JW Insider

When posts get flagged for deletion, moderators, including me, can still see the posts with a pink background. When I see one of these I capture the screen, because there are always going to be people who say that words might have been changed, that moderators edited things, etc. And when a post disappears people can make up anything about who said what first, or whether they got a warning or not. It's just a simple key press and I've captured a screen, and I never even look at it. I have about 1,000 of these. What happened to @Patiently waiting for Truth (PWFTT) was unfortunate, because it started with a discussion of God's judgment on the GB. I think the Librarian realized that religious discussion is often about life and death judgments that will be carried out by angels or Jehovah himself. They shouldn't be confused with personal threats. But a rather harsh-sounding judgmental post was flagged (by BillyTheKid) and this was treated as a kind of warning, after which, since PWFTT didn't back down, he lost his entire account. What makes this unfair, in my opinion, is that just a day or so ago, WalterPrescott told PWFTT that he should get his demons exorcised, and he and others have often indicated that he will not survive Armageddon, to which PWFTT has several times replied that he expects to die in this system anyway, and does not expect even to be resurrected. One last time, I'll post what was considered the warning, and if you know who "BillyTheKid" was, it will make more sense. When legal intervention is threatened, I think that account owners and perhaps some moderators, too, will prefer to play it safe, and just delete offending posts and sometimes offending accounts, too. BTK also lost his account a while later for what was considered abusive behavior.

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

Actually, it's Russell's position. He states it clearly when he writes his own autobiographical statements in the Watchtower. But let's talk about Russell under another topic. This topic should really be more about Rutherford, and what happened shortly after Russell died. You are very correct about that. And this is one of the reasons why I maintain that opinion about the stronger links to Adventism than some will admit. But again, I don't want to divert from the topic just yet. There have already been more than enough questions and comments about Rutherford that deserve better clarification, before we start off on new topics about Russell. Of course, feel free to say what you will about it, but know that it might end up getting moved under a mostly-Russell topic, rather than a mostly Rutherford topic

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 ...).

It's a different topic that we've already discussed at greater length elsewhere. But you should notice that Russell was saying he WAS a Congregationalist. That's the denomination in which he was raised, and some influence remained. But it's the one he left, and he states that he pretty much had to start over, to "start from scratch." I don't think it's that simple either. Neither does Schulz. But Schulz finds ample evidence that Russell admits to his greater affinity to "Age to Come" believers. As you noted, this doesn't mean Russell agreed with them in all respects. Russell continued to progress in his beliefs and adjusted some of his own previous beliefs along the way. It's true that even a lot of Witnesses also assume that Russell was not much different than a Second Adventist with updated dates. As I'm sure you know, the full answer starts with a lot that was borrowed from Adventism but goes well beyond into Russell's own studies. And you are right that a lot of non-Adventist churches were "adventist" in the sense that they all expected a "second advent." You could even expect Christ's return to be imminent and not be part of any Adventist church. But you go too far in that last quoted statement. Even the current Proclaimers book references some links to Adventism. Although Schulz agrees with you on this point, I have found additional evidence showing even more links to Second Adventism than Schulz admits. Some of it also shows up from contributors to his site.

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:

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?

Of course. I get it now. I get the impression that you have probably not read B W Schulz books then. I have all three of them and have read two of them (Barbour, and Separate Identity V.1). I have not completed Volume 2. Schulz actually sides more with you on the idea that Russell did NOT consider himself as following in the footsteps of Adventists. Russell only would admit that the Advent Movement was used by Jehovah, as was Miller himself (according to the Watch Tower). Schulz makes it clear that Russell didn't consider himself Adventist, but as Russell himself indicated, closer to the "Age To Come" believers.

I honestly couldn't make sense of that. I didn't intend or see any sarcasm. We found something we agreed upon, which I think is great. Something about that must have troubled you so you began to make threats, indicating that no matter how I responded you were going to come back loud, harsh and negative. I honestly don't understand that reaction either. I have one book by Carl Olof Jonsson, two by Raymond Franz, three by Rolf Furuli, and two by James Penton. I haven't heard enough about any of the others to know if they might be of any use. I purchased a CD full of about 200 old Second Advent and Seventh Day Adventists books on eBay several years ago. I set them up on a drive to make them searchable, but have found almost no use for them, except to check some things that Bruce Schulz had claimed. I did the same thing for a CD full of Latter Day Saint resources, which has only been of use several years ago when I took some visits by a couple of Mormon "elders." Fortunately, I also downloaded entire sites with good Bible Student archives, not realizing that a lot of these sites were going "off the air" as it were. I'll look for your recommendation. I don't recall anything called "The Link to Advent Movement." But I'll try to read nearly anything, if it seems interesting enough. I'll answer your comment about the February 15, 1919 Watch Tower in another post, because I think you quoted some very important portions.

I don't get the insult at all. In fact, I think you also came to the same conclusion about the book. And who says anyone got upset because your rebuttal is "loud"? I don't even know what you mean by that, but I am certainly not upset by a rebuttal. That's what we are here for. You might be aware of things in this book by Persson that are wrong. And I'm sure that would be interesting to some persons here. Definitely it would be interesting to me, at least. Exactly. I'm glad we agree on this, too. I've seen only a few apostate books, but I agree that they can be filled with distorted views. I'm curious as to whether you have any specific examples that show that B.W.Schulz' research is sloppy or distorted, by the way. To me he seems to agree with your own philosophy, that one should trace down all of the offshoots if possible, and the beliefs of all the people coming into or out of the organization. His books rarely reach into history much more recent than about 1890, so far, but you see the same philosophy on his website/blog: https://truthhistory.blogspot.com That's not a a problem. Would be happy to hear what you have to say about the long quote you made from James Parkinson's The Bible Student Movement in the Days of C.T. Russell.

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."

The WHO may not be fooling around this time! But that's under another topic. (FWIW, my favorite of theirs was Behind Blue Eyes.)

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.

I think that part of the problem is that apostates are driven by a variety of motivations, and there is therefore a wide range of quality in their work. I have never heard of this book by Casarona, but from what you have shared, it seems to be the kind of book you could thumb through very quickly and reject as one of those that grasps at straws and just presents anything negative without doing much research, merely copying the worst claims he has heard about. For example, Richard Wheelock did not jump from a third floor factory window as so many people think. He jumped from a window in the Towers Hotel. He had been suffering from depression from many years before this happened. He had even threatened suicide going as far back as the time when his fiance, Audrey Mock, left him to marry Brother Knorr. It's stupid to blame the Society directly for factory accidents. These are usually human error. There are probably only a very few cases where legal liability might have reached "to the top." But it would be rare to get credible public knowledge of such events, because it would be rare for the family of a Bethelite to make a case against the entire Watchtower Society for a wrongful death. I can't imagine my own parents even thinking of such a thing if anything had happened to me there. Yes, there were suicides even when I was there, but only two, I think. The numbers of Bethelites were greatly increased in the 1970s and there was a thought going around that congregation elders were purposely encouraging Bethel service to young brothers whom they termed "damaged goods." They thought that the spirituality at Bethel would fix them. In some cases it was evidently mental issues stemming from sexual abuse catching up to them. And we'll never really know what it was in this lifetime. It appears that those were your words, not Casarona's. If so, I don't think it's fair to try to judge the faith of someone who suffers from deep bouts of depression. For all we know it was confident faith in the resurrection that motivated his suicide. I do think, of course, that some ex-JWs, non-JWs, and apostates are definitely out to give Bethel, or the Watchtower Society, a bad review. But no matter their motive, I think we also need to look at the quality of their research. I remember when Jim Penton wrote a book about the history of the persecution of Witnesses in Canada. It was considered an excellent book and was available in the Bethel Library. Penton was considered an excellent historian and of course there was pride in that a professor or PhD had written such a good book. The Watchtower even said: *** w77 1/1 p. 11 Insight on the News *** “A Debt of Gratitude” ● Writing in the Toronto “Star” of October 4, 1976, Stuart Shaw mentions the book “Jehovah’s Witnesses in Canada: Champions of Freedom of Speech and Worship,” by James Penton, associate professor of history at the University of Lethbridge. Shaw explains that it discusses the intense persecution of the Witnesses in that country from 1939 to 1956, “first at the instance of the federal government and then at that of the government of Quebec.” . . . Referring to the recent book, however, and shedding some light on the underlying cause, Shaw comments: “Penton argues convincingly, citing official correspondence and documents of the period, that the real reason was entirely different. The King government was under heavy clerical pressure—from the Roman Catholic Church in particular, but also from some Protestant clergymen—to suppress these ‘heretics.’” Of course, when Penton later criticized certain aspects of the organization, he was disfellowshipped, and suddenly his books, even if they were better researched, were no longer argued convincingly, and he had somehow turned into a sloppy historian. I think that motivations and biases can be important to understand, but mostly it's about the quality of research and presentation of evidence. And sometimes we might have to ignore some conclusions a researcher might draw from the evidence, but still find the presentation of evidence itself valuable. Also, if no one finds anything specifically wrong with a book or research, or makes no attempt to counter the evidence, then it is probable that they are just complaining about the person BECAUSE the evidence itself is too strong to deal with.

Alright. Let me be even clearer. I have never even tried to get you banned. I have never even tried to get any account of anyone banned. I have never tried to get any of your account names banned. I have never tried to get any variation of the account name "Allen Smith" banned. I was opposed to having the "Allen Smith" account(s) banned, and still am. I wish they could bring it back. I was also surprised (and annoyed) that they just removed almost all the content that you had contributed. Much of it was very valuable and I could tell you had put a lot of thought into it. I thought this was most unfair. I do understand where one could get the impression that I was trying to get various new names banned, because I would point out when a new account was really just Allen Smith coming back under a new name. I think you figured that if Allen Smith was banned, then I could have only ONE reason to point out that, "Billy The Kid" for example, was the same person/account. You thought that was to try to get the new account banned. It wasn't the reason, ever. I never pointed it out until after I made it clear that I never wanted "Allen Smith" banned in the first place. Also, you might not have noticed that I never even pointed this out until waiting several weeks watching how you would handle your new account. (Your early new accounts made it obvious since they were often just "AllenSmith" with a number attached at the end.) It was when other people noticed that additional accounts also sounded like you that I chimed in with ways that any of us could verify that those suspicions were true. Also I noticed that you would come very close to denying that these accounts were the same person, but without directly lying about it. I have to admit that this would irritate me, so I wold call you out with evidence that would confirm the suspicions others were having. But I would not immediately point out new accounts that were yours because I figured you might use one of more to really attempt a fresh start. (By that, I mean not so often trying to be divisive and negative and insulting about others.) When you would get right back into making ugly, insulting and judgmental accusations, I would begin to point out that what you were doing, without waiting for someone else to raise the suspicion first. Since I've gone on this long, I might as well clear up one other thing, too. You have many times complained that I made fun of your various spelling and grammar mistakes. I always denied this, because I thought I was being so careful never to make fun of any of those things. I realized later why you thought I was making fun of you, and why you thought I was lying whenever I denied it. It's because pointing out these "consistencies" was a way to easily identify your accounts. I was pointing out various consistent spelling errors and grammar quirks across several of the accounts that I already knew were you for other reasons. For me, I never thought of this as making fun. I never thought of it as a way to show superiority of grammar, as you claimed. It was just a very useful way of confirming suspicions. And you may recall that it was actually others who first pointed out a couple of these points (e.g., excessive commas, etc.) but I did "pile on," as they say, and have pointed out about a dozen other indicators, over the years. I thought that others should know where you were coming from, and why you spent so much time complaining about why Allen Smith had been banned, for example, when it was off topic. So, yes, I have often "piled on" and provided some of the reasons that I recognized your accounts. Now that I have said this, I think I can make a promise I'll try not to break. It's this: I will do my best to avoid the subject of multiple accounts altogether. I won't point out any reasons again about accounts that are run by the same person as other accounts.

I have never banned anyone at all. Much less likely I would be to ban anyone who challenges me. I love being challenged, and wouldn't even be here if I didn't enjoy it. I'm sorry I called your behavior "unchristian." When I refer to the unchristian behavior of others, I'm not saying that I am right myself or that I am even a good judge of who else is acting Christian or not. I refer mostly to how some people tend to appear in their comments. If a person continues to tell untruths, I don't necessarily think of them as a liar; they are often just mistaken. Like your false and mistaken belief that I have banned people. What you do on your own time isn't anything I would try to do anything about. If you are a non-Christian, atheist, or even an apostate (I don't think you are) I still think you should be welcome here. When I mention "unchristian" behavior, which I admit I should not have done, I am referring to a propensity to create dissension, etc. I think that many of us, including Pudgy, and myself too, have done this to an extent. And this is one reason I would never try to get one person banned over another, it's a kind of judgment call that I would probably screw up, not knowing who was egging on the other to push buttons or get a rise out of them. I see several people who use snide remarks or hints about things that they evidently think will produce a response from another person. But I can't read minds; I can barely understand half of what some people say outright. So I would agree that I shouldn't have used the term "unchristian." I should have just said a propensity to promote dissension, rivalry, petty arguments over words, etc.

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.

"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.

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. 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." 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.

Not that Walter will care about my opinion, but I believe his input has always been valuable when it comes to the subject of Bible Student history. If you'll unblock him, at least for this topic, you'll see a bit of antagonism here and there toward Schulz, Persson, Penton, etc. But I expect you will also see a lot of good points made, assuming you have more than a "xero" interest in the topic, of course.

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. [Edited to add: I was wrong on this point about Rutherford not dealing with PSLJ as if he had serious mental problems. Rutherford was actually quick to deal with PSLJ as insane and mentally unbalanced, but Rutherford was inconsistent, and seemed to soften his position toward him. This hadn't made sense to me originally, and I was partly influenced here by the comments of a brother I spoke to at length about this very recently after reading this portion of the book. But Persson's book provides a detail that I take as an obvious clue as to the reason for Rutherford's inconsistency. Persson doesn't appear to draw any conclusion from that detail, but it makes me think that it was not just an absent-minded inconsistency on Rutherford's part. It served a purpose.] 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.

True. And he gets to that of course. I like to look out for positive things that are "admitted" to be true, even when you might not expect the source to admit those positive things. In this case, it made me think that Rutherford, in 1916, still had a lot of faith in the chronology and in the imminent "manifestation" of Christ's return. If it didn't happen in 1914 as expected, or even in 1915 using Russell's recently shifted chronology, then it was at least expected that Russell would live to see his reward in person. And now that Russell hadn't lived to see the "change/translation/rapture" actually happen, Rutherford must have had faith that the end must still be extremely close. Perhaps he thought there was no time for legal maneuvering and politics. What would it matter who was president of the Society if the end were coming upon them in just a few days or weeks? What I am seeing is that there were several factors that motivated the maneuvering, and it wasn't all centered on Rutherford himself. Others played a large part in what finally happened. [Edtied to add that some of those "manipulations" evidently started out as various factions and disagreements within the current leadership, and it's partly a matter of how quickly Rutherford would side with those who already, like himself, wanted some out and some to stay.]

I thought I wouldn't do this, but since you asked, I found the answer interesting. In 1915 Rutherford felt himself a "defender of the faith" in a very literal sense. He had written a defense against most of the attacks on Russell in 1915. When Russell died, in 1916, it looks like Rutherford was genuinely concerned to do the right thing, scripturally. I hadn't known that P.S.L. Johnson was actually a very good friend of Rutherford's at the time. (Later they had a big falling out.) So when Russell died, Rutherford went to his good friend because he trusted him to know the prophetic types better than anyone, and wanted to know if Russell would have a successor. (They had both just recently met in Maryland at the time Russell died. Johnson lived in Ohio, but was in Maryland on a "Pilgrim" visit and Rutherford was there on business.) Johnson told Rutherford that he didn't know about Russell having a successor, but he would study the "types and anti-types" and get back to him. And they both traveled fto NY in the next couple of days to get to the funeral. It might seem naive to look at "types" for a kind of "sign" as to what to do next, but it was new to me that Rutherford did not at that moment come across like the bombastic, brash person we sometimes think of from later months. Even though we have recently dropped "type/antitype" doctrines, it is interesting that they would use these as a kind of "Urim/Thummin" before they made a decision, and not just find "types and antitypes" to explain or justify or "scripturalize" decisions or events that already happened. When they felt "lost" they turned the Bible, and Rutherford turned humbly to someone he thought of as smarter than himself on scriptural matters. (PSL Johnson was considered to be the most brilliant of the Bible Students at the time.) Also, I learned from the book that the board of directors actually tried to run things the way that Russell had outlined in his "last will and testament." Johnson said that this lasted about a week. It wasn't just Rutherford who were rejecting Russell's will.

In the book, Persson notes that he first noticed a discrepancy in the book "Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose" (jp) in the late 1960's, and that's when he first took an interest in our modern-day history. But he started his research in 1973 (still a Witness, of course) when he began writing to those who still had some first-hand knowledge or documentation. He planned to write the book in the late 1970's, he says, but was delayed with other matters (unspecified). There are many indications from his research that he was very serious about this project for many years prior to 2014. I called an older brother from Bethel in his 80's last night and we spoke for about 2 hours about things he knew about the matter. I'd heard things from an elderly elder in the 1970's at Bethel (my "Table Head") but the elder I spoke to last night actually did a lot of historical research, and his writings are still being used in the current publications (but it's things he wrote several years ago; he is "retired" and not actively writing any more). He didn't know about the book, but won't get it or read it because he thinks of Rud Persson as an apostate. But he's happy to answer any questions. When at Bethel, I was just one of several Bethelites who taped interviews (about those "olden days") with persons like Maxwell Friend, Fred Franz, and Grace DeCecca because we could give non-outline Sunday talks in the congregations in those days, and I gave a couple of talks in several congregations based on excerpts from several hours of those interviews. This same brother I spoke to last night had helped me organize the excerpts.

I'm convinced. Any of my own comments on the book will be in the Closed section. But not until I've read the whole book, which is taking even more time because I am trying to look up so many of the references. There are usually several on each of the 650 pages.