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

[Thinking]

18 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

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:

Thank you…I know we dont often take into consideration these all lived  a whole different world and era….what was okay back them…would never be legally possible today nor even an accepted thing in the community,,,

And again some of this is here say or passed down..some written and with proof …all I know even tho I prefer Russell’s demeanour and his will for how things should go forward….we owe Rutherford credit for many things,,,,but I still think he unnecessarily laid the ground work for beating the sheep and making the truth harsh…just not what Russell wanted,

[JW Insider]

16 minutes ago, WalterPrescott said:

That wasn't his only problem, when Rutherford and the board of directors, were jailed, the Watchtower almost went bankrupt. That prompted Rutherford to sell off almost everything he could to reestablish the Watchtower.

According to MacMillan, the Watchtower had gone broke by the end of 1914, and MacMillan explains that this is why the usual delegation of convention delegates coudn't even travel to the conventions at that time.

The tone of the following indicates that it is no doubt from an apostate source, but I copied it several years ago from a forum because it tends to show why MacMillan and other Bible Students would say that "Russell WAS the Society." It's actually just an excerpt from a page that is about 5 times longer. But it also indicates that it was in 1917 just after Russell's death, when Rutherford sold off buildings to reestablish the bank accounts of the WTS. It was not when Rutherford and the Board were jailed in 1918.

In January 1909, when Charles Taze Russell relocated his religion business to Brooklyn, New York, to get away from the Pennsylvania courts, it was necessary to form a New York corporation in order to conduct certain business activities in the state of New York -- specifically, to hold title to real estate. At the same time, Charles Taze Russell also deemed it absolutely necessary that legal matters be arranged in such a fashion that Russell retained absolute financial control over the new corporation.

 

In February 1909, PEOPLES PULPIT ASSOCIATION (later renamed The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc.) was formed by Charles Taze Russell, along with 40 handpicked loyal followers, including Bethelites, who supposedly each purchased one or more shares at $1000.00 per share. Charles Taze Russell was elected "President-For-Life", while all other corporate officers were to be elected annually. To further ensure Russell's absolute financial control, NO donations nor other income went to the People's Pulpit Association. All financial income and donations went through the books of The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania. As "overkill", to make absolutely certain of such, the People's Pulpit Association did NOT even have a bank account for several years.

 

The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania paid all debts of the People's Pulpit Association. The People's Pulpit Association was kept totally and completely in debt to The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, including the holding of full mortgages on each piece of real estate purchased by the People's Pulpit Association. Thus, if there were ever a mutiny, Charles Taze Russell controlled everything of financial worth through his control of the Pennsylvania corporation.

 

Interestingly, in February 1909, Charles Taze Russell indicated that "we" had recently purchased "Brooklyn Bethel", at 124 Columbia Heights, for $24,000.00 (along with two other unidentified properties and their costs), but that "friends of the truth" had had to loan the money to "we" at the "cheapest" possible annual rate of 5% interest, and that those "friends" held a $24,000.00 mortgage on the property. In 1913, during the "Property Tax" court case, Watch Tower Society Treasurer, William Van Amburgh, testified that there was still a $24,000.00 mortgage on the property, and that the mortgage holder was the Watch Tower Society of Pennsylvania. Additionally, Van Amburgh indicated that the Watch Tower Society of Pennsylvania also held a $50,000.00 mortgage on 122 Columbia Heights, but for some reason that he could not explain, that mortgage had never been publicly "recorded", thus could not be viewed by outsiders. The WatchTower Society of Pennsylvania also held a mortgage on the Hicks Street Brooklyn Tabernacle -- initially $17,500.00, but thereafter increased to $25,000.00 to cover financed improvements.

 

Soon after unpacking, Pastor Russell began buying up both adjacent and nearby Columbia Heights properties, including the 1910-11 construction of a 9-story residence/dining hall behind the main offices, whose construction plans had to be vastly downsized due to complaints from neighboring properties that the planned skyscraper would block their views of the river and Manhattan.

 

In 1912, Pastor Russell quietly made a significant real estate purchase in Manhattan -- near Broadway and Central Park. On 63rd Street, the builder of a large new three-story theater had gotten himself into financial troubles, and was forced to sale the partially completed property .... That property became Russell's "New York City Temple", where religious services were conducted along with multiple daily showings of the Photo-Drama starting in January 1914. What received little or no publicity from Pastor Russell was the fact that Russell also purchased the adjacent 10-story mixed occupancy former hotel building, which was rented out as apartments, offices, and retail space. Typically, there were multiple straw transactions before the property was finally transferred into the hands of the People's Pulpit Association in November 1913. As all of PPA's properties, these two new properties also were fully encumbered with full mortgages to retain all financial power within Russell's hands via his total control of the WatchTower Society of Pennsylvania. An article in the WATCHTOWER magazine, which did not mention the purchase of the adjacent building, boasted that the theater building was "worth" nearly a half million dollars. Actually, in 1915, the assessed value of the theater building was $220,000.00, and the assessed value of the former hotel building was only $105,000.00. Those two large Manhattan properties were cashed out by Judge Rutherford after Russell's death, in 1917, for $330,000.00 (roughly $6,250,000.00 in 2016 dollars ...).

[Thinking]

5 hours ago, WalterPrescott said:

Let's make this hearsay, abundantly, clear! There is NOT recorded statement anywhere in the Bible Student Era to support this assumption. 

Rutherford, started with the Bible Students as an attorney. He wasn't baptized as a Bible Student until much later. If he had any concerns about the Watchtower, it would have been legal matters like that of the legality of the board of directors. The early stages of Rutherford's stay in the Bethel House, was to protect the legal matters of the Watchtower. That included Russell.

Did he or did he not change the understanding that the ark no longer represented Jesus and baptism to meaning the ark represented the organization? 

[Thinking]

On 5/22/2022 at 3:24 AM, 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! <><

It's not about one's age, but the experience of that research. In my case, 50 years! This is why, I have yet to find fault with the Watchtowers teachings, and it's understanding. 

One day, over 8 million followers will dwindle to some. The question is, what side will we be on. 

Choose Whom You Will Serve (Deuteronomy 10:12–22)
14 Now, therefore, fear the LORD and serve Him in sincerity and truth; cast aside the gods your fathers served beyond the Euphrates and in Egypt, and serve the LORD. 15 But if it is unpleasing in your sight to serve the LORD, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served beyond the Euphrates, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living. As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD!”

One day, over 8 million followers will dwindle to some. The question is, what side will we be on.
 

this wasn’t said so bluntly as said here….but  Bethel brothers in recent past have said it as innuendo….sort of read between the lines…and if you were not alert to his talk..it could be missed…

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, Thinking said:

Did he or did he not change the understanding that the ark no longer represented Jesus and baptism to meaning the ark represented the organization? 

I think that TTH says he is currently reading the book "Children" which includes this idea, but it started earlier. Rutherford tended to make EVERYTHING fall into only two categories, either it was part of Jehovah's organization or Satan's organization:

Children, p.67

Of course, this included not just the earthly part of that organization, but the focus was on the heavenly part. So it was not so much different, in principle, than the way we understood Paul's words in Galatians about Sarah vs. Hagar:

Children, p.79

Of course, Rutherford uses the term organization 160 times in the book Children alone. The problem, in my opinion, is when he focuses too much on the earthly part of the organization, and he accepted that the word of the earthly organization should be seen as the equivalent of the "word of the Lord" himself. The "confusion" started with his very early idea that Jesus came to inspect his "Temple" in 1918. This Temple was the earthly organization, even though you wouldn't have expected that the "Temple" would picture something earthly. There are many times in the publications (under Rutherford) where "salvation" is too closely attributed to the organization, and not Jesus and Jehovah.

Organizational directions, no matter how mundane, became "instructions from the Lord."

Watchtower, 7/1/43, p.204

 

[Thinking]

58 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I think that TTH says he is currently reading the book "Children" which includes this idea, but it started earlier. Rutherford tended to make EVERYTHING fall into only two categories, either it was part of Jehovah's organization or Satan's organization:

Children, p.67

Of course, this included not just the earthly part of that organization, but the focus was on the heavenly part. So it was not so much different, in principle, than the way we understood Paul's words in Galatians about Sarah vs. Hagar:

Children, p.79

Of course, Rutherford uses the term organization 160 times in the book Children alone. The problem, in my opinion, is when he focuses too much on the earthly part of the organization, and he accepted that the word of the earthly organization should be seen as the equivalent of the "word of the Lord" himself. The "confusion" started with his very early idea that Jesus came to inspect his "Temple" in 1918. This Temple was the earthly organization, even though you wouldn't have expected that the "Temple" would picture something earthly. There are many times in the publications (under Rutherford) where "salvation" is too closely attributed to the organization, and not Jesus and Jehovah.

Organizational directions, no matter how mundane, became "instructions from the Lord."

Watchtower, 7/1/43, p.204

 

C’mon  JWI..we both know he had the power to scotch that new light dead in the water…he promoted it…and to write it in the Childrens book is even worse…in fact disgusting…

That became a solid teaching we were taught and taught others…it mis represented Jesus ..and was based on a lie….why can we not just come out and say that…it helps no one trying to beat round the bush with this..

It did an enormous amount of damage to so so many….and also to Jehovah’s own name and personality .

Walter Rutherford was more than a legal head and lawyer protecting Gods people…he was and did change scriptural understandings and even tho disclaimed the name of Pastor…he acted as such…no matter what he said publicly….and bought in lots on New Light that since then the modern day GB have had to rectify…

[JW Insider]

23 minutes ago, Thinking said:

C’mon  JWI..we both know he had the power to scotch that new light dead in the water…he promoted it…and to write it in the Childrens book is even worse…in fact disgusting…

That became a solid teaching we were taught and taught others…it mis represented Jesus ..and was based on a lie….why can we not just come out and say that…it helps no one trying to beat round the bush with this..

It did an enormous amount of damage to so so many….and also to Jehovah’s own name and personality .

I wasn't trying to beat round the bush. I agree that a lot of damage was done to many. For example, my father and his two sisters (my aunts) received the Children book in person at the St. Louis assembly. The Children book made my father and his two sisters reconsider marriage and having children, because it made having children in this system appear untheocratic, even unchristian. My father of course decided to marry and have children, but my two aunts did not have any children, and in later years they were both quite sad about having followed these "instructions from the Lord."

In 1950, the Watchtower was already loosening up on those instructions, as you can see from a Watchtower article that year, but still with the remaining implication that if you want "perfect" children, you should wait:

*** w50 6/1 p. 176 Letter ***
The flood was a real physical catastrophe to the old ungodly world. The Battle of Armageddon will be likewise a physical catastrophe to this present evil world, and not something just spiritual. The ark of salvation that we enter is not a literal ark but is God’s organization; and as for Noah’s family’s not having children while in the ark, if the “other sheep” class’ now having natural children in the “ark” condition vitiated the picture of the childlessness of the ark’s occupants, then the anointed remnant’s having natural children now would also vitiate the “ark” picture or type. But it does not. Children born now are not born in fulfillment of the divine mandate reissued. When God reissued this mandate to marry and reproduce to Noah after the flood (Genesis 9:1, 7) the mandate was fulfilled in a typical way by a token fulfillment, 70 (10 X 7) generations being listed in Genesis, chapter 10, as springing from Noah and his sons. In the same way the fulfillment of the divine mandate reissued after Armageddon will be, not by crowding it with inhabitants to the saturation point, but by a token fulfillment that will allow for the resurrection of the dead with plenty of room for these resurrected ones. Thus, as pointed out in the Watchtower article “The Apostle’s Counsel on Wedlock”, February 1, 1947, page 45, column 2, footnote, God will show that he can have the divine mandate fulfilled in a very literal way in vindication of his world and he will give a faithful demonstration of its fulfillment. Those having part in its fulfillment will still ‘serve God in his temple day and night’ (Rev. 7:15), they will fulfill Deuteronomy 6:7 as to bringing up their children, and their children will fulfill Ephesians 6:1-3 as to obeying their parents, in the same way that the anointed remnant and their children are instructed to obey these divine commandments.

[Thinking]

10 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I wasn't trying to beat round the bush. I agree that a lot of damage was done to many. For example, my father and his two sisters (my aunts) received the Children's book in person at the St. Louis assembly. The Children's book made my father and his two sisters reconsider marriage and having children, because it made having children in this system appear untheocratic. My father of course decided to marry and have children, but my two aunts did not have any children, and in later years they were both quite sad about having followed these "instructions from the Lord."

In 1950, the Watchtower was already loosening up on those instructions, as you can see from a Watchtower article that year, but still with the remaining implication that if you want "perfect" children, you should wait:

*** w50 6/1 p. 176 Letter ***
The flood was a real physical catastrophe to the old ungodly world. The Battle of Armageddon will be likewise a physical catastrophe to this present evil world, and not something just spiritual. The ark of salvation that we enter is not a literal ark but is God’s organization; and as for Noah’s family’s not having children while in the ark, if the “other sheep” class’ now having natural children in the “ark” condition vitiated the picture of the childlessness of the ark’s occupants, then the anointed remnant’s having natural children now would also vitiate the “ark” picture or type. But it does not. Children born now are not born in fulfillment of the divine mandate reissued. When God reissued this mandate to marry and reproduce to Noah after the flood (Genesis 9:1, 7) the mandate was fulfilled in a typical way by a token fulfillment, 70 (10 X 7) generations being listed in Genesis, chapter 10, as springing from Noah and his sons. In the same way the fulfillment of the divine mandate reissued after Armageddon will be, not by crowding it with inhabitants to the saturation point, but by a token fulfillment that will allow for the resurrection of the dead with plenty of room for these resurrected ones. Thus, as pointed out in the Watchtower article “The Apostle’s Counsel on Wedlock”, February 1, 1947, page 45, column 2, footnote, God will show that he can have the divine mandate fulfilled in a very literal way in vindication of his world and he will give a faithful demonstration of its fulfillment. Those having part in its fulfillment will still ‘serve God in his temple day and night’ (Rev. 7:15), they will fulfill Deuteronomy 6:7 as to bringing up their children, and their children will fulfill Ephesians 6:1-3 as to obeying their parents, in the same way that the anointed remnant and their children are instructed to obey these divine commandments.

It’s okay JWI…I hadn’t actually finished my comment when I posted…and I’m just grateful the teaching has been changed….Jesus was a stumbling block for his own people…..and I beleive the organization at times has been like that with their own…a stumbling block.".the sadness of it at times is just overwhelming for those who dont survive.

[JW Insider]

7 minutes ago, Thinking said:

That became a solid teaching we were taught and taught others…it mis represented Jesus ..and was based on a lie….why can we not just come out and say that…it helps no one trying to beat round the bush with this..

I'm not sure when, specifically, a change was made on this teaching. I still hear the connection between Noah's ark and the earthly organization in recent GB talks. Also this relatively recent Watchtower from 2006:

*** w06 5/15 p. 22 par. 8 Are You Prepared for Survival? ***
Just as Noah and his God-fearing family were preserved in the ark, survival of individuals today depends on their faith and their loyal association with the earthly part of Jehovah’s universal organization.

[JW Insider]

7 minutes ago, Thinking said:

the sadness of it at times is just overwhelming for those who dont survive.

We can always trust that Jehovah is righteous and his judgments are righteous. When all things are made new, the old will be forgotten. And I don't think we know enough about who will and won't survive anyway.

[Thinking]

31 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I'm not sure when, specifically, a change was made on this teaching. I still hear the connection between Noah's ark and the earthly organization in recent GB talks. Also this relatively recent Watchtower from 2006:

*** w06 5/15 p. 22 par. 8 Are You Prepared for Survival? ***
Just as Noah and his God-fearing family were preserved in the ark, survival of individuals today depends on their faith and their loyal association with the earthly part of Jehovah’s universal organization.

It was stated by a bethel brother at an assembly…we were quiet relieved to hear it..it was when they were asking us if we had kept up with the changes…that was one of them….2006 is old news now.

Also brother Luchiani ( however you spell it )  gave a very recent talk on …only Jesus knows who will be saved…it was a excellent talk…you could tell he was reminding us…it wasn’t as blatant as the talk at the assembly and that talk was well after 2006 

Yes I still hear some talks given saying our life will depend on our loyalty to the org…..but I have never heard them equate the org with the ark since that assembly talk..

just on a side note I know it’s an organization but personally I prefer Gods people to organization…..the Israelites were GODS PEOPLE….the Jews were GODS PEOPLE…..The Christian’s were GODS PEOPLE….perhaps it’s something that’s just me…a little bit of a quirky thing,

[TrueTomHarley]

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

I think that TTH says he is currently reading the book "Children"

Are you kidding me? Who can tolerate that stuff?

Everyone but me, apparently. It’s my bad, I know. But whether it was right or wrong, it’s 100 years old and we’ve long since moved on, either building upon or discarding it. 

I’m glad there are people who take interest in the old stuff, and I won’t say I don’t have any. Yes, I did recently purchase it at the eclectic book store. Yes, I did issue an off-the-cuff remark to Srecko that’d I’d finish it and get back to him. But there are just too many things of higher priority to me.

It’s a little like when Minh offered me a treat he really really enjoyed and it was horrible. “I do like it,” I told the hopeful fellow, “it’s just like I like other things more.”

I may get to it someday, about the same time I read Rud’s book.