard evidence. What is missing is a good biography of Charles T. Russell, with the facts. Perhaps someday we will get one.

I did think my posts of Charles T. Russell's accounts were his actual words. One of them is from the Zion's Watch Tower, and the other is from a defense from an early Bible Student that claims that these are the words of Pastor Russell. I posted them so that his version may be compared now with the research. I freely admit that the research does not corroborate his version, and yes, it does bear on his honesty, and it certainly calls for more research to check the truthfulness of the rest of it, which you say you have done. Not everyone is able to do that. I would be interested in knowing if Maria contradicted his story, about Rose's age, being considered their foster child.

Steve

61

Charles Russell, Alleged Child Abuser

by Farkel in

in the thread about whether charles russell was gay or not, a topic was brought up that i believe deserves a new thread.

as card-carrying apostates we all need to be careful about our information.

even one mistake, whether intentional or not, gives dubs the chance to jump up and say, "see those apostates lied about that thing.

stev

Thank you all for the excellent research and posting the results.

This proves that Russell's estimate of Rose's age at 13 was not accurate. If she was 19 years of age when she arrived, and both parents were living, it calls into question Russell's account that she was their foster child. I have not found a statement by him describing her as an "orphan."

In the ZWT 1900, he does describe her as being "quite young". There was no reason for him to lie about this at that time, and perhaps he unwittingly underestimated her age. However, he does not mention that she was his adopted daughter or foster child, which I would expect him to do.

It is possible that Russell years later would not be able to recall Rose Ball's age. It seems likely that at that time he would know, if she for several years was working there at his office, and living in his house.

It does clear him of the charge of child molestation, and whoever is publishing that booklet accusing him of being a child molester should be alerted to Rose Ball's birthdate!

I am glad that Barbara Anderson has researched this, and I would glad to read her book when it comes out. I maintain that the accused should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. This does call into question Russell's credibility, but does not prove infidelity, and Maria's account is not credible to me either. The cloud of this scandal has lasted so long that it would good to be able to put it to rest and the truth to come out, whatever that might be, and I hope more research would clear up the inconsistencies.

Steve

61

Charles Russell, Alleged Child Abuser

by Farkel in

in the thread about whether charles russell was gay or not, a topic was brought up that i believe deserves a new thread.

as card-carrying apostates we all need to be careful about our information.

even one mistake, whether intentional or not, gives dubs the chance to jump up and say, "see those apostates lied about that thing.

stev

Here is another account by Charles T. Russell of Rose Ball story:

http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/contents/history/criticisms%20of%20pastor.htm

THE DIVORCE.

Regarding the "divorce," Pastor Russell said in 1911:

"I remind you briefly of the facts: A most excellent and noble wife became mentally poisoned by ‘Women’s rights.’ When I refused to allow such ideas a place in my journal, The Watch Tower, she became my bitterest enemy. First she tried to coerce me. This failing, she since seeks to destroy my influence. Yet never was a wife more kindly treated. Our property by mutual consent was all devoted to the Lord’s cause whilst we were in fullest accord. Provision was made merely for the necessities of life for both of us. When she changed her mind she demanded the money we had devoted to God’s cause. I paid her forty dollars per month. She appealed to the courts for more money. However, that is all settled, for in 1909, during my absence in Europe preaching, five of my friends, all men, made up a purse of $10,000, settled with Mrs. Russell and took her receipts for five years’ allowances ordered by the court, which they knew I had not means to pay."

What about Rose Ball going to Australia?

"Why, of course, she did not stay a child in short dresses all the time. She married and went to Australia with her husband! Remember, this is quite ancient history which the Eagle Considers news. Twenty years ago Rose kissed my wife and me every night when she retired. And she did this at my wife’s suggestion. It was at that time that she came crying to me and sat on my knee to tell her troubles-as to a father."

"No one knows better than my wife that there was absolutely nothing impure in any of my dealings with that foster child. I did not get a chance to furnish any testimony in court because the trial judge discerned that no immorality was charged in my wife’s plea and ordered everything of the kind stricken from the court records."

On what plea, then, did she get a divorce?

