Paul's Letter to the Galatians and the Struggle for Doctrinal Purity

[Many Miles]

14 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Also see Russell's own statements about how he would make all decisions by himself and that the board would not come into play at all until and unless Russell died.

Anyone who's ever seen some of the society's early minutes from its board of directors could see this right away. Look up the name Rose Ball. I'd have to look up the date in my library, but at one time SHE was the vice president. I know Russell was letting her make decisions. Right? Look her up.

... I bothered to go look it up. In 1893 Charles Russell was president, Rose Ball was vice president, Maria Russell was sec treas. My guess is you won't find that piece of history just laying around.

[Anna]

6 minutes ago, Many Miles said:

I bothered to go look it up. In 1893 Charles Russell was president, Rose Ball was vice president, Maria Russell was sec treas. My guess is you won't find that piece of history just laying around.

I wonder if B.W. Schulz mentions this. He is a big Russell historian. I will have to check it out...

[Many Miles]

6 minutes ago, Anna said:

I wonder if B.W. Schulz mentions this. He is a big Russell historian. I will have to check it out...

Him and his fellows have done some really good research into Russell and the early days of Zion's Watch Tower. I don't think he's ever seen pages of the early minutes of the society's board of directors. If he has, I'd love to read what he had to say. He might have more than I've seen. I don't know.

[Anna]

1 hour ago, Many Miles said:

Him and his fellows have done some really good research into Russell and the early days of Zion's Watch Tower. I don't think he's ever seen pages of the early minutes of the society's board of directors. If he has, I'd love to read what he had to say. He might have more than I've seen. I don't know.

I have his book 'A Separate Identity: Organizational Identity Among Readers of Zion’s Watch Tower: 1870-1887'

It seems to cover the right time period.  I will see if I can find something.

[Srecko Sostar]

"We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark;                        the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light."

- Plato

[JW Insider]

11 hours ago, George88 said:

Who was president before Russell? Why does it matter who started the publishing company in its humble beginning

Like you said, "why does it matter" that a millionaire business tycoon was the first president of the Watch Tower Society before Russell.

11 hours ago, George88 said:

Therefore, when it came to honesty in a court of law, "Rose Ball" decided to exaggerate certain incidents in favor of Mrs. Russell, Bro. Russell criticized her for.

Strike that, reverse it. Mrs. Ball wanted to help Brother Russell with certain allegations made by sister Russell about Rose Ball, but the court refused to allow it.

Russell sent Rose Ball and her husband to Australia just before the trial. So Rose couldn't be there to testify. Russell would not have been able to deceive the court about her age if she had been there. The court didn't refuse to allow it. Russell made a fool of himself in court. He showed his vindictiveness and he was deceitful and egotistical.

On another occasion in court Russell directly perjured himself but was allowed to change his testimony in the following day(s) to state the exact opposite of what he testified earlier (under oath!). The courts were fairly lenient with C T Russell. Russell then used his own public "pulplt" including the pages of the Watchtower itself to fight against (and perhaps even slander) Mrs Russell in the court of public opinion.

Since we got onto this topic of the power of the Watchtower's presidency, this reminds me that Rutherford also used the pages of the Watchtower and even a Watchtower Convention resuolution to slander a man who, by almost all accounts, had told the truth about Rutherford and even won in a lawsuit against him.

Obviously these scandalous occasions do not define the Watchtower or Watchtower presidents. They were rare, and all the good that has been successfully accomplished overrides these past fiascos and failures. Like the Bible's account of Samson, we have to accept some bad with the good. People are imperfect, often unfaithful and indiscreet.

[Anna]

11 hours ago, Anna said:

I have his book 'A Separate Identity: Organizational Identity Among Readers of Zion’s Watch Tower: 1870-1887'

It seems to cover the right time period.  I will see if I can find something.

I realized the book has no appendix where I could search for Rose Ball. I don't have time to search the whole book, but I found quite a lot of information on Schulz's blog:

https://truthhistory.blogspot.com/search?q=rose+ball

13 hours ago, Many Miles said:

I don't think he's ever seen pages of the early minutes of the society's board of directors

Not sure if it mentions the minutes, as I haven't read through everything, but I do know that Schulz won't put pen to paper unless he has written evidence for what he says. But these articles were written mostly by Jerome, not Schulz himself.

[JW Insider]

27 minutes ago, Anna said:

Not sure if it mentions the minutes, as I haven't read through everything,

I read the book. I don't think he ever mentions any of those meeting minutes, but he already knows and states the gist of the point about Russell having complete authority and final say about any decision, and that the board members, both editorial board and society officers, were basically just a legal formality. They had no real input into any of his decisions. Russell pretty much ran the Society by himself. If others helped, and we know that his wife had plenty of input, he didn't give them any credit publicly. I know we think of Rutherford as the most autocratic in this regard, but Rutherford seemed to allow quite a bit of leeway and input from those around him, even if his was the only name that would be put on the publications for most of his presidency. Russell did this early on too although most of those others who had writing input all left the Watch Tower Society within a few short years.

[Srecko Sostar]

4 minutes ago, George88 said:

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Like you said, "why does it matter" that a millionaire business tycoon was the first president of the Watch Tower Society before Russell.

So, why is it relevant to mention that the person is a tycoon in the first place?

Well, I could say that:
1. it is possible to be very (highly) educated, very rich and at the same time be a good Christian
2. it is possible to make a good deal and see a business opportunity as the president of a publishing company that deals with religious topics

 

[Anna]

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I read the book.

Thanks. I was thinking more of the blog. But now I don't need to search for it in the book.

[JW Insider]

1 minute ago, George88 said:

So, why is it relevant to mention that the person is a tycoon in the first place?

Exactly! it was no more relevant than when you asked who the first president of the Watch Tower Society was when no one else had brought that up. If anyone else wants to know, they can read a little more about him in the refereces cited in this Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Henry_Conley

He gave a lot of money to charities and missionary societies. Started a missionary home in Jerusalem. But his support for another Bible-study publication outside the Watchotwer apparently triggered Russell to speak out against that publication, and to tell Watch Tower readers not to buy it. And Conley was not mentioned again. Not even a notice of his death or funeral, which is something the Watchtower did for several other early supporters of the Watch Tower.

2 hours ago, George88 said:

From what I understand, she was present in court when the Judge made a ruling. Surprisingly, her statement was not permitted, despite your previous point. Nevertheless, the question remains: does any of this truly hold any significance?

It's a simple matter to see that your information is false. I believe I have all the available court papers and commentaries about the case from neutral sources, opposing sources and supporting sources. She was in Australia when the judge made a ruling, and it wasn't about her statement. You might be thinking about the ruling over whether it was permissable for Mrs. Russell to bring up adultery and/or sexual misconduct in open court or not.

We can sometimes find out if something has any significance to anyone by seeing whether anyone gets upset by such information. I'm not saying that you would get upset, but some people do, and that MIGHT mean that they are giving too much importance to the reputation of a man. Then it could become a scriptural matter:

^{Galatians 2:6}  But regarding those who seemed to be important+—whatever they were makes no difference to me, for God does not go by a man’s outward appearance—those highly regarded men imparted nothing new to me.

There is a lot of Russell "worship" still going on among some today. Not so much Witnesses, but among some Bible Student groups who follow his writings.

3 hours ago, George88 said:

Personal opinions don't matter to me. The good thing is, all those things you mention here are in print, and people can decide, if one's opinions are slanderous on their own.

Then you and I agree totally on that point.

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, George88 said:

It is important to highlight that Mrs. Russell harbored ulterior motives and was not consistently honest in certain occasions. It is possible that she was deceived by E.C. Hennings, a hypocrite who began to disagree with Pastor Russell on various matters. Something we don't need to use Sultz's book to address.

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.

 

It is worth while noting at this point that Mrs. Russell at the trial gave every appearance of casting“Rose” as “the other woman,” and that it was the Pastor who pointed out that she was a child. Had Mrs. Russell intended to coconveyhat the Pastor had molested a child—which would have been a “bombshell” accusation—surely she would have testified to that effect in court. Mrs. Russell attempted to transform the fatherly affection and comfort given to a child, into illicit attention toward a woman. No accusation of child molestation ever surfaced in the Pastor’s own day; it is rather the product of newer fertile imaginations. Subsequent events seem to bear out the Pas tor’s side of his incident. Rose could not be called upon as a witness in the separation trial to give her own account because she was in Australia at the time. In the years following the original incident, she had grown up and eventually married E. C. Henninges, a close confidante of the Pastor who became branch manager of the Watch Tower work in Australia. But in 1909 the Henninges split from the Pas tor over a doctrinal issue and joined others in America to spearhead the “New Covenant” movement. An astute observer writes

Undoubtedly, there are numerous negative aspects to consider when discussing the experiences of both individuals involved in a divorce or separation. These aspects, however, should not have been subject to public scrutiny. Unfortunately, due to Mrs. Russell's decision to make her situation public, this discussion became inevitable.

Funny how opinions work: Based on available eidence it would have been just as easy to reword your statement above as follows and possibly be just as accurate:

It is important to highlight that Mrs. Russell harbored NO ulterior motives and was not consistently honest in certain occasions [where some might say she was dishonest]. It is HARDLY possible that she was deceived by E.C. Hennings, a hypocrite person who was fully loyal to Russell such that Russell entrusted him with the Watch Tower's work on the entire continent of Australia, and who only later began to disagree with Pastor Russell on various matters. [And those matters were primarily matters in which ALL Jehovah's Witnesses have now come to also disagree with Russell.] Something we don't need to use Sultz's book to address.

I won't repeat the defense that Russell printed for himself in the Watch Tower. It has been rather thoroughly debunked. Also, the Watchtower is currently more in line with Mrs. Russell's writings on some subjects than Mr. Russell's. And the Watchtower is currently more in line with Henninges views on the New Covenant and rejects Russell's view (that only natural Jews are in the New Covenant).

 

But you did say this:

Quote

It is worth while noting at this point that Mrs. Russell at the trial gave every appearance of casting“Rose” as “the other woman,” and that it was the Pastor who pointed out that she was a child.

Turns out that she wasn't a child at all during the time that Mrs Russell spoke. She was a grown woman of legal age. She was the VICE PRESIDENT OF THE WATCH TOWER SOCIETY. Russell tried to paint her as 'a little child in a short skirts/dresses sitting on his lap' to make himself appear more innocent, as if she was just a young girl jumping on papa's lap, not because anyone would have been thinking about child molestation. Otherwise Russell wouldn't have voluntarily mentioned her short skirts.

Quote

Undoubtedly, there are numerous negative aspects to consider when discussing the experiences of both individuals involved in a divorce or separation. These aspects, however, should not have been subject to public scrutiny. Unfortunately, due to Mrs. Russell's decision to make her situation public, this discussion became inevitable.

Or one could say that when an egotistical and vindictive man tries to take everything away from a woman, including her means of support, and her reputation, and her place to live, she has little choice but to take him to court.