Category Archives: Joseph Franklin Rutherford

Governing Body, Joseph Franklin Rutherford, Watch Tower

100 Years Ago: What was Bethel like in January 1917?

January 7, 2017 admin Leave a comment

Q. Where did the Watch Tower Society get the idea to call it “Bethel” in the first place?

A. The answer to this question is being saved, not for this post, but the next one. This will give a chance for readers to participate if they think they know the answer. We’ll ask this question on Facebook and Twitter, where we already have a couple thousand followers, and we’ll give credit to anyone who knows. The question is not as obvious as it sounds at first. We’re not asking why calling it Bethel is scripturally appropriate, or what reasons we might think we have for calling it Bethel now. We are asking why it was called Bethel at the time it was first given that name.

We learn from the 1975 Yearbook that the adjacent buildings, 122 and 124 Columbia Heights, had already been owned together since 1908. It was in 1911 when a rear addition was added.

*** yb75 pp. 52-53 Part 1—United States of America ***
For a time the Society’s headquarters staff was housed largely at 124 Columbia Heights. Later, the adjoining building at 122 Columbia Heights was purchased, enlarging the Bethel home. The year 1911 saw the completion of a rear addition extending nine floors down a precipice to Furman Street. It provided much more space for living quarters and other facilities, including a new dining room.

We also gather from a 1969 Watchtower magazine that it was in 1908 when the two adjacent 4-story buildings were purchased, and that they were converted into a home for about 30 persons in 1909, and then torn down to put up a single 9-story structure, housing about 180 persons in 1927.

*** w69 6/15 p. 380 Expansion at Headquarters of Jehovah’s Witnesses ***
During the dedication program the president of the Watchtower Society, Nathan H. Knorr, described the expansion of the headquarters of Jehovah’s witnesses since its move to Brooklyn in 1909. In 1908 the old four-story brownstone parsonage of Henry Ward Beecher at 124 Columbia Heights and a similar building adjoining it had been purchased. These were converted into a home for the Society’s headquarters staff of thirty persons.
But due to rapid expansion, in 1911 spacious new housing accommodations adjoining the rear of the home on Columbia Heights were completed. Then in 1927, N. H. Knorr explained, further expansion at headquarters necessitated tearing down the buildings on Columbia Heights and putting up a new nine-story structure there, providing, in all, approximately 120 rooms. At that time there were about 180 members of the headquarters family.

So the number was 30 in 1909, and “rapidly expanded” by 1911. We also read that it was about 180 in 1927.

So how many in 1917? That would depend on how rapidly it had expanded by 1911. Another factor would be the number of persons affected when Rutherford dismissed some persons in January 1917 and a larger number left by July 1917. (For reasons many readers will already be aware of, and which we will detail in later posts.)

Based on the description of the expansion, and the number of intervening years, we should expect the number to be between 30 and 180, probably under 110, which would be the midpoint between 30 and 180.

But we can get a pretty good sense of the actual number from the 1920 Census. Here we have 83 persons listed at 122 and 124 Columbia Heights.

It was actually split up as 3 persons at 122, and 80 persons in 124. We would expect that the persons listed here in January 1920 would be a fair reflection of the persons who had remained after July 1917. The Census includes information about their age, gender, and national backgrounds, too.

Most JWs will also recognize many of these names as persons they have read about, and even met in many cases:

One more rarely seen source of information about Bethel, 100 years ago, is the testimony of Charles Taze Russell in 1914 when he hoped to win a libel suit against a local Brooklyn newspaper.

Recall that 1914 was the culmination of a lot of growth and activity by the Watch Tower Society due to the expectations for October 1914. Naturally, when 1914 proved disappointing, many of these persons left. In addition, 1914 was a year when the Watch Tower Society was spending as if there were no tomorrow. Of course, they would never have spent so much on “moving pictures” for the “Photo-Drama of Creation” if they thought they would need this money in 1915.

Due to those expenses, a lot of persons were laid off from Bethel by the end of 1914. We would expect the numbers in the middle of 1914 to be even higher, then, than the numbers in early 1917. That’s exactly what the evidence from Russell’s testimony bears out, along with a few more hints about the activity there.

These images below may be hard to read, but they indicate about 40 persons who belong directly to the Peoples Pulpit Association who live at “Bethel” in addition to another 60 or 70 who are assistants, wives and helpers to the ministers. This would be 100 or 110 living there in early 1914, and therefore the number of 86 in the 1920 Census appears to be a reasonable reflection of the persons there in 1917.

Save

1919, Joseph Franklin Rutherford, League of Nations, Odd Doctrine, Research, United Nations, Watch Tower

Who ‘wondered admiringly’ at the League of Nations [as if] to fulfill Revelation 17:8?

July 8, 2016 admin 2 Comments

Summary: The Watchtower explains that the initial beast of Revelation 17:8 is the “League of Nations.” Revelation 17:8 (NWT) says that persons whose names have not been written upon the scroll of life will “wonder admiringly” at this beast. It’s surely just an ironic coincidence, yet, in 1919 the Watchtower not only “wondered admiringly” at the League of Nations, they went so far as to actually use sentences that contained those literal words:

“We cannot but admire the high principles embodied in the proposed League of Nations.”

“This fact makes all the more wonderful the ideals which they express.”

(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. [NWT Reference Edition]

The 2013 Revised NWT changes “will wonder admiringly” and instead uses the term “will be amazed.” I couldn’t help but ‘wonder in amazement’ about whether a certain post discussing this same subject had already come to the attention of the translators. It was a post I had put on beliefnet.com several years prior which made the same point made here, along with some additional information.

The Watchtower Speaks for Itself

For many decades, the Watchtower has identified the initial beast of Revelation 17:8 as the League of Nations:

*** w85 10/1 p. 15 par. 9 Peace, Security, and the ‘Image of the Beast’ ***
9 Our identification of this beast is confirmed by some further details given by the angel: “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.” (Revelation 17:8) This has already been fulfilled in part. The second world war effectively killed the League of Nations.

In various places, the Watch Tower publications have repeatedly reminded readers (over 200 different times) that the clergy of Christendom, both Catholic and Protestant, have promoted the rejection of Christ’s kingdom and even the “worship” of this beast by hailing the League of Nations as the “political expression of God’s Kingdom on earth.” Note:

*** ka chap. 11 pp. 197-198 pars. 27-28 “Here Is the Bridegroom!” ***
27 The position taken by the “discreet” virgin class on this issue was unequivocal from the start. In evidence of this, on Sunday afternoon, September 7, 1919, at the Cedar Point convention, President Rutherford gave his public address on “The Hope for Distressed Humanity,” in which he pointed out God’s disapproval of the League of Nations. To quote from the report published in the Sandusky (Ohio) Star-Journal on Monday, September 8, 1919:
“President Rutherford . . .declared a League of Nations formed by the political and economic forces moved by a desire to better mankind by establishment of peace and plenty would accomplish great good, and then asserted that the Lord’s displeasure is certain to be visited upon the League, however, because the clergy—Catholic and Protestant—claiming to be God’s representatives, have abandoned his plan and endorse the League of Nations, hailing it as a political expression of Christ’s kingdom on earth.—The Watch Tower, under date of October 1, 1919, page 298, column 1.”

*** ka chap. 13 p. 250 par. 22 Settling Accounts with the Slaves of Today ***
22 Of course, the sectarian church members of Christendom . . . . took a compromising course with the politicians and militarists of this world. . . . They turned their interest and attention to the proposed League of Nations, which the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America called “the political expression of the Kingdom of God on earth.” (Isaiah 9:6, 7) They tried to increase the number of supporters and worshipers of that man-made international organization for world peace and security.

Was the Watch Tower’s position on this issue really “unequivocal from the start”? In answering this question note the words that are underlined and highlighted from the February 15, 1919 Watchtower:

“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 [Reprints page 6389].

In other words, this 1919 Watchtower considers the League of Nations to be, essentially, ‘the political expression of God’s kingdom on earth.’ In fact, a careful reading of the article gives at least some evidence that this particular phrase was already known to the writers of this Watchtower article, and this article was intended to show agreement with that idea.

That might sound surprising coming from the same magazine that has declared itself not to have ever compromised on that particular issue in the way that Catholic and Protestant clergy and their constituents had supposedly done. But the Watchtower took it a bit further, literally admitting their amazement at the wonderful and admirable ideals of the League of Nations.

Some Additional Details and Resources

Additional resources will be added to this article or forthcoming follow-up articles to show that the Watch Tower publications have not been totally accurate about many other claims and details surrounding this issue. These details might include:

The Watch Tower’s repeated claims about who actually promoted the idea that the League of Nations was “the political expression of God’s kingdom on earth.”
The hypocrisy of the condemnation of the “political expression” claim is not only shown in the first portion of this article, but is shown to be an ongoing problem for the Watch Tower publications. For example:
- There was a supposed “cleansing” related to the political neutrality of the “Faithful Slave” (now, Governing Body) as of 1919. Yet, we see similar wording of Joseph F. Rutherford in a letter to Adolph Hitler, which also admits an admiration for the ideals and principals of the German National Socialism (Nazi regime). Rutherford similarly tied those ideals of Hitler as a political expression of the kingdom of God.
There is also a serious problem with the claim that the Watch Tower (especially through a talk by Nathan H. Knorr) actually predicted the fall of the League and its rise again as the United Nations.
A problem starting with the very application of the League of Nations to Revelation 17:8.

Most of the four points above have been made by others and can be found at various places.

#1 is fairly debunked here: https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/17563/fccc-league-on-nations-un-watchtower-rare-article?size=20&page=1
- The links to the actual source material may not show up any more on that site because the discussion is 15 years old, or more. The same resource pages can be found here: https://books.google.com/books?id=lEVQAQAAMAAJ
- The book is called: Federal Council Bulletin: A Journal of Religious Co-operation and Inter-church Activities, Volumes 1-3
- The quote(s) in question are found on page 12 of Volume 2 (1919), especially at the end of the fourth paragraph under Declarations. (The book starts out with 1918, and the page numbering starts over for 1919 and 1920.)
- Note that similar sentiments can be found in that book as early as January 1918.
- The most serious problem with the Watch Tower’s claim is that the WTS doesn’t seem to realize or admit that this publication of the Federal Council of Churches of Christ was speaking about what the League “should be” not what it was. They were speaking of an “ideal.” They were not promoting “worship” any more than the Watchtower itself was in the article they published the following month with similar sentiments. Also, this declaration about the proposed League only represented a small number of Protestant churches although it was presented as representing all of Christendom, Protestant and Catholic. The statement itself was evidently an invention of the executive committee of the FCCC.
The problems with the lack of neutrality in the pre-1919 era of the Watch Tower are not given much attention. Russell’s fervent Zionism that survived into the late 1920’s is a case in point. On this site, a couple of other examples are mentioned. They provide some context for the thinking published in 1919. Russell wrote a letter to the President in 1915 to advise him to sell some of the Philippines to Japan because, as Russell said, Filipinos were basically lazy and Japanese were industrious. Russell also advised his readers not to try to avoid conscription in the military and not to insist on hospital work. If assigned to the front lines, they should merely shoot over the heads of the enemies. Rutherford’s attempts to avoid prison in 1918 under the Espionage Act also involved some embarrassing compromise, which was revisited but omitted, of course, during the preparation of the “Proclaimers” book. The problems of lack of neutrality after 1919 are better known. Rutherford’s Declaration and the letter to Hitler is discussed in Jim Penton’s well-researched book: “Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Third Reich” (Amazon) and a summary of the issue is available in an article found on jwfacts.com. Under Rutherford’s presidency, especially, Watch Tower publications continued to stay involved deeply in several political matters and often tied their miscalculated political interpretations in order to predict the imminent end of this system. Since the time of Knorr, the WTS has generally been much more careful. (Although the fiasco of joining the United Nations as an NGO from 1992 through 2001 proved to be most embarrassing.)
- One salient point in the 1933 “Declaration” was the sentence: “Instead of being against the principles advocated by the government of Germany, we stand squarely for such principles, and point out that Jehovah God through Christ Jesus will bring about the full realization of these principles.” In other words, the German Nazi ideals, while not the equivalent of the kingdom of God, were at least a human, ‘political expression’ of the same principles as the kingdom of God. (Sound familiar?)
- The “Letter to Hitler” included the same idea as the Declaration: “To the contrary, referring to the purely religious and unpolitical goals and efforts of the [Bible Students], it can be said that these are in full agreement with the identical goals of the national government of the German Reich.”
The “prediction” by Knorr that the League would die and then come back as the United Nations is faulty primarily because it was not an interpretation exclusive to the Watch Tower Society, and had been previously and concurrently predicted several times by groups similar to the Watch Tower. A very good discussion is found here by Carl Olof Jonsson.
Whether or not such an organization as the League of Nations actually fits the ideas of Revelation 17:8 is a much more basic question that JWs rarely, if ever, would ask themselves. Yet, an interest in truth and belief that correct Bible interpretation is of value should motivate JWs to “make sure of all things.” A good summary of the history of the League of Nations can be found on Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Nations . Note that while the League was formally founded on January 10, 1920, it was being organized and defined from the very beginning of World War I. As of late 1917 and early 1918 the form it would take was directly anticipated with U.S. involvement and promotion by President Woodrow Wilson. Also note that the League basically inherited the organizations and structure of one of the previous attempts to create such an entity, the IPU or Inter-Parliamentary Union, the League’s forerunner. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter-Parliamentary_Union )
- The IPU is of interest from another perspective, too. The Watch Tower publications have made a lot over the idea that the League “died” and came to life again after WWII as the United Nations. The problem is that could be said of a lot of organizations whose primary aim was to promote peace. How astonishing would it be that a generally “pacifist” leaning organization might temporarily disappear during a large war? The IPU was, of course, a relatively neutral and pacifist organization, too, and the book Neutrality in Twentieth Century Europe, p. 298 explains this and adds: “The outbreak of the First World War prevented further action, and during the war most of the IPU’s work was seriously hampered.” (Although effectively replaced by the League of Nations after the war, the IPU resumed full operations and continues to this day.) For that matter, something similar happened to the Watch Tower Society itself because of the same war.
- So if it happened to the League’s “predecessor,” then how appropriate is it to say that the world would be amazed that an organization attempting neutrality and peace might disappear for a while.
- If others could predict the demise of the League after failing in its agenda during WWII (just as the IPU had failed to keep peace in WWI) then it really was not astonishing at all, and for this reason the League of Nations does not fit Revelation 17:8.
- An more salient point is this: The Bible often represents nations as beasts. It might be true that an international organization could act in a vicious, inhumane, beastly manner, similar to some individual nations. But how logical is it to depict an organization that tries to promote political neutrality, peace and goodwill as a beast? When the war came, did anyone expect the League of Nations to put up a vicious, beastly fight to stay in power? Was there really something so astonishing and amazing about its temporary disappearance and reappearance when the war was over? If it reappeared as the United Nations, has that entity really shown itself to be a vicious beast?

1915, Joseph Franklin Rutherford, Scandal

Recent Finds: Why Russell Distanced Himself From Rutherford’s “Great Battle”

July 6, 2015 admin Leave a comment

Recently we posted a link to Rutherford’s “SPICY” booklet, and the first mention of it in the May 1, 1915 Watch Tower. That post highlighted how Russell distanced himself from the booklet and its publication. He offered the advertisement for it, but only after making it clear that he himself hadn’t read it.

The booklet referred to is, of course, “A Great Battle in the Ecclesiastical Heavens.” We linked to a copy on archive.org: https://archive.org/details/AGreatBattleInTheEcclesiasticalHeavens .

It’s also available on WatchtowerDocuments.org along with a lot more interesting documents that Barbara Anderson has collected, which can make for some very interesting historical reading by and about the Watch Tower Society. You’ll find it in the 1900-1919 section: http://watchtowerdocuments.org/watchtower-document-downloads-1900-1919/ .

In our post we mentioned that Russell might have distanced himself from the booklet for “legal” reasons. Some additional speculation on that subject is found in a discussion on JWN. We have permission from some of the people involved in that thread on JWN ( jehovahs-witness.com ). The relevant post (from 9 years ago) is reproduced below, although the rest of the thread is quite interesting for other reasons:

_______________________________________________

Gamaliel 9 years ago

Russell needed to distance himself from Rutherford’s “Great Battle in the Ecclesiastical Heavens” for seveaal reasons. It compared him to Jesus (“SAME OLD GAME OF THE PHARISEES AGAINST ONE MAN”). It obliquely labeled his wife as a “persecutor” of Christians ultimately because a judge was convinced she was telling the truth in court. (“EVEN GOOD JOHN WESLEY’S WIFE JOINED HIS PERSECUTORS”)

The great and good John Wesley was another victim his own wife joining his persecutors. The same Pharisaical class defamed the Lord Jesus when He was on earth. They called in question the legitimacy of His birth, applied all manner of vile epithets to Him, denounced Him as an enemy of the government, and finally caused His crucifixion.

It included a hatred of Catholics that Russell was always careful to back away from. (“PAPAL ROME AND HER MONGREL PROGENY AGAINST ONE MAN”)

Also, it included the common “worship” of Russell that Russell’s followers were infamous for. Russell was always careful to accept this worship with mock humility.

THE GREATEST LIVING PREACHER In this case? PASTOR RUSSELL!

Then of course it tries to cover over Russell’s various “scandals” and likely gives untrue reasons by way of explanation. For example, the move from Pennsylvania to New York seems contrived, based on exact timing and other factors, to avoid monetary payments due his wife. The NY Corpororation and People’s Pulpit is defended for other reasons. Same goes for the defense of Russell’s “United States Investment Company”. In the same context the booklet tries to explain how Russell, who admittedly had “a quarter million dollars” had put it all into religious work and corporations. (And, for those who knew the specifics, it would therefore “go without saying” that he had truthfully claimed to have very little with which to compensate his wife, who had just been awarded damages by the court for Russell’s ill treatment and mental cruelty.)

Russell was no doubt aware that Rutherford had taken some liberties to defend Russell against any possibility of truth in the claims of his wife. If the court transcripts are read carefully, Russell actually acknowledges some of his wife’s claims up to a point by acknowledging the alleged circumstances but putting a different spin on how he had got himself into those circumstances. Rutherford goes so far as to publish some of the actual claims against Russell which was probably a legal mistake in the long run. It made it harder to ever cover up the specifics. For example, the book includes the following under the heading “THE GREATEST FISH STORY EVER MANUFACTURED”:

Upon the trial of this cause Mrs. Russell testified that one Miss Ball had stated to her that her husband said, “I am like a jelly-fish, I float around here and there. I touch this one and that one, and if she responds I take her to me, and if not I float on to others.”

All this matter the Court struck from the record and would not permit it to go to the jury. In his charge to the jury the Judge said: “This little incident about this girl that was in the family, that is beyond the ground of the libel and has nothing to do with the case because not being put in it, and it was condoned or allowed to pass.”

It is manifest that this “jelly-fish” story was entirely the product of Mrs. Russell’s imagination, and other facts which appear in the record conclusively show that it could not have been true.

Pastor Russell emphatically denied that any such thing ever occurred. It would seem unreasonable that any man would make such a statement about himself.

But the most conclusive facts disclosed by the record showing her statement to be untrue are these: Miss Ball came to them in 1889, a child of ten, and was taken into the home of Mr. and Mrs. Russell. She was treated as a member of the family. She was an orphan. She kissed both Mr. and Mrs. Russell good night each evening when she retired. They treated her as their own child. (Court Record, pages 90, 91.) Mrs. Russell testified that the “jelly-fish” incident transpired in 1894, when the girl could not have been more than fifteen years of age.

His [Rutherford’s] legal reasoning is full of non sequiturs. The reason for being struck from the record was not related to its truthfulness or lack thereof. Rutherford cleverly avoids this point. It is not “manifest” to be untrue. The attempt to reduce Mrs. Ball’s age to that of a young child may also be based on Rutherford’s taking advantage of a mistake in the court transcript, not Mrs. Russell’s testimony, per se. However, it misses the point. In the transcripts, Mrs. Russell was actually creating a much more general picture of infidelity that may have indeed included accusations of indiscretions with the opposite sex that could have begun at a younger age than the actual episode in question with Miss Ball. Miss Ball was not the only female mentioned. There was another “unfaithful and indiscreet servant” episode involving a servant girl in the household. Portraying Miss Ball as a young girl and later noting that Mrs. Russell continued to put up with her husband are hardly the concrete proofs that get Russell off the hook.

As an aside, all good PR men and politicians manage to work their own resume into a praise of someone else. Note this clever little turn that Rutherford managed:

“We are reminded that St. Paul was a practicing lawyer for a time, and a successful one, too, and that he also made tents to provide his temporary necessities. Jesus was a carpenter. Blessed is he that labors.”

St. Paul’s first billing is “lawyer” not “tentmaker”?

_______________________________________________

1915, Joseph Franklin Rutherford, Scandal

100 Years Ago: June 1915 – “Meat in Due Season” Gets SPICY

July 6, 2015 admin 2 Comments

JUNE 1915 – C T RUSSELL WAS PROMOTING A “SPICY” PUBLICATION THAT HE HADN’T READ, & SAID HE WANTED NOTHING TO DO WITH.

June 1915 was the first full month wherein Watchtower readers could obtain and read a new publication that had just become available out of Brooklyn in the previous month. Here’s how it was announced in the May 1, 1915 Watchtower, known then as, Zion’s Watch Tower, emphasis ours:

_____________________________________________________________

JUDGE RUTHERFORD’S SPICY DEFENSE

Brother Rutherford, grieved by the various untruthful, slanderous attacks upon the Editor, has prepared a pamphlet in my defense. A copy of it has just been handed me. I have not yet read it, though, of course, I knew of its preparation and in a general way of its contents. I preferred not to have anything to do with its publication. It explains Brother Rutherford’s views as a lawyer, as a brother, and as a man who most fully understands the entire situation. It contains some interesting illustrations and is priced at ten cents per copy, or eight dollars per hundred copies, postpaid. It is not unreasonable to expect that nearly all of our readers will be very glad to have this pamphlet, as it will furnish them with evidence on every point thus far brought forward by my maligners.

Orders for the pamphlets should be addressed to Judge Rutherford, New York City, P.O. Box 51. However, we will have a supply at THE WATCH TOWER Office, and, if one is ordering other things, this pamphlet can be supplied also. It is entitled, “A GREAT BATTLE IN THE ECCLESIASTICAL HEAVENS.”

_____________________________________________________________

If you’d like to read this booklet, it is available online in a few places. (See below for one of them.) You might enjoy it. But you might also see why Russell wanted nothing to do with this particular publication. Legal experts have also surmised why, perhaps, he would state that he had not personally read the publication. The booklet is packed with information which would require a full book’s worth of commentary to do it justice.

https://archive.org/details/AGreatBattleInTheEcclesiasticalHeavens

___