I am reading: "Rutherford's Coup" by Rud Persson -- 600+ pages, and much too expensive!

[Thinking]

10 hours ago, JW Insider said:

There are bits and pieces of this in our publications. It's only when you put all the pieces together and hear PSL Johnson's side of the story that some of the apparent discrepencies start to make sense. Persson discusses this episode at great length (of course), considering the 1973 Yearbook, 1975 Yearbook, Proclaimers, Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose (1958), Faith on the March (1957) and the old Watchtower publications from 1916, 1917, and 1918. But he also quotes extensively from contemporary Bible Student sources and recent Bible Student sources such as the one's that @WalterPrescott has quoted from.

In fact, most of the paragraphs that Walter has been posting are taken directly from the writing of Rolando Rodriguez. You can find them here: https://millennialmessengers.wordpress.com/tag/charles-taze-russell/

and much of it repeated on a forum here: https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/thepresenttruthforum/the-fiery-cloudy-pillar-t4686.html?sid=a8e09c4a4332c2aea4e21c85819a15ac

Persson acknowledges contact with Rodriguez for his book and credits him with providing some historical document(s).

I think it's easy to get the idea from what's been said that PSL jumped out a window due to a mental breakdown. This is a conflation of several things that have been said about him in our publications. In fact, PSL apparently never jumped out of a window, but let himself down from the balcony where his feet could reach the fence, and then let himself down from the fence, also without jumping. He did this because he was being trapped in one of the London Bethel rooms with the door blocked, and under guard, likely both to keep him from being able to participate in a planned court hearing the next day, and to resolve a matter about some missing money. And Hemery, the person still managing the London Bethel, and an adversary in the court case, apparently wanted to go through his letters and papers in his briefcase before the court hearing took place. Hemery ended up doing just that.

Nobody was hurt, and Rutherford did not treat PSL as if he really had serious mental problems when he got back, as you might expect if everything said about him was true. Rutherford just didn't want him going back to the London Bethel where he had seen (or likely caused) so many problems.

If you read the 1973 Yearbook, it looks like Hemery's account (the only one given) is an attempt to add a lot more dramatic flavor to the episode than most Watchtower-style writing. It's as if he wanted to write like an amateur Mickey Spillane.

Well all I can say after reading that is…bethel must have been like a nut house!!..and appears run by nuts!…

I certainly would not want any of my children to go there….adults or not!

As one older elder said here and of whom I would trust my life with..this was said from the platform and said with some despair in his voice.

THERE IS NO ONE IN THIS WORLD YOU CAN TRUST BUT JEHOVAH AND JESUS..NO ONE.

and I stand by his wise words…….sheesh 

oh and thanks for those links…I will look them up for sure…

[Thinking]

9 hours ago, Anna said:

It is my bad @Thinkingfor saying jumping and thanks JWI for the correction. Just goes to show how fleeing out of a window or balcony becomes jumping out of it. That is what had stuck in my mind, I did not mean jumping as in jumping from a great height in danger of hurting oneself, but figuratively speaking as in running away....it sounds more dramatic but easily givers a false impression. I had wanted to read the whole account again for accuracy but I was on my phone and all my files were on the computer. The account is in a booklet called Harvest Siftings that was later reprinted in a WT of the same year I believe.

Here it is in PDF file of Harvest Siftings. It will give you a good idea of what transpired during that period, at least from the point of view of Rutherford and others. The bit about the window saga is on page 6.

https://ia600902.us.archive.org/5/items/WatchtowerLibrary/booklets/1917_shf_E.pdf

 

 

All good..🙂

[Thinking]

4 hours ago, Thinking said:

Well all I can say after reading that is…bethel must have been like a nut house!!..and appears run by nuts!…

I certainly would not want any of my children to go there….adults or not!

As one older elder said here and of whom I would trust my life with..this was said from the platform and said with some despair in his voice.