"She did not get a divorce at all; the court merely made a decree of separation. A sympathetic jury concluded that we both would be happier legally separated. My wife’s charge contained not a suggestion of immorality. It charged "cruelty."* The evidence submitted to her attorneys seemed to them rather slim proofs of cruelty, and two sets of lawyers abandoned her case. The third set of attorneys ‘cooked’ up some so-called evidence, including the story about Rose Ball, then married and gone to Australia, and who long years before was our foster child. Emily Matthews, the housemaid of twenty years ago, had also married. Hearing of the case, she came to court voluntarily to testify on my behalf. But before I could put her on the witness stand the court had ruled that portion of my wife’s testimony ‘out of court’ and to be stricken off the court records."

"My wife knew everything, and never for one minute doubted my faithfulness as a husband. She merely sought revenge, because I did not accede to her ‘women’s rights’ notions."

61

Charles Russell, Alleged Child Abuser

by Farkel in

in the thread about whether charles russell was gay or not, a topic was brought up that i believe deserves a new thread.

as card-carrying apostates we all need to be careful about our information.

even one mistake, whether intentional or not, gives dubs the chance to jump up and say, "see those apostates lied about that thing.

stev

This is Charles Russell's version of the Rose Ball story http://www.biblestudents.com/htdbv5/r3808.htm THE COURT RECORDS 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.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, Mrs. Russell on the witness stand and through her attorney attempted to give the impression that her husband was very amorously inclined, "like a jelly-fish floating around," "embracing all who would respond." She said that some one had told her this thirteen years ago. Hear-say testimony is not admissible in Court, but the precious object to be obtained was the public branding of her husband as a "scalawag," so her attorney smuggled this in by having Mrs. Russell swear that she had told it to her husband ten years ago.

When the next day the husband took the witness stand and swore that he had never used the language (and never had heard of it before) all reasonable people concluded that only an idiotic person would make such an uncomplimentary remark about himself. They concluded, too, that even an ordinary woman, seeking a charge against her husband for thirteen years, could imagine wonders and create the living and real in her own mind. This is the most charitable view possible of such an oath. The Court ruled that the testimony be stricken from the Court records.

Mrs. Russell charged an improper intimacy between her husband and "Rose," who became a member of the Russell household in 1888. The attempt of Mrs. Russell and her attorney to give the inference of criminal intimacy was so manifest that the Court interrupted to inquire, if criminal intimacy were charged, why it had not been made part of the plea and why "Rose" had not been made co-respondent in the suit?

Then both Mrs. Russell and her attorney disclaimed any charge of criminal intimacy, but meant that "Rose" had sat on Mr. Russell's knee and he had kissed her. Mrs. Russell also swore that one night she entered "Rose's" room and found Mr. Russell sitting near her bed and holding her hand. The attempt of Mrs. Russell was not to state "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth," but conversely, to state a part of the truth in order to give seeming foundation for evil surmisings, that would injure her husband's influence among those who do not know him.

The next day Mr. Russell on the witness stand explained that "Rose" and her brother "Charles" were members of the family and office assistants--the former at Mrs. Russell's request. "Rose" was quite childish in appearance, wore short dresses, and looked to Mr. Russell to be about 13 years old. He did not know her age, but another who knew her guessed that she was then only 10 years old. She may have been older than 13 in 1888.

The brother came first, and shortly after "Rose's" coming he died. It was some months later that Mr. Russell in the WATCH TOWER office, hearing sobbing, turned to find "Rose" in tears. Inquiring the cause, "Rose," still weeping, came over and sat on his knee, and complained that Mrs. Russell had worked her too hard before she started for the office; and that she felt weary and friendless. He told her that all that was a mistake. He defended Mrs. Russell as not intentionally unkind or unreasonable, and told "Rose" to do what she was able to do, cheerfully, and then to explain her weariness, and that he was sure nothing unreasonable would be asked. Then, suddenly drying her tears, "Rose" kissed [R3815 : page 222] Mr. Russell. Although surprised at all this Mr. R. did not resent it nor reprove it; but rather reproved himself for not having been previously more fatherly. That very night he talked with his wife about "Rose," and pointed out that she was surely lonely since her brother's death, and that it would be a duty to look after her interests more carefully. Mrs. Russell agreed, and it was mutually arranged that "Rose" thereafter should be considered and treated as an adopted daughter.

"Rose" was so informed in the presence of the three, and invited to spend her evenings in the large study and reading room with the Russells. This course was followed; and when "Rose" retired, usually at 9 p.m., Mrs. Russell kissed her good-night and told her to "pass the kiss along" to Mr. R. also. This custom continued several years, until Mr. R. said to "Rose": "I think it best that I should discontinue kissing you; you are now wearing long dresses and looking more womanly, and Mrs. R. might get to feel jealous;--although she has never said a word to that effect, I would not wish to give her the slightest reason for so feeling." Mr. Russell declared that it was quite a while after his discontinuance of his proper fatherly conduct toward "Rose" that Mrs. Russell (having become alienated on account of not getting all the liberty she desired in the WATCH TOWER columns) upbraided him for kissing "Rose."

As for Mrs. R.'s claim that she found her husband in "Rose's" room [R3816 : page 222] one night, sitting near her bed and holding her hand, Mr. R. said that he had no recollection of the occurrence, but that as he has a slight knowledge of medicine he was called on by all the members of the family in cases of illness: Mrs. R., her mother, her sisters and her sisters' children all were accustomed to apply to Mr. R., who kept a free medicine chest, referring serious cases to a regular practitioner. Mr. R. presumed the case in question was an emergency call, and that he was counting "Rose's" pulse. The entire "Rose" matter had a different appearance when the light of truth was turned on it. The Court ruled out the "Rose" testimony, and ordered it stricken from the Court records.

61

Charles Russell, Alleged Child Abuser

by Farkel in

in the thread about whether charles russell was gay or not, a topic was brought up that i believe deserves a new thread.

as card-carrying apostates we all need to be careful about our information.

even one mistake, whether intentional or not, gives dubs the chance to jump up and say, "see those apostates lied about that thing.

stev

I have noticed other inconsistencies in Maria's story.
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/2919/russadult.html

In the court case, her attorney said:
===============================================================================
By Mr. Porter: We propose to prove by the witness upon the stand that the plaintiff after observing the conduct as stated by her, of her husband with Rose Ball, she went to the girl and secured from her statement that Mr. Russell at various times embraced and kissed her; that he called her his little wife and jelly-fish, and told that a man’s heart was so big he could love a dozen women, but a woman’s heart was so small she could only love properly one man: that after receiving this statement from Rose Ball, the plaintiff told her husband that, and he admitted that is was true.
============================================================================

Maria said in her testimony:

============================================================================
Q. Now, about the endearing terms.
A. She said one evening when she came with him, just as she got inside the hall, it was late in the evening, about eleven o’clock, he put his arms around her and kissed her. This was in the vestibule before they entered the hall, and he called her his little wife, but she said,"I am not your wife," and he said, "I will call you daughter, and a daughter has nearly all the privileges of a wife."
Q. And what other terms were used?
A. Then he said, "I am like a jelly-fish. I float around here and there. I touch this one and that one, and if she responds, I take her to me, and if not, I float on to others," and she wrote that out so that I could remember it for sure when I would speak to him about it. And he confessed that he said those things.
================================================================================

Her attorney claimed that Charles said to Rose Ball that Rose was his "little wife and jellyfish." However, later Maria claimed in her testimony that Rose Ball told her that Charles had told Rose that HE was like a jellyfish, not Rose. The attorney said that Charles had said "that a man’s heart was so big he could love a dozen women, but a woman’s heart was so small she could only love properly one man." However, Maria later does NOT include this memorable statement in her testimony. Her attorney would only know whether Charles had actually made that statement if Maria would have told the attorney in the first place. However, Maria claimed that Rose Ball had written the statement out for her so that she remember it for sure. Yet Maria's and her attorney's story does not match.
I have problems believing the actual statements to be true. For a man, especially for a Victorian preacher, to boast openly of his promiscuity to a woman is so unflattering to the person making the statement and insulting to women that it hardly qualifies as "endearing terms," or credible as a seduction line. Someone who is prone to boasts of their libido like that would certainly have made numerous statements to his own wife, yet Maria resorts to hearsay. I find this difficult to swallow.
It appears from the court transcript that in 1903 when Maria first brought the suit that the Rose ball story was not included, and she dated the origin of her complaints to 1897. However, in 1906 in her testimony she began her complaints with the Rose Ball story in 1894. The Court said she did not mention it in her libel. I find this curious, because if Rose Ball had written the testimony down so she would be sure, yet she did not recall this unforgettable incident of 1894 when filing in 1903. If ones today charge Charles T. Russell with child molestation and adultery and perversion, why would she neglect to do so, how could she forget it, and why did she not include it in her original suit?
When the evidence was stricken from her testimony, she then claimed that that she and her husband talked about it after 1896. This fluctuation on her part does not make her case strong in my opinion.
On the matter of Rose Ball being in Australia at the time, was it known ahead of time before 1906 that Rose Ball would even be mentioned by Maria Russell in her suit? It has been insinuated that Charles Russell got her out the country so she couldn't testify. However, the opposite case could be made that Maria surprised Charles during the trial with the Rose Ball story because she knew she lived in Australia and that it would take months for her to travel to the U.S. and would not be available to contradict her story.