THERE IS NO ONE IN THIS WORLD YOU CAN TRUST BUT JEHOVAH AND JESUS..NO ONE.

and I stand by his wise words…….sheesh 

oh and thanks for those links…I will look them up for sure…

Joseph Franklin Rutherford (1861-1942): From a large Calvinist family; formerly a small-town lawyer in Missouri; at least once appointed to serve as judge in a case; politically active in Democratic politics. Custodian of Pastor Russell’s last will and testament. Apparently dismissed from Bethel in early 1915, living in Monrovia near Los Angeles, working as a lawyer for a department store in Los Angeles. Forceful in disposition and persuasive. Debated Rev. John H. Troy at First Baptist Church in Glendale, California, April 21-24, 1915.
 

this comes from one of those links….I had read Rutherford had been dismissed from bethel by Russell just before his death….does any one know if this is a true statement….

[Thinking]

3 minutes ago, WalterPrescott said:

 

Converted image to text. 

“And straightway Jesus constrained them—.” This does not mean that they were shoved into the boat; it does mean that they were told that was the best thing to do. Why? I believe that ship represents the same thing as the 27^th chapter of Acts; viz.: The Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society, and I know why Jesus “constrained” them to get into it. No one could get into the Kingdom without it. There is no other way to get a crown. I know why he constrained them, if this was a picture. The Watch Tower was God's agency, and when we say the Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society, ewe could use a shorter word, we could say Pastor Russell. It is one and the same thing. For up to the time that

Pastor Russell died, it was Pastor Russell and you know it was. You know that his will was carried out to the letter in every single iota. He was God’s servant to take charge of the Harvest work. The Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society and Pastor Russell were one and the same thing. Do you think that you could have gotten your crown and gone into the Kingdom without Brother Russell?

Is it any wonder then that “Jesus constrained them to get into the ship?” No one who is a truly consecrated and spirit-begotten child of God could have become so during this harvest age, without Brother Russell or the Watch Tower.

“And when he had sent them away .. he went apart to pray.”"—Went up into the Kingdom where you and I are going. “And when the even was come.... tossed with the waves for the wind was contrary. And in the fourth watch Jesus came unto them, walking on the sea.’-—It might be that each watch represented a year and from 1914 to 1915 might be number one; 1915 to 1916, number two; 1916 to 1917, number three; 1917 to 1918, number four—the time that Jesus came. He came in the fourth watch, the fourth year after the times of the Gentiles ended.

Interesting

[JW Insider]

12 hours ago, WalterPrescott said:

Sorry to say, not everything I have posted comes from that WordPress, Millennial Messenger. Some comes from the Bible student archives themselves.

You are right. I should have been more specific. But I  think that what you did quote from Rolando Rodriguez was excellent as background to a lot of the Bible Student groups' take on this time in history.

Of course, as I know you know, we shouldn't just take what the Bible Students say as if it is the final word. When there is a discrepancy, Persson's book gives reasons why there are times when the Bible Student version is more correct and times when the Watchtower's version is more correct.

I wanted to quote some additional paragraphs in addition to the ones you quoted. But anyone who wishes can just look at the same link.

2 hours ago, WalterPrescott said:

When one does a Historical research of the Watchtower, all coalitions and offshoot sect (associations) are considered!

This is a good point. It seems that each offshoot wanted to highlight at least one specific doctrine that was more important to them, and which had caused a minor disagreement. You can also see a sense of who wanted to be thought of as the current "servant" or "steward." It became rather competitive. You can see it in the paragraphs you quoted about PSL's group coming up with Russell as "parousia" [faithful and wise] servant, and then PSL himself as "epiphany" servant, and then an "apokalypsis" servant. You can even detect competition over who would be called the "faithful and wise" servant back in Barbour's time, and the idea had come up among Second Adventists before him.

Who gets to be called "the Servant" or "the Steward" was a big deal, and it's really the main subtext of the whole P.S.L.Johnson versus J.F.Rutherford "contest." Persson's book points out how it was called "ludicrous" that Johnson first brought up this new title in regards to himself, but that Rutherford then went to convention after convention where he would spoke just after C.J.Woodworth would give the talk that always announced Rutherford as "the Steward."

3 hours ago, WalterPrescott said:

The above-mentioned comes from my collection of the "Stand Fast Bible Students", a pamphlet called the ship by Bro. C.E. Heard in 1919.