Steve

61

Charles Russell, Alleged Child Abuser

by Farkel in

in the thread about whether charles russell was gay or not, a topic was brought up that i believe deserves a new thread.

as card-carrying apostates we all need to be careful about our information.

even one mistake, whether intentional or not, gives dubs the chance to jump up and say, "see those apostates lied about that thing.

stev

For me it is still open to interpretation. In the book "Four Presidents" she went to Bethel to be with her brother. That too can be taken a couple of ways. Perhaps neither parent was alive and ; she wanted to be with the only family she had left. Or after joining up with Russell and his followers her surviving parent did not appreciate her leaving their faith (whatever that was). Or maybe it was an early version of working where the need was greater.

It is all supposition. I don't think we have enough info to support this one way or another.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Does the "Four Presidents" book give a reason for why Rose Ball was a director of the Society? Steve

61

Charles Russell, Alleged Child Abuser

by Farkel in

in the thread about whether charles russell was gay or not, a topic was brought up that i believe deserves a new thread.

as card-carrying apostates we all need to be careful about our information.

even one mistake, whether intentional or not, gives dubs the chance to jump up and say, "see those apostates lied about that thing.

stev

This is Charles T. Russell's recollection of the age of Rose Ball:

http://www.biblestudents.com/htdbv5/r3808.htm
The next day Mr. Russell on the witness stand explained that "Rose" and her brother "Charles" were members of the family and office assistants--the former at Mrs. Russell's request. "Rose" was quite childish in appearance, wore short dresses, and looked to Mr. Russell to be about 13 years old. He did not know her age, but another who knew her guessed that she was then only 10 years old. She may have been older than 13 in 1888. The brother came first, and shortly after "Rose's" coming he died.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Russell estimated her age at 13 in 1888, but I think I recall that Maria said she was 19 years of age in 1889. Russell's whole explanation is based on Rose being a child, and considered adopted. If Rose came at the age of 18-19, this explanation seems less plausible. However, both Charles T. and Maria seem uncertain of the dates involved.

Charles Russell, Alleged Child Abuser

by Farkel in

in the thread about whether charles russell was gay or not, a topic was brought up that i believe deserves a new thread.

as card-carrying apostates we all need to be careful about our information.

even one mistake, whether intentional or not, gives dubs the chance to jump up and say, "see those apostates lied about that thing.

stev

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have an issue with this comment

Lastly, Rose Ball was NOT an orphan as Rutherford and the WTS later claimed in the 1975 Yearbook. The divorce trial states that Russell told Rose she could take his name, yet she declined. Russell then tells us why: "She said the only reason she didn't do that she was afraid if her father heard of it he would think she had lost her respect for him."

I don't know that this would actually meanher father was still alive. I could be a phrase similar to "My father would turn over in his grave if..." or "My father would... if he were still alive"

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I interpret "orphan" to mean not that both parents were dead, but that one parent was dead, and the other parent did not have the financial means to support the child. This would fit the story there, and perhaps the mother was dead, and the father could not take care of the children. More information would be needed.

Steve

61

Charles Russell, Alleged Child Abuser

by Farkel in

in the thread about whether charles russell was gay or not, a topic was brought up that i believe deserves a new thread.

as card-carrying apostates we all need to be careful about our information.

even one mistake, whether intentional or not, gives dubs the chance to jump up and say, "see those apostates lied about that thing.

stev

I have read this thread from last year about Rose Ball, as well as this thread

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/11/51463/1.ashx

There are inconsistencies in the accounts that cloud this story.

1. When did Rose Ball come to live with the Russells? Maria first gave the year 1884, but shortly afterwards gave the year 1889.

2. How long did Rose Ball stay with the Russells? Maria said 10, 11, or 12 years. If Rose Ball came in 1889, she would have remained with them until 1899-1901. However, Maria left her husband in 1897. If Rose Ball came in 1884, she would have remained with them until 1894-1896, before the Russells separated. The year 1884 as the year of Rose's arrival would be more consistent.

3. Why did Rose Ball come to live with the Russells? Charles claimed that she was an orphan and her brother was living there already, and that the Russells considered Rose their adopted daughter. Did Maria ever confirm this? If Rose arrived in 1889 at the age of 19, she would no longer be a minor, and her adoption by the Russells does not seem credible.

4. Charles admitted that he did kiss Rose Ball. How old was Rose when this occurred? Charles claimed that she was a girl in short clothes, and that at the request of his wife he and his wife kissed her goodnight when Rose left the couple for bed. If Rose Ball's birth certificate indicates her birth in 1869, she would be about 15 years of age in 1884. This would be consistent with Charles' story that she was an orphan and considered adopted. Charles said that he stopped kissing Rose Ball when she began to wear longer clothes for fear he would make his wife jealous.

However, Maria claimed that Charles kissed Rose in the year 1894, when Rose would have been 24 years of age, certainly no longer a child, but a grown woman. This would be inconsistent with Charles's account.

5. Charles claimed that by mutual consent he and his wife were celibate in their marriage, and that this was Maria's preference as well. I believe Maria also stated this in the court case. However, Maria claimed that Rose Ball told her that Charles had told her that "I am like a jelly-fish. I float around here and there. I touch this one and that one, and if she responds, I take her to me, and if not, I float on to others". Maria's attorney claimed that Charles told Rose that "a man’s heart was so big he could love a dozen women, but a woman’s heart was so small she could only love properly one man." Maria claimed that Rose told her that he kissed and fondled her several times.

This story seems at odds with their celibate marriage. If he was truly like a jellyfish, with a big heart that could love 12 women, and touch this one or that one, it is very highly unlikely that he would have desired a celibate marriage, and would have used his marriage to satisfy his supposedly excessive libido.

6. If Maria did believe that her husband had an affair, why did she not make it originally the grounds for her case, rather than introducing it at the last minute into the case?

7. If this occurred in the year 1894, Rose Ball would have been 24 years of age, and she would have been a consenting adult in an affair, and would have confessed to the wife that she cheated with her husband. Yet Rose Ball continued to live with them, and seemed to remain on good terms with both the husband and wife. I don't find this a likely scenario.

8. Maria's story of Rose Ball is hearsay, which is not sufficient evidence in libel cases, where the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. For this reason, and the inconsistencies above, I have not found Maria Russell's story about Rose Ball to be credible.

Steve

19

Herbert Armstrong/WWCOG ??

by Junction-Guy in

tonight while at a restaurant discussing jw topics my mom told me that herbert armstrong was on the wt society board of directors years ago and that he ended up leaving over doctrinal issues, and was subsequently branded an apostate by the wt society, and after this he founded the worldwide church of god.

can anybody else verify this?

it does seem believable since a majority of the wwcog doctrines mirror those of the wt society.

stev

The webpage below has a fascinating analysis of the WWCOG, and its historical links to Russell and the JWs, due to the common Adventist heritage of both groups, and likely due to Armstrong reading Russell's works. The author displays a deep understanding of these matters by the discussion of the born again doctrine after the resurrection, by linking Adventist George Stetson's teaching to Russell and then to Bible Students groups, which bear a similarity to Armstrong's teachings.

http://www.giveshare.org/hrp/cogsdarusseliteschristadelphians.html

I have also wondered about the similarity of the Armstrong's book title "The Mystery of the Ages" with the Russell's "The Divine Plan of the Ages," which had a chapter on "The Hidden Mystery," and Russell's doctrine of the Church's attaining to the divine nature with Armstrong's doctrine of the God family.

Steve