When one does a Historical research of the Watchtower, all coalitions and offshoot sect (associations) are considered!

I first heard about the Stand Fast movement in Bethel "morning worship" address by Brother Klein (Governing Body) where he admitted to having "apostasized" into that movement because Rutherford had compromised on political issues. He said that he later apologized to Rutherford and got back into the Watchtower Society.

Persson's book also mentions Brother C.E.Heard and the pamphlet and talk called "The Ship." The book also quotes from it in a few places.

A Bible Students archive site has some of the information about this, too: https://www.biblestudentarchives.com/documents/StandFastHistory.pdf

When I get to that part of the book I'll quote some of the things he says on page 528 through 545 (Kindle edition) about "The Ship" and about Brother C E Heard.

[JW Insider]

4 hours ago, Thinking said:

Interesting

"The Ship" you were commenting about here reminds me of the same issue you brought up regarding whether the "ark" would be seen as an organization. I mentioned speaking to an 80+ year old elder who is a good friend of mine from Bethel. When we just spoke, he mentioned that when he taught Gilead classes, he once asked the class what would happen if anyone taught the "truth" of almost any paragraph from "The Finished Mystery." The class was in agreement that the person would be disfellowshipped. So he asked, then what was it that Jesus would have seen in the group so that he would choose to bless this particular ministry? I told him that I would have guessed that it was neutrality/no-War, no-Trinity, and no-Hellfire. He said that there were other groups who also taught those same three doctrines. I said I didn't know there were any that taught all three at the same time. But do I really know that there weren't such groups in Argentina, Poland, Scotland, etc. Maybe he would be driving at the value of the USA location, which didn't seem likely. But his only point was that all we can assume is that it had to be their love of Jehovah and his Son. That's what will always be the most important as doctrines continue to change. 

I hadn't given it too much thought that way. I always figured it was at least our core set of doctrines, but I still agree that it was a good point for discussion.

[JW Insider]

5 hours ago, Thinking said:

this comes from one of those links….I had read Rutherford had been dismissed from bethel by Russell just before his death….does any one know if this is a true statement….

You'll see this a lot among the claims of contemporary and current Bible Student groups. But if Russell did dismiss him, it would not have been due to a specific conflict between them or about his personality at the time. I think it was in Faith on the March where MacMillan implies that Bethel was out of money by the end of 1914, having believed that there would be little need for money in 1915 and that the expensive production of the Photo-Drama had drained the coffers. So a lot of people were dismissed for financial reasons around 1915.

But the importance of Rutherford as legal counsel was still important, and Rutherford was still trusted with contributed writings and public addresses in 1915, so it would not have been like a "disfellowshipping" of any kind.

Bible Students make much of this just to make sure that people don't give too much attention to JWs. It creates a kind of pre-emptive rejection of JWs by Russell.

[JW Insider]

16 hours ago, WalterPrescott said:

It could very well have been the war bond issue.

I think you are right. This was the main issue that the "Stand Fasters" publicized. The Watchtower and Rutherford said that there was no problem in buying War Bonds, because it showed we were "friends" with the United States.

But I notice the date on the pamphlet you posted. January 1919. So this was also just about the exact same time when the Watchtower had declared its basic "support" for the League of Nations. In effect, the Watchtower was calling it 'the political expression of God's Kingdom on earth." Naturally they didn't think it in any way "replaced" God's Kingdom, but thought of it as a kind of expression of God's Kingdom because it had the same shared purpose and goals. The February 1919 Watchtower said:

“We cannot but admire the high principles embodied in the proposed League of Nations, formulated undoubtedly by those who have no knowledge of the great plan of God. This fact makes all the more wonderful the ideals which they express. For instance, it has been made plain by President Wilson and the advocates of his ideas that the proposed League of Nations is more than merely a league to enforce peace. They would not have us consider it to exclusively from the standpoint of politics or of military relations. It should be considered as fully from the economic and social points of view. The President’s idea seems to be that the League of Nations which he proposes would stand for world service rather than mere world regulation in the military sense, and that the very smallest of nations shall be participants in its every arrangement. In other words, his idea undoubtedly is that the league shall not be established merely for the purpose of promoting peace by threat or coercion; but that its purpose, when put into operation, will be to make all nations of earth one great family, working together for the common benefit in all the avenues of national life. Truly this is idealistic, and approximates in a small way that which God has foretold that he will bring about after this great time of trouble.” — Watch Tower,  February 15, 1919,  p.51

l have seen it pointed out that it was also a crazy coincidence that the Watchtower was here "wondering admiringly" at the League, even using the same words about its "wonderful" expressions and that we cannot but "admire" it's high principles. This was an unfortunate use of words when we consider that the 1984 New World Translation translated Revelation 17:8, purportedly about the same League of Nations, as follows:

(Revelation 17:8)  The wild beast that you saw was, but is not, and yet is about to ascend out of the abyss, and it is to go off into destruction. And when they see how the wild beast was, but is not, and yet will be present, those who dwell on the earth will wonder admiringly, but their names have not been written upon the scroll of life from the founding of the world.

The Stand Fasters claimed that Rutherford's attitude and words were compromising toward the world and its politics.

[Srecko Sostar]

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

In effect, the Watchtower was calling it 'the political expression of God's Kingdom on earth."

Please can you tell me where it was written? Ever since I know for myself, and while I was JW, I have been taught in the Congregation that this claim was made by the Catholic Church and how blasphemous it is on their part.

quote from "Revelation book":

As early as December 18, 1918, the body now known as the National Council of the Churches of Christ in America adopted a declaration that declared in part: “Such a League is not a mere political expedient; it is rather the political expression of the Kingdom of God on earth. . . . The Church can give a spirit of good-will, without which no League of Nations can endure. . . . The League of Nations is rooted in the Gospel. Like the Gospel, its objective is ‘peace on earth, good-will toward men.’” - https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/index/r1/lp-e?index-ref=1101988033%3A30%2C1101988033%3A38%2C1101988033%3A44%2C1101988033%3A83

[JW Insider]

7 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Please can you tell me where it was written?

Pudgy is right. It's not written in the same words. It's written the way I quoted the same sentiment from the February 15, 1919 Watch Tower, p.51. In fact, the timing of that article might even make someone guess that it was a way of showing agreement with the similar, but much more direct, statement from the "Federal Council of Churches" (FCC) just a few weeks earlier. They both praise the objective/purpose of the League, and both convey that it is in line with the kingdom message foretold in the Bible. Also if you read the entire comment from the FCC you see that they also didn't make it the equivalent of God's Kingdom, just a political expression of it. It was very common in those decades for the Watchtower to express agreement with political happenings that they understood to be aligned with the expectations about the Kingdom. This was especially true of Zionism, movements with respect to "capital vs. labor," and various politicians of the time who were even depicted as the near equivalent of "prophets."

Edited to add an example:

For example, the 1924 Golden Age (now Awake!), on page 149, says:

We understand now, why Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, who like Judge Rutherford is permeated with the real Biblical and prophetic spirit, ceases not in his discourse to defy the devil, and throw (morally) an inkwell into his face, as the deceased Luther did. We understand also why the Premier of the Labor Party turns his back on the League of Nations, of which formerly he was an apostle, and draws near to the Americans whose eyes are opened.

Judge Rutherford cites, in addition to prophecies from Isaiah, Ezekiel and Amos, from Mr. MacDonald: "There is neither betterment nor peace in Europe. The governments are powerless. The year 1924 is worse than 1914." Again he [Rutherfod] quotes the prophet David Lloyd George: "A new chapter opens in the history of Europe, with a climax of horror such as the world has never witnessed."

[JW Insider]

3 hours ago, WalterPrescott said:

Also, you, might want to reconsider your post about the FEBRUARY 15, 1919, Watchtower.

The portion you quoted is all the more potent in tying the League of Nations to a then-current political expression of God's Kingdom. In fact, it's in those portions that one can see a greater affinity with the position the Federal Council of Churches was stating. I'll simply re-quote the portion that you quoted, highlighting the points you highlighted:

VIEWS FROM THE WATCH TOWER, PITTSBURGH, PA., FEBRUARY 15, 1919

With the great Peace Conference actually in progress and with the League of Nations a virtual reality, Bible Students are in a position to see more in these two world-events than mere evolution of human thought and action.

So what did the WT mean when it said that the League could be seen as more than just something merely of human thought and action? Was it from the Devil? Or was it, rather, to be seen as a part of the strides of divine Providence that persons with spiritual insight could see as part of the outworking of the Messianic Kingdom? The answer is in the Watchtower's next sentence:

They are but the strides of divine Providence in this "great day of Jehovah. Blind indeed are all who cannot appreciate that this is the day of preparation for Messiah's kingdom, in which a perfect League of nation will exist, yea, a binding together in common interest of all kindred and peoples, and in which the Golden Rule will be the law supreme.

So one would be "blind" (without spiritual insight) not to notice that this League was providing an earthly, political expression of what will be perfected in God's Kingdom rule from heaven. In fact, it is to be seen as part of the "preparation" for the same work that the Kingdom will do. I think a lot of people are surprised that C.T.Russell had taught that so many of the contemporary modern inventions and even political changes in the world were to be seen as "preparation" for God's Kingdom on earth. Recall that Russell and Rutherford believed they were already living in the Dawn of the Millennium. The 1,000 year reign of Christ had already started. New inventions and discoveries were coming at them fast, all this would be put to more and more use as the Millennium continued. These ideas were repeated very clearly in the 1917 book, The Finished Mystery, too.

While the Lord's people are tremendously interested in the outcome of the present Peace Congress and in the League of Nations which may there be born, nevertheless we look with still greater longing to the time foretold by the prophets of Israel when the kindred of earth shall say one to another: Let us go up to the mountain of the Lord. To the house of the God of Jacob and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths," at which time "nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore."-Isaiah 2 :2-4; Micah 4:1-4. P.[6389]

Just like the Federal Council of Churches (FCC), the League of Nations provided an earthly, political expression of God's Kingdom, not to replace it, but to signify the proper political direction and pattern that only God's heavenly kingdom could fully accomplish. You don't get that from the oft-quoted short telegram that the President and Secretary of the FCC sent to Woodrow Wilsom. But you see it clearly in the context of similar references to God's Kingdom throughout the bulletins of the Federal Council of Churches at that time. Speaking of the aims and goals of their own organization during this same time, they said:

In fact, those obsequious words to President Wilson about the League were much more subdued in the longer resolution that reaffirmed their faith in the value of the League. Notice how it changes to the political expression of "this new idealism," and only considers it an earnest endeavor to establish the principles of the Kingdom of God, etc., etc.

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Federal_Council_Bulletin/lEVQAQAAMAAJ

The big problem with the "FCC" was that they were hypocrites in supporting the war and would still speak of how proper (though difficult) it was for the churches to teach their members that it was OK to kill (in times of war). Russell had already made good progress towards neutrality, even though it wasn't perfect. And Rutherford had spent a lot of the time when the US was involved in WWI trying to help Bible Students get ministerial advantages as conscientious objectors to war.

The February 15, 1919 Watch Tower was a short-lived mistake during a time when Rutherford's opponents took advantage of it to claim that Rutherford was the offshoot, the apostate, and his opponents were the ones sticking fast to the present truth.

So I'm curious then. What was it do you think that Rutherford found "wonderful" about the League? What was it you think that he was "admiring" about the League?

[JW Insider]

On 5/21/2022 at 12:39 PM, Thinking said:

.I had read Rutherford had been dismissed from bethel by Russell just before his death….does any one know if this is a true statement….

I already gave a short answer with my opinion on this question. I found it funny that I just got to a part of Persson's book where he answers the same question. It's unbelievably long. I just found it funny that someone put so much work into answering that question and even draws on some material where I never would have thought to look. In one case I didn't even know that the material existed. 

Persson uses a couple of the same ideas that I used in my answer. But many more, too. I don't think it's at all important to read all of what I'm about to paste below, but I wanted to let you know that it's only about HALF the information he actually uses in the book to answer the same question: