Talk:Joseph Franklin Rutherford/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Revert multiple changes

I have reverted an extensive rewrite of the article because of a multitude of problems. Wording drawn from the source material has been altered, he was referred to subsequently as "Joseph" instead of Rutherford, opinion injected on "unfair" charges laid against the directors, the patently absurd assertion that Rutherford's requirement for Bible Stidents to sell literature door to door and file weekly reports was "in line" with first century Christians; that the altered date of Christ's return was "carrying on" from Russell's teaching and the capitalising of birthdays. LTSally (talk) 19:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Birth of the theocracy

Jehovah's Witnesses do NOT view the "birth of the theocracy" as having occurred in the 20th century, but in the 1st century per 1 Peter 2:9.
The Watchtower, January 15, 1994, page 18, "Through Jesus Christ, Jehovah established a new theocracy. ...Soon after the birth of the new theocracy, the rulers of fleshly Israel tried to force some disciples to cease obeying a command that Jesus had given them. The response? “We must obey God as ruler rather than men.” (Acts 5:29) Truly, a theocratic viewpoint!"
Currently, this article contains a section title which applies the term "birth of the theocracy" to changes at the Watch Tower Society and among Jehovah's Witnesses in the 20th century (apparently misrepresenting JW beliefs). The section title is needlessly mealymouthed, inserted without attribution by an editor with a history of anti-Witness activism. That has no place here at Wikipedia. --AuthorityTam (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. I changed the section heading before you created this section at Talk.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

An appreciated improvement. --AuthorityTam (talk) 13:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Another day, another personal attack ... AuthorityTam might wish to spend less time concocting his increasingly rabid comments on the supposed evil motives of other editors and more time on soberly, calmly dealing with content. Here is what some sources say about the Theocracy being introduced in 1938.

• Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose notes (page 95) regarding administrative changes in 1919: "true, it was limited, but the visible theocratic organization got started with this arrangement."
• Page 127 refers to events in 1932 in which elected elders were abolished: "Of course, Jehovah's organization was not by this act fully restored to theocratic operation as had existed in the days of the apostles. This was still ahead ..."
• Page 147: In 1919, along with the birth of the New World society, we saw the initial feature of theocratic order established in the congregations ..."
• Page 148: "It was not until 1938, however, that the final change to strictly theocratic order took place ..."
• Page 186: "When the year 1938 brought into the ranks of Jehovah's witnesses a completely theocratic arrangement ..."
• In A People For His Name (page 200): "By 1938 Rutherford was appointing not only the service director, but also all the other officers of the congregations. That same year he introduced the term "Theocracy" to describe the government of the church."
• "In Apocalypse Delayed (p. 304): "...Their leaders seem determined to maintain the course that, in general, they have followed since Judge Rutherford created 'the Theocracy' in the 1920s and 1930s."
• In Armageddon Around the Corner (Whalen, pg 64): "Finally in 1938 the cult announced a complete change from congregational to 'theocratic' control."
• The Watchtower, June 15, 1938 (pg 186, 187): "Individualism of the respective companies has been done away with, and the Society, by the will and grace of Jehovah, has taken its proper place in Jehovah’s theocratic government ... There is no room for such now in the organization of the Lord. Jehovah’s theocratic government is now in full control of the people of God ..." Question 30-32: "Relate what has taken place in 1937 and 1938 clearly in fulfillment of the completing by Solomon of that part of his building program recorded at 1 Kings 7: 1,2,7 and 9: 10, showing that the Society has taken its proper place in Jehovah’s theocratic government and that the Lord is guiding his people and his theocratic government is in operation and in complete control."
• The Nations Will Know That I am Jehovah (pg 330): "They became more fully fortified in the year 1938 when the centralized theocratic rule, rather than the local congregational rule, of organization was applied to all the congregations around the globe."

All of those sources support the wording in the article that Rutherford in 1938 introduced the term "theocracy" to describe the government of the religion. I'll leave it to you to work out how they fit with your theories about my "anti-Witness activism". BlackCab (talk) 14:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

No, of all that the editor metaphorically 'throws against the wall' above, only two sources use the word "theocracy" and both are in reference to the new use of the term rather than any supposed newly birthed theocracy. Even the supplied quotes regarding the extension of "theocratic government" and "theocratic rule" make it clear that such pre-existed. By comparison, it seems rather obvious that congregations existed before the term congregational was introduced; presbyters existed before the term presbyterian was applied.
Incidentally, it seems certain that BlackCab aka LTSally has overwhelmingly surpassed AuthorityTam at "personal attack", "rabid comments", and accusations of "evil".
Regarding the editor's activism...... --AuthorityTam (talk) 16:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

All I ask is that you deal with content as content and discuss that. I see no purpose in prefacing your comments with yet another slur about me and concluding with more "evidence" of my evil campaign. You seem to be a little fixated. And your argumentation is once again false and contrary to all reliable sources. BlackCab (talk) 21:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

No.
BlackCab's supplied sources do not support his claim that theocracy was born in the 20th century.
AuthorityTam did supply a source which plainly dated the 'birth of the theocracy' in the 1st century.
Regarding the so-called "slur": It's above, and reads, "an editor with a history of anti-Witness activism".
Does BlackCab aka LTSally seriously suggest that that simple statement of background is more offensive than his own rants against JWs and alleged JWs? --AuthorityTam (talk) 21:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no complaint about the development of the doctrinal viewpoints about 'theocracy'. Only that it is not necessary and doesn't have encyclopedic tone to include the phrase in the subheading in a historical article. Regarding the doctrine of 'theocracy', they believe that the 'theocracy' started in the first century and they started using the term 'theocracy' in the 20th century. There is really no argument.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Beth Sarim 2011

Detractors sometimes present the matter of Beth Sarim somewhat dishonestly. Even at the time, I don't believe there was any doubt that Rutherford would use the house. Previous to my edit, section Joseph Franklin Rutherford#Personal life stated that Beth Sarim was built "reportedly for housing the prophets and "faithful men of old" whom Rutherford previously taught would be resurrected in 1925".
"Housing" them? No, it seems pretty clear from the provided ref that the house was built firstly for Rutherford's use and secondly as an outward symbol of their faith and thirdly as a "testimony to Jehovah". The house was not expressly built for the purpose of housing prophets or princes, though if and when (a big if) they showed up at the door Rutherford had committed to handing over the property.
The provided reference explicitly states, "the purpose of acquiring that property and building the house was that there might be some tangible proof that there are those on earth today who fully believe God and Christ Jesus and in His kingdom, and who believe that the faithful men of old will soon be resurrected" and "the aforementioned house [was] built as a testimony to the name of Jehovah". Perhaps another ref explicitly states that the house was built primarily for housing prophets or that resurrected folks would definitely live there, but the current reference is pretty strongly a statement of the house's symbolism.. It reminds me of the Jewish practice to leave one unoccupied table setting "for Elijah"; they may have faith that he'll "return" and they'd presumably serve him food if he actually showed, but they don't literally expect him to ring their doorbell. In fact, the cited ref explicitly states the house was "to be used by the president of the Society and his assistants for the present" and "neither the Lord nor the princes need others to build houses for them". So, maybe another ref (other than the ref that's currently cited) makes the point asserted in the body; THAT ref should be cited too. Oh, and I added to the section that the home was also intended for Rutherford's use. --AuthorityTam (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The source in question does at least imply that the building was for the resurrected 'princes', and it is speculative to suggest that construction of Beth Sarim is 'similar to leaving a table setting for Elijah'. However, the sources cited don't indicate anything about 1925, nor do they explicitly state that the 'princes' would live at Beth Sarim. So within the scope of this article, it seems fair enough not to elaborate on the speculations about 1925.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Herbert Stroup's The Jehovah's Witnesses (1945) places the purpose of Beth Sarim in quite a different light. Page 42: "The purpose of the house, which in fact is a luxurious mansion, is to serve as (and here he quotes Rutherford's Salvation, pg 311) some tangible proof that there are those on earth today who fully believe God and Christ Jesus and his faithful kingdom, and who believe that the faithful men of old will soon be resurrected by the Lord, be back on the earth, and take charge of the visible affairs of the earth." (end quote) Title to the property is vested in the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, in trust for the "faithful men of old". Since the Society teaches strongly that a host of Old Testament heroes, including Abraham, Isaac, Jaco0b, David and others, will return to set up the righteous kingdom of Jehovah, it has felt obligated to manifest its faith by preparing a mansion for the expected occupants before they arrive. This was done in 1929. In the meantime, rather than let the building stand idle, the past president of the society and his assistants have used the West Coast headquarters ... Beth Sarim displeases many Witnesses who consider it an extravagent waste of money which should have gone into more productive work and who are not yet convinced by a debatable biblical interpretation that the expense is justified. Some have told me that they wondered why Mr Rutherford had not simply built himself a West Coast headquarters 'and let it go at that'."

Similarly Alan Rogerson's Millions Now Living Will Never Die (1969) writes of Rutherford's belief that Abel, Abraham, etc would "be resurrected to earth as one of the early signs of the Millennium. Rutherford accepted this belief so literally that he provided a mansion in California called Beth Sarim where the ancient worthies could live when they returned. In the meantime, Rutherford explained, he would live in the house as its 'caretaker'!" (exclamation mark in original).

Penton (p.73-74) says the building was built for the purpose of housing those OT individuals ... "that, however, did not stop him from living in it with a fairly large retinue of retainers ...."

AuthorityTam argues: "It seems pretty clear from the provided ref that the house was built firstly for Rutherford's use and secondly as an outward symbol of their faith and thirdly as a "testimony to Jehovah"." I would suggest the 1975 Yearbook is nothing but typical WTS spin, a retrospective airbrushing of an embarrassing slice of organizational history. BlackCab (talk) 03:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The 1931 source does state that the building was for Rutherford's use. Whether it was also intended for the 'princes', which is not being disputed (by me), is out of scope.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The 1939 source does say that, but WTS sources are often untrustworthy when writing about their own history. The non-WTS sources provide a conflicting view: that the property was built as evidence of how concrete their belief was in the resurrection of those individuals and that it was subsequently decided to house JFR there. It is entirely possible the board of directors approved the project on the basis of its ostensible use and were then persuaded to allow JFR to use it. Given the discrepancy, the article should refrain from stating as a fact that Beth Sarim was built as accommodation for the society president. The fact is that in 1929 he moved to Beth Sarim, initially as winter accommodation and later as a fulltime residence. Furthermore, is the NYT article online? BlackCab (talk) 06:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Elaboration about Beth Sarim and debate about its purpose belongs at that article. This article isn't the place to raise superfluous controversy specific to its construction. The 1931 source (17MB) states that it was built for Rutherford's use. As the 1931 source clearly states that it was built for Rutherford's use, it is unnecessary to relegate to simply 'a Watch Tower property'. Additionally, it would appear that it was only deeded to the Watch Tower Society upon Rutherford's death, meaning it was not 'a Watch Tower property' when he moved in. Unless there is an earlier source specifically indicating that it was built for other purposes, the controversy is out of scope.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the Deed[1] specifically, it states that the property was first "granted ... unto him, the said Joseph F. Rutherford for his exclusive possession, use and benefit for and during his life", and then "to the WATCH TOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY", and then "the said WATCH TOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY shall hold said title perpetually in trust for the use of any or all of [the Bible characters]." Therefore, Rutherford's use of the property was not any kind of breach of the original deed. Humorously, the conditions of the deed were breached when the property was sold in 1948, because it was a condition of the deed that "Any person appearing to take possession of said premises, shall first prove and identify themselves to the proper officers of said Society as the person or persons described in Hebrews Chapter eleven and in this deed."--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The 1931 reference above is from the July 25th issue of The Messenger. I found an earlier source from December 14, 1930 but printed on January 14, 1931 which in part states the following:

David, King of Israel, Deeded Car, $75,000 Upon Appearance

San Diego, Cal., Dec. 14.—(U.P.)— A $75,000 home and a new 16-cylinder automobile are awaiting David, King of Israel, when, and if, he returs [sic] to earth and decides to live in San Diego.

The gifts to Goliath's slayer are made possible through a trust fund created by Judge James Rutherford...

Not quite sure where this fits in with the varied views above expressed, but at least it's a new valid reference. Pastorrussell (talk) 10:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't really add anything to what is stated in the deed, as the order of possession stated in the deed would seem to be more specific than this account. Namely, the property was deeded to Rutherford until his death, and then to the Watch Tower Society, to be held in perpetuity until the appearance of David et al, to whom the property would then be deeded. The deed was filed by the clerk on 24 December 1929, and it would appear to be the earliest source available.

I recommend that if there is anything further regarding this matter that is not directly pertinent to this article, that a section be started at Beth Sarim to continue discussion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

As to the suggestion above that the property was not ever intended for "Housing" the 'princes', the 2 May 1937 Golden Age, page 500, states "It is a permanent home, deeded to King David, in the interests of Jehovah's kingdom." This statement was made in an article discrediting Salter, and was specifically in reference to Beth Sarim ("Judge Rutherford['s] ... quarters in San Diego").--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Has anyone ever brought up in these conversations Beth Shan? (the adjacent property also owned by JFR and for the "princes). I've never seen it mentioned and it is likewise of import. Pastorrussell (talk) 11:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Is it notable?? In any case, the issue is probably best considered at Talk:Beth Sarim.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Lead

I have reverted User:Pastorrussell's recent change to the lead. The last paragraph is a summary of Rutherford's tenure overall, and doesn't need to bash readers over the head with a statement about membership losses. The second paragraph already mentions the initial 1917-1919 losses; if the additional statement about 75% leaving from 1919 to 1928 can be sourced, it should be placed in the 2nd paragraph.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't my intention to "bash". I simply feel that the way it reads now gives an incorrect impression regarding growth; it needs to be qualified. If I had a choice the statement would go in the leading paragraphs rather than in the body because many people and media sources do not read that far. Pastorrussell (talk) 20:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The 2nd paragraph is inherently one of the leading paragraphs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Witnesses hypocorism

I would suggest that it is better to use the group's full name "Jehovah's Witnesses" rather than the hypocoristicon "Witnesses". Otherwise, there should be some statement or explanation in the leading paragraphs that "Witnesses" is the shortened form for the sake of context. In my experience "Witnesses" or "the Witnesses" is used only by current or former members. The most common reference by non-members is JW or JWs in my experience. I'd be interested in knowing what others think about this. Pastorrussell (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

It's an interesting point, but there's little support for it. I've just had a look at books on the religion by James Penton, Andrew Holden, Alan Rogerson, William Whalen, Heather & Gary Botting, James Beckford and Anthony Hoekema. The latter two writers tend to use the full name of the religion, but make occasional use of the term "Witnesses"; all the other writers routinely use the term "Witnesses" throughout their books. BlackCab (talk) 00:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it is common. But I'm wondering if it is encyclopedic language and proper for Wikipedia? Pastorrussell (talk) 03:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The term Witnesses, once the full term has been introduced in the article, is fine, and is well attested in sources. The usage is analogous to the widespread usage (including on Wikipedia) of Catholic and Catholics in place of Roman Catholic and members of the Roman Catholic Church, respectively.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Scope

This article has accumulated information which is more-appropriately discussed elsewhere. It has become a "christmas tree" upon which to hang an ever-increasing mass about the history of the Watch Tower Society and Jehovah's Witnesses. There's already an article on that history; let's not duplicate material which is more-appropriately discussed there or somewhere other than this biography page.
For one example, Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania is a more appropriate place for the most of the material at Joseph Franklin Rutherford#Watch Tower Society.
For another, the article History of Jehovah's Witnesses#1917-1942 seems a much more logical location to place most of what is parked in sections here, at:

• Joseph Franklin Rutherford#1918 election and aftermath,
• Joseph Franklin Rutherford#The Finished Mystery
• Joseph Franklin Rutherford#Reorganization

On August 6, 2009, this article about tripled in size. While the details may have been examined since then, it's unclear that this article is the place for all these details. --AuthorityTam (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The account of Rutherford's battle for control of the society is an integral part of the Watch Tower Society history as well as his own. The fact that the article tripled in size is of no great significance. It covered little of his life and career; now it does. You freely accuse me of having a "history of anti-Witness activism" which is pure rubbish ... I wonder how much of your desire to truncate these articles is prompted by a wish to see your religion portrayed only in a positive light. BlackCab (talk) 14:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, the general history of related organizations can be considered within a biography of a key figure. However, when articles exist for both the related organization and its history, it seems rather obvious that details which are not personal should not also (or only) be in the person's biography. In this case, organizational history seems more appropriately located at existing articles such as:

• Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
• History of Jehovah's Witnesses#1917-1942

For good measure, much of this history is also recycled at:

• Bible Student movement

Regarding the "pure rubbish" protestations: While BlackCab aka LTSally certainly doth protest, the facts are that others have reverted and corrected his anti-JW activism......

Unlike the editor who proclaimed himself "sickened" by the "claustrophobic, sycophantic, incestuous community" of Jehovah's Witnesses, I've not advocated or attacked any religion. My efforts to improve Wikipedia (and my comments in Talk) have focused on sources, standards, and common sense. Laughably, BlackCab aka LTSally has repeatedly and for many months pretended that I'm motivated by what he inventively claims is 'my religion', also claiming I've been trained "to hate those who criticize your dear leaders", claiming I've been "skewed with the good old Watchtower-tinted spectacles", and numerous other examples of unwikipedian argument. I'd be happier to focus on Wikipedia rather than personalities if only a certain "BlackPot" would allow that. --AuthorityTam (talk) 16:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Once again, please limit your comments to the article and stop using this talk page and others as a vehicle to attack me. BlackCab (talk) 21:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The editor is disingenuous. The thread referred only to the article until the editor chose to change that.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Ignoring AuthorityTam's efforts to start another personal spat, I think his suggestions of material that should be deleted are deeply flawed. Rutherford was solely responsible for the change of doctrines and administration within the religion under his presidency and it is instructive for the article to relate his introduction of those changes to better measure the impact of his leadership, particularly in view of the fact that most of today's administrative system and many of today's doctrines were created by him. I don't see that it's terribly wise to start hacking out sections because they are also related on other articles.

Similarly the battle for control of the society was waged between Rutherford and his four opposing directors and because most of the dispute was about Rutherford's conduct and claims, it's logical that the article cover those developments and the tactics he adopted to retain the presidency.

I don't see that AuthorityTam's attempt to link the article with a Christmas tree bill, a type of American legislation that attracts amendments affecting unrelated groups, has any validity. As stated above, the events covered in this article are very much a part of the history of the Watch Tower Society he came to lead, the Bible Student movement that eventually abandoned him and Rutherford himself.

One possible solution might be to split off an article dealing with the battle for the presidency in 1917 and link that from all three articles, although each article has a different focus on those events. But AuthorityTam goes further, suggesting that the sections on post-1918 activities, Rutherford's promotional campaign for The Finished Mystery, his Millions Now Living campaign and his authoring of a series of books and initiation of the radio broadcasts and increased emphasis on back calls all be deleted. He has yet to explain why he wants to delete that historical material that explains the development of today's JW organization and says so much about Rutherford's character and qualities. BlackCab (talk) 04:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Huh. I wouldn't have guessed the metaphor of a "christmas tree" to be difficult to grasp. Others prefer the metaphor of a coatrack. Rather than deleting information from Wikipedia, I've explicitly suggested adding information to articles where it is more appropriately discussed and preserving a more general, less detailed discussion of the larger organizational history in this biographical page. BlackCab is shockingly dishonest in characterizing my suggestion just paragraphs above, giving additional insight into his relative credibility. --AuthorityTam (talk) 20:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Ho hum. Today I'm "shockingly dishonest" and lack "relative credibility". Again please ... no more personal attacks. Please limit your comments to the content of the article. BlackCab (talk) 20:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

You suggested above that "most of what is parked in sections here, at Joseph Franklin Rutherford#1918 election and aftermath, Joseph Franklin Rutherford#The Finished Mystery and Joseph Franklin Rutherford#Reorganization" be taken from this article and moved to other articles. That would involve the removal of:

• Detail about Rutherford outmanouvering his opponents before the 1918 election, his comments about his feelings on the pursuit of the presidency and his subsequent apology;
• Rutherford's launching of his anti-government, anti-religion diatribes following publication of The Finished Mystery, his launching of the Millions Now Living talks, his arrest and his re-election;
• His re-energizing of the Bible Students on his release, his authoring of books, his radio broadcasts, his choice of the religion's new name, his development of the modern-day JW concept of Armageddon, his reversal of early Russell doctrines and his introduction of the anti-flag salute doctrines.

They are all vital to an understanding of Rutherford. Are you still suggesting that such material you say is "parked" here be struck out of this article? BlackCab (talk) 21:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

As per my earlier suggestion, I'm happy to create a spinout article on the 1917 leadership crisis that can be summarised with a much shorter section in the Bible Student movement,Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania and Joseph Franklin Rutherford articles, this removing the duplication in all three articles. Hopefully that will deal with much of AuthorityTam's concerns. BlackCab (talk) 04:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree, though I'm not sure about a suitable name. "Watch Tower Society leadership crisis" sounds a little dramatic.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

How about "Watch Tower Society presidency dispute of 1917" BlackCab (talk) 10:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Spinout article on 1917 dispute

As per the discussion above, I have created a spinout article on the 1917 dramas at Watch Tower Society presidency dispute of 1917‎. At Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania I have trimmed the history section to become a summary of events. If everyone's happy with that summary, I can do something quite similar at this article and Bible Student movement, where the information is repeated. If you can improve on the name of the spinout article, please discuss at that article. BlackCab (talk) 12:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Now that the proposed article has been created... This article still has two sections (Joseph Franklin Rutherford#Disputed presidency and Joseph Franklin Rutherford#1918 election and aftermath) which are nearly as long as the entire article at Watch Tower Society presidency dispute (1917). It does make sense to abbreviate the discussion of the topic here and at related articles. I look forward to seeing that happen. --AuthorityTam (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll do a cleanup after it's pruned, but I'm too busy to do the pruning.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

As noted above, I abbreviated the duplicated information at both the Watch Tower Society and Bible Student movement articles and intended returning to the JFR article to do the same after I wrote the spinout article, but unfortunately never got a round tuit. The information at the JFR article can probably be given a similar treatment. I'll do it now. And thanks to AuthorityTam for his patience and usual good humor in raising the issue. BlackCab (talk) 10:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Nicely done. Thanks.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

An editor recently changed the name of the section; I've reverted the section's name back to "Disputed presidency".--AuthorityTam (talk) 20:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I've made a minor change to 'Presidency dispute', because the section is about the dispute itself, at the beginning of his presidency. The alternative may suggest that his entire presidency was disputed—even if other Bible Students would consider that to be the case, that would be out of the section's scope.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Home-bound

Per the provided ref, I'd noted that Mary Rutherford was "home-bound" during the last of her 93 years. Someone changed "home-bound" to "house-bound", but without providing any proof that she was actually in a house (rather than, for example, an apartment/flat or assisted care facility). The term "house-bound" is often used intentionally, at least in the United States. I've changed the term back to the reference-supported term "home-bound". --AuthorityTam (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The term 'housebound' does not necessitate that the structure is specifically a 'house', and can refer to any type of residence, especially in reference to restriction due to infirmity. 'Home-bound' may mean 'restricted to home' or 'toward home'. The source material does not use either word.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The cited reference uses the term "home", not "house". The term "housebound" has been replaced by the unambiguous term "confined to her home", which directly quotes the ref. --AuthorityTam (talk) 20:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Allegations of alcohol abuse

Recent edits introduced new allegations that JFR abused alcohol. Plainly, that should be sourced better if it is to remain. See also Talk:Joseph Franklin Rutherford/Archive 4#Alcoholism
--AuthorityTam (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I have restored the statement by Penton, who is generally accepted as a reliable source. AuthorityTam states in a hidden note that "Other historians have specifically criticized former-JW Penton for repeating this anonymous allegation." His use of the phrase "former-JW Penton" is obviously designed to suggest Penton is biased, which is unnecessary. But who are those historians and where did they criticize Penton? BlackCab (talk) 02:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

At the Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C. I will look for usable references from the event. Several historians quite plainly stated that they 'respect Penton, but he is biased'; when asked for examples of his bias, one specifically mentioned Penton's treatment of Rutherford's alleged drinking habits. At other Wikipedia articles, I've previously supplied quotes from two historians who claim outright bias in Penton's allegations about Rutherford and Nazism. This article includes extraordinary claims by Penton regarding Rutherford (that is, "Former workers at the Watch Tower's New York headquarters recount tales of his inebriation and drunken stupors. Others tell stories of how difficult it sometimes was to get him to the podium to give talks at conventions because of his drunkenness.") It seems odd for the article to hide the fact that Penton is an excommunicated former JW, while allowing Penton's extraordinary allegations against a prominent JW. Again, I will look for references specifically challenging Penton on this point; and I'll ask, do not extraordinary allegations require extraordinary references?

--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Rutherford's alcoholism has been well established. The references in the edits I made contained three reliable references. To remove them would then be a form of censorship trying to hide the truth in defense of the Watchtower Society. For someone who keeps calling for references (even though they already exist) is not very professional or consistent with Wikipedia policies. How many more references are required before AuthorityTam will accept the truth on the subject? It appears as though this editor has a long-standing reputation of personal attacks and censorship. What can be done about it? Pastorrussell (talk) 04:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not all that keen on the photo purported to show JFR drinking. The context is unstated and the significance is unknown. The text referring to his drinking habits should be enough. BlackCab (talk) 06:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Alright. I respect your opinion and will remove it. Pastorrussell (talk) 06:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree that the picture should be removed. A picture of Russell among a group of people happily having a drink does not establish 'abuse of alcohol'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the variety of opinions regarding the photograph. Just to make sure there is no misunderstanding, I wasn't trying to pick on Rutherford. Alcoholism is a disease and it isn't something to smirk about. I placed the reference quotes and photo there in the effort to help establish the fact that he suffered from this disease. But as BlackCab has stated the reference are quite sufficient, and I accept that reasoning. Pastorrussell (talk) 08:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps editors should re-read my first comment beginning this thread. I asked for the new points to be "sourced better". At that point in time, the new edits added a questionable image (which has since been removed by others) and a blog. Discussion of Salter and Moyle by Penton is altogether different from piling on anonymous claims that Rutherford showed up in drunken stupors to deliver convention parts; I know that other historians have pointedly criticized Penton for including that, and I concede that their criticism should be verifiable. Alcoholism and drinking are different from public drunkenness and drunken stupors; I had imagined that such an outstanding claim should require outstanding references; isn't that a Wikipedia guideline? --AuthorityTam (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I noticed a bit of ad hominem creeping into the section about alcohol. Whereas Salter, Moyle and Penton each indicate some kind of issue with alcohol, the paragraph had been changed to emphasise a) Salter's dismissal, b) Penton's characterisation of Moyle, and c) needlessly making Penton's claims more ambiguous. Though the paragraph should mention status as former members, it is not necessary to further characterise the sources. Also, while Moyle did not specifically name Beth Sarim, he did include Rutherford's "many many homes, to wit, Bethel, Staten Island, California, etc", and the home in California was Beth Sarim.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Penton and "frequently"

Certain editors gleefully include certain statements by Penton; Penton is an excommunicated former JW who has been called 'biased' by other historians. Two questions:

• 1. Among those historians who are not former JWs, does even a single one accuse Rutherford of delivering convention parts in a drunken stupor?
  
• 2. Does Penton ever actually claim that Rutherford was "FREQUENTLY" inebriated?
  

To the first question, Wikipedia generally requires extraordinary claims to have extraordinary support (see WP:REDFLAG).
To the second question, the answer is no. Penton certain implies the worst, saying that there exist an uncertain number of "accounts of the judge's drinking habits" and that an unstated number of 'former workers' have told an unspecific number of "stories of how difficult it sometimes was...because of his drunkenness". Were there supposedly two stories? ten "accounts"? Supposedly twenty? The man was a convention speaker for about 40 years... If a man was drunk once every two years, is it fair for editors here at Wikipedia to interpret that as "frequent inebriation" (and without knowing how many incidents there actually were)?
Furthermore, were these "workers" made aware that their funny stories were being relied upon for a history book? Or were they casually relating stories at a party in the most interesting way possible?
In any event, Wikipedia may be able to include Penton's vague accusations of what "sometimes" happened, but we certainly cannot interpret "sometimes" to pretend it means "frequently". I've edited the article to reinstate "sometimes", per the reference. --AuthorityTam (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm completely and totally puzzled as to why you keep trying to undermine the references and justify Rutherford as either misrepresented or even lied about when it comes to his alcohol use. I could understand if there was evidence the person was dishonest, or that they had some kind of bias or intention to destroy someone (such as The Brooklyn Daily Eagle did to Pastor Russell), but the facts are what matter. Even if Penton was unreliable Moyle and Salter are not. They knew the man personally and worked intimately with him. The evidence suggests that he went through whiskey like it was water. Purchasing cases of whiskey during Prohibition was a crime. That was why I posted that earlier image. It was during Prohibition when alcohol possession and consumption were illegal. Woodworth in the May 7, 1937 issue of The Golden Age does not deny Salter's accusation of his inebriation or drinking of alcohol but instead justifies his extensive use as necessary. This creates a fourth valid reference, also from a person who knew and worked closely with Rutherford. Pastorrussell (talk) 20:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Using Penton's book as a source provides no more "glee" for me than using a WT reference. I just look for reliable, verifiable sources. The claims of drunkenness on JFR's part seem rather too widely spread to be described as "extraordinary". BlackCab (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The change to "sometimes" was a misuse of the source material. The source did not say Rutherford was "sometimes inebriated". It said it was 'sometimes difficult to get him to the podium', which is not a specific indication of how often he was inebriated.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The thread was begun as an objection to the misuse of the explicit term "frequently" (as the thread's title implies) to categorize Penton. Ironically, Penton's 1997 interpretation of unnamed, unnumbered 'former workers' (relating events from before 1942) is the only remaining "ref" claiming that Rutherford was regularly drunk. --AuthorityTam (talk) 20:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Hide Moyle's teetotalling?

I'm not sure I've ever seen even a single scholarly discussion of Olin Moyle which did not mention that he was a teetotaler or teetotaller. Even Penton explicitly characterized Moyle as "Puritanical" and a 'teetotaler' (e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses and the Third Reich by M. James Penton, University of Toronto Press, 2004, page 368) and Penton said that that affected Moyle's view of things. Wouldn't it be balanced to include rather than hide that? --AuthorityTam (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

What has that to do with anything? Pastor Russell was also a teetotaler. Just because someone is a teetotaler (someone who avoids alcohol) doesn't necessarily alter their credibility. It seems to me that it is completely and utterly irrelevant. But it will be interesting to see what other editors think about this. Pastorrussell (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

If every other scholarly reference notes that Moyle was a teetotaler, it would seem to be an encyclopedically-relevant fact that should be included.--AuthorityTam (talk) 20:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not aware that "every scholarly reference notes that Moyle was a teetotaler", which in any case would seem to be a statement intended to characterise Moyle's statements about Rutherford, which would be ad hominem. Though not conclusive, a quick Google search indicates that of 82 references to Moyle being a teetotaler, all but three (one of which is Wikipedia) are directly quoting Penton.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Nor was that stated.
Writers excerpt quotes however they like, but scholarly writers tend toward fairness. Thus, the fact that 82 references choose to explicitly include 'teetotaling' in their excerpts from Penton's account of Moyle's accusations... that certainly implies that about seven dozen additional other writers also felt that Moyle's personal puritanism likely affected his teetotaler's sensitivity on the issue of alcohol. Why should this article hide the conclusions of these additional 82 references, all of whom pointedly identify Moyle as a teetotaler?--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it would have been easier to die in the recent cyclone than deal with your petulance. 82 Google search results does not mean 82 separate 'references'. Most of them are mirrors. You're just wrong.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Normally, I would say it is irrelevant. But since Moyle is only mentioned in this article as a critic of Rutherford's "glorification of alcohol" and other "excessive" behaviors, I do think it is worth mentioning. It is not ad hominem to mention relevant facts about Moyle's frame of mind, nor does it discredit his accusations in any way. It is up to the reader to determine whether being a teetotaler is admirable or despicable (or somewhere in-between), but no matter which side of the fence you are on, this factoid is still relevant to this particular discussion. ...comments? ~BFizz 04:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not as simple as that. If Moyle were the only person who said anything about Rutherford's drinking, then that might be the case. However, a single statement Penton once made about Moyle is being used here in a broad sense to characterise Moyle's comments about Rutherford's drinking. AuthorityTam's previous attempts to also characterise both Salter and Penton in regard to Rutherford's drinking are directly relevant to this issue.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

No, Moyle did not claim that Rutherford was a drunk or alcoholic. Moyle's accusation was mushy: that alcohol was 'glorified'. Perhaps a puritanical teetotaller can objectively opine about whether another person is a drunk or alcoholic (neither of which Moyle ever claimed), but can he be objective about whether alcohol is being 'glorified'? No. It certainly seems encyclopedically relevant to know that Penton calls Moyle "puritanical" and a "teetotaller"; it certainly seems likely that a lifetime of misgivings about any and all alcoholic drink might influence a complaint about the 'glorification of alcohol'. Penton and his quoters share that information in their accounts of the matter, so it seems clear that including the detail outweighs any benefit (?) from hiding it. Incidentally, what is the supposed advantage of hiding the detail?--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The fact that Moyle didn't drink does not necessarily indicate "a lifetime of misgivings about any and all alcoholic drink". Such a claim is far more speculative than the suggestion that 'going from drink to drink' indicates that Rutherford was a heavy drinker. Also, Penton's summation of Moyle as a teetotaler would seem to be made redundant by his own statements about Rutherford being a heavy drinker. However, the current wording, with Penton's comment about Moyle being with Penton's other comments—rather than a specific characterisation of Moyle—seems sufficient.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to be mentioned at all because it isn't notable. There is no reference, no evidence, which indicates that Moyle's teetotaling had any impact upon his accusations against Rutherford. He was noting events he saw, not making a judgment on them per se. And even if he did, it was his religious views, not his views on alcohol that stand out. There are plenty of genuinely religious/spiritual people who abhor alcoholism, but do drink on occasion. Just because Penton notes Moyles stand (without any evidence mind you) does not make it worthy to be pointed out in such a blatant manner because it is indeed suggesting the thought to the reader that Moyle made his statement only because he was a non-drinker. What evidence do we have that this was his reasons for censuring Rutherford? Pastorrussell (talk) 18:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Moyle himself testified under oath that he had made "speeches in favor of Prohibition", was "a total abstainer from liquor", had "never" had alcohol in his home, had considered the Watch Tower "Bethel" to be his home, and found it "naturally offensive" to have alcohol in the home. Watch Tower's attorney asks three times if Moyle had ever personally witnessed anyone drinking alcohol or in possession of alcohol at Bethel, and Moyle repeatedly says no. At one point during Moyle's testimony, the judge actually interjects and asks Moyle directly about Watch Tower offices, factories, and residences: "Did you see any liquor around the place?" Moyle's lawyerly response? "I cannot testify positively as to liquor being in the place".--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

It certainly is a 'lawyerly' response—it can be interpreted as either 'I can't testify in the affirmative' or 'I can't be absolutely certain'. In any case, Penton's comment about Moyle as a 'teetotaler' is present in the article, and the comments of writers other than Moyle—including Penton himself—make it unnecessary to spend too much time characterising Moyle.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Salter 2011

I have edited the discussion regarding Walter Salter at Joseph Franklin Rutherford#Personal life. As Penton notes, the situation with Salter was far less notable than that with Olin Moyle for many reasons. Years before the incident, Salter lost teaching responsibilities following a vote of Canadian branch personnel themselves. After that, Salter's own letters show that he was jockeying to replace Rutherford as Watch Tower president. Salter was dismissed from the branch office about a year before he wrote his 4500-word indictment. Lastly, Penton writes that Salter was disfellowshipped from his congregation BEFORE he wrote his "letter" (though Salter pre-dated the letter); incidentally, at the time disfellowshipping was a matter debated by and voted on by the entire congregation rather than an anonymous committee of elders. I hope editors will discuss their objections to my article edits regarding the Walter Salter allegations. Even after my edit, I suspect the article gives too much space to the Salter claims. --AuthorityTam (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The article gives one sentence to Salter's claims, with an additional sentence indicating his expulsion. Additionally, it seems unlikely that Salter, Moyle, and Penton all collaborated to form some elaborate conspiracy about Rutherford's drinking if there was nothing at all to it. It therefore seems like unnecessary ad hominem to try to build too strong a case about those who criticised Rutherford's drinking.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The stories of Rutherford's alcoholism are well established, and not hearsay. Salter is one documented source, and is someone who knew JFR personally and worked with him. His being disfellowshipped is irrelevant, especially as there is no evidence that such disfellowshipping somehow embittered him causing him to make something up, or that it in any way impeaches his credibility. The act of disfellowshipping will affect a JW's view of a person's credibility as it is part of their belief system, but to any unbiased researcher who is collecting references dispassionately Salter's credibility has been demonstrated to be unimpeachable. Pastorrussell (talk) 08:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a separate thread about Rutherford's alleged alcohol abuse. Perhaps eventually another reference will be discovered regarding the matter, so that scholars will not need to rely so tenuously upon such sources as Penton's unnumbered anonymous 'workers' and Salter in Canada (who corresponded with but did not work alongside Rutherford). --AuthorityTam (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

His abuse of alcohol is well-known, even outside of these three references. "Talk" of it occurs in Kingdom Halls, and I know first-hand of Bible Students who were around the early years (1915-1930) who told stories about it. One particular case was a Bible Student named Edward Lorenz who died about ten years ago who told the story of how he was a member of the Los Angeles ecclesia somewhere around 1919 (I don't recall the exact year) and Rutherford was invited to serve their convention. Congregations routinely (then and now) pay the way as well as paying for accommodation. After Rutherford left and they received the hotel bill they were shocked by the enormity of the cost. Included in the bill was cost to repair damage to the room and several cases of whiskey. Soon thereafter and to coincide with continuing changes many in the Los Angeles ecclesia broke their ties with the Society. That's only one story. There are many more. The three references are sufficient to establish the matter. Additionally, Woodworth in the May 7, 1937 issue of The Golden Age justifies Rutherford's drinking as medicinal to treat pain. That's a very important point, and a good reference that should be added to the three existing. Why? Because we know what Salter said in his letter. Woodworth defended Rutherford's actions on each accusation and when it came to the use of alcohol and his frequent inebriation there was no denial of his use or his being inebriated, it was instead justified as necessary. 2 + 2 frequently equals 4. Pastorrussell (talk) 19:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Based on the quote provided, the Golden Age article doesn't support the claim of drunkenness. It simply elevates Rutherford to the position of Jesus, in suggesting that they were both "victims" of a false allegation. All it confirms is that both Jesus and JFR drank alcohol.

The Salter reference needs abbreviating. It currently reads: "Walter F. Salter, the Society's former branch manager in Canada, wrote a public letter to Rutherford in 1937, claiming that Rutherford had exclusive use of "luxurious" and "expensive" residences (in Brooklyn, Staten Island, Germany, and San Diego), as well as two Cadillacs, and was a heavy drinker. Salter had been dismissed from the branch about May 1936, and was disfellowshipped from his Toronto congregation on April 12, 1937." Details of Salter's removal are unnecessary. If anything the date of his removal can be inserted (with about three words) within the first sentence if it is necessary to make clear the possibility of malicious intent. BlackCab (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you that it doesn't prove inebriation, or even the amount or frequency of his consumption. But when considering what was said in Salter's letter the reply that was given was justifying his use and even going so far as to suggest that Jesus drank due to emotional pressure and strain (which personally, I find blasphemous) to further justify his use. It is a valid reference though if worded properly and carefully. Pastorrussell (talk) 23:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

It's still not sufficiently explicit. The absence of a denial is not an admission. BlackCab (talk) 01:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, perhaps it's a matter of ones point of view. Here is how I read the reference: Woodworth in responding to the accusation that Rutherford drank says that Jesus drank due to emotional strain, and then tells the reader that the Judge too was under emotional strain and also volunteers that Rutherford suffered severe back pain on top of it. Granted, it doesn't say how much he drank, or how often, but it clearly does verify that he drank, and he was attempting to explain Rutherford's reason for so doing calling anyone who disagreed with his reasons a "hypocrite" because after all if it was okay for Jesus to drink then it's okay for JFR to do the same. I'd be interested in your take on the reference. My motive for adding the reference is because AuthorityTam continues to insist that Penton is an unreliable source while at the same time suggesting that both Moyle and Salter are somehow biased (Moyle a teetotaler who perhaps hated people that drink, or Salter a disfellowshipped person who perhaps was embittered) therefore in his mind saying that Rutherford drank is based on shaky evidence at best. So, I gave him a reference that came directly from the Watchtower Society itself. But if you don't think it's a valid or usable reference then he would fight it even more. That's a shame because it is a valid reference in my opinion. So, I guess at this point it's going to be an unending debate with him because he seems very reluctant to even admit the facts not to mention accept valid references. Someone puts up a reference, he takes it down. Someone words something a certain way, he changes it to water it down, or even censor it. That's a shame. Pastorrussell (talk) 03:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Salter certainly complained about expenditures, but he did not actually accuse Rutherford of drunkenness or even alcohol abuse. An editor has already removed that from the article. Moyle accused Rutherford of 'glorifying' alcohol, but Moyle too refrained from personally accusing Rutherford of drunkenness or alcohol abuse. The only such accusation remaining is Penton's 1997 interpretation of unnamed, unnumbered 'former workers' relating events from before 1942.--AuthorityTam (talk) 20:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

In response to PastorRussell's edit[2] that Salter wrote that Rutherford was a heavy drinker. Salter wrote that JFR had squandered money on expensive liquor and that he "goes from drink to drink". I see no explicit claim that he was a heavy drinker. That may be inferred from Salter's letter, but Salter may not have meant that. Either way, in the absence of a clear allegation by Salter, the bald statement that Salter claimed he was a heavy drinker is false. You call it censorship; I call it accuracy. BlackCab (talk) 06:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Statements by Moyle and Salter are certainly not inconsistent with Penton's reports of Rutherford's frequent drunkenness. Surely there is some way for Salter's view to be more accurately stated without too much elaboration. It does seem like censorship to make it seem as though Salter said nothing at all about Rutherford's drinking, particularly if the same editor also attacks the veracity of both Moyle and Penton.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

One hopes a serious encyclopedia will have a higher standard than to allow slander/libel simply because other references are "not inconsistent" with the one and only reference that does include slander/libel of the subject.
Again, Moyle never accuses Rutherford of drunkenness, Salter never accuses Rutherford of drunkenness, but Penton (writing in 1997 about events before 1942) has Rutherford showing up to deliver convention addresses in drunken stupors!
Does it seem more encyclopedic to pretend that Moyle and Salter made accusations which they did not, or is it more encyclopedic to consider Penton (an excommunicated former JW who has been called 'biased' by other historians) perhaps an example of WP:REDFLAG? Penton never gives the number of "notorious" accounts, and never names a single date, place, or person in corroboration.--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I have added a link to the Salter letter and requested a quote that supports PastorRussell's claim that "Salter states unequivocally that JFR was a heavy drinker". BlackCab (talk) 12:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Consider that if one were a smoker and said to go "from cigarette to cigarette" it would mean they were a chain-smoker, and it would be fair to call them a "heavy smoker." How is this any different in the case of JFR's drinking of whiskey, brandy, and beer? An occasional beer is one thing, but "drink to drink" with whiskey and brandy is not light drinking it is heavy drinking. I fear that we might be going too far here to the point that it seems were are trying to attack Mr. Rutherford. Alcoholism is a disease, and so we should tread lightly in what we say. However, the facts are clear that he was a heavy drinker and both Moyle and Salter in print have testified to this, while numerous anecdotes of his drinking have made the rounds, and even the issue of The Golden Age responding to Salter's letter justifies his drinking of the "cases of whiskey at $60.00 a case, and cases of brandy and other liquors, to say nothing of untold cases of beer. A bottle or two of liquor would not do; it was for THE PRESIDENT and nothing was too good for THE PRESIDENT." Pastorrussell (talk) 01:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Salter's statement that Rutherford "goes from 'drink to drink'": Salter himself had listed four different types of "drink" which he claimed Rutherford had purchased, and it seems that Salter's claim is about flitting carefree amongst the four types of drink (while others worked!). It's unclear how Salter in Canada could have known what Rutherford did hundreds of miles away, but even Salter didn't accuse Rutherford of drunkenness.
Frankly, if Salter had intended to accuse Rutherford of drunkkenness or of delivering convention parts in a drunken stupor, it seems unlikely that Salter would have done so cryptically and ambiguously. I've again reverted the statement that Salter accused Rutherford of heavy drinking.--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Your on-going and persistent censorship of the facts is very disturbing. You have often tried to impeach the veracity of Moyle's, Salter's and Penton's claims by either questioning their character or implying some mysterious and unproven bias. Salter's statement doesn't require interpretation, nor even analysis. It is what it is. Everyone knows that Rutherford was an alcoholic. It's been known for 90 years. It's been reported many times, and is known and whispered about by JWs and Bible Students for decades. There is no mystery here. The references are valid, the claim is true, and it should end there. Period. Pastorrussell (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Salter hinted at Rutherford's drinking habit, but it wasn't an explicit claim. I have changed the wording to say he "intimated" that he was a heavy drinker. It's fair to infer that's what he meant, but it's inaccurate to say that he "claimed" he was a heavy drinker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackCab (talk • contribs)

That's a good change. I think "intimated" was a good term to use. Pastorrussell (talk) 22:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

We must never forget that Salter made an open attack to Rutherford. It is obvious that he mentioned specifically everything that would serve his attack. The fact that he didn't say directly that Rutherford was a heavy drinker or an alcoholic or a drunkard was not due to his tactfulness but due to the lack of such evidence. Hence, if Shalter, who attacked Rutherford openly, did not make a clear statement about alcohol abuse, how unwise and biased is for someone to put in Shalter’s mouth words he didn’t really utter or to intensify the personal interpretation of a Shalter’s unclear hint.--85.72.148.169 (talk) 08:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, from the historian’s viewpoint, the fact that Moyle and Salter didn't make an outright accusation of Rutherford's drinking habits is sound evidence against Penton's claim.--85.72.148.169 (talk) 09:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

That argument might be valid if it weren't for the fact that Salter's letter with its various accusations was addressed by an article in The Golden Age where C.J. Woodworth (the editor) rather than saying that the accusation of drinking was false actually justified his use by making the argument that Jesus drank wine relieve stress and that it would therefore be hypocritical to criticize the Judge for drinking for the same reasons. Woodworth doesn't say anything about his being drunk, but does justify his use of the "whiskey, brandy and other liquors ... and beer." Pastorrussell (talk) 22:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

No, Salter had not "intimated" that Rutherford was a drunk or an alcoholic. Salter very clearly accused Rutherford of purchasing quantities of different kinds of drink, and of going 'from drink to drink'. That's it: mushy at best. An editor here can quote Salter, and could fairly interpret his uncontroversial statements. But, a Wikipedia editor cannot WP:SYNTH Salter's words into an accusation of drunkenness or even heavy drinking. An editor who wishes the article to state that Salter explicitly or implicitly accused Rutherford of drunkenness or some other nefariousness should go find a reliable verifiable source first. Otherwise this just wastes everyone's time.--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm content to let the statement that Salter claimed Rutherford went "from drink to drink" remain. The phrase Salter used in his letter is sufficiently graphic to get the point across. It may in fact suggest Rutherford was a perpetual drunk (worse than a "heavy drinker"), but that's up the reader to interpret. BlackCab (talk) 07:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Someone inserted a quote about what kinds of alcohol drinks were 'acquired', but the wording seemed rather awkward. I changed:

• "and would go "from drink to drink" after allegedly acquiring "cases of whiskey at $60.00 a case, and cases of brandy and other liquors." "
  to instead read:
• "and would acquire beer, whiskey, brandy, and other liquors, and 'go from "drink to drink"'."

My edit matches the source's own order of quoted phrases, and IMHO improves the flow. I'm also going to move this Salter subsection to be under the main #Allegations of alcohol abuse section.--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Without explanation, an editor reverted the edit discussed immediately above. Thus, I've reinstated it.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Why does almost every post you enter begin with the word No? You seem to have a habit of whitewashing the Judge's drinking problem. Repeatedly, you have either called into question the character of his accusers or the authors and researchers who made the claim, or you alter valid edits (and sometimes even references) by others. Can you please explain why? Others have already stated that this activity appears to be an effort to censor the truth. Why? The truth about JFR doesn't harm your religion or the Governing Body in any way, and might actually result in pity for him. Pastorrussell (talk) 22:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Gruss

Recent edits resulted in the following new text in the article:

• Edmond Gruss reports the experience of a former Bethel worker who stated that A. H. Macmillan, an associate of Rutherford, criticized Rutherford's "drunkenness and irrational conduct."

1. Firstly, any critical reference from Gruss should have identified him as a former Jehovah's Witness.
   
2. Secondly, even Gruss doesn't attribute the claimed quote to Macmillan, but to "Edward J. Ford, Jr.".
   
3. Thirdly, Gruss's claim is an almost laughable chain of hearsay: Gruss claims to have heard something from Ford Jr; Ford Jr claims to have heard it from Ford Sr.; Ford Sr. claims to have heard it from Macmillan. This game of telephone is not encyclopedic.
   
4. Fourthly, Gruss obviously could find no one to publish this nonsense; the quoted-from work (Jehovah’s Witnesses: Their Claims, Doctrinal Changes, and Prophetic Speculation) is self-published and thus inadmissible as a source.
   

The sentence in question has been removed.--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

And I have restored it. The pattern of either removing valid alcoholism references, whitewashing them, or calling into question the character of these researchers is getting tiresome. The facts are reliable and should be accepted. The Judge was human, and had a weakness, but admitting this shouldn't be seen as attacking Jehovah's Witnesses or invaliding your religious views. Pastorrussell (talk) 23:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The article doesn't need it. Allegations of inebriation are already in the article without Gruss' claim, which stretches Wikipedia's bounds of reliable sources. BlackCab (talk) 03:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I have no complaints about removing it. Though all the members of the 'chain' are specifically named in the source, it's still hearsay. The other sources sufficiently discuss the matter.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

My purpose in adding it is because, so far, every accuser, researcher, author, or editor has been questioned, criticized, altered or had quotes whitewashed. Using simple logic it appears that there is an attempt to censor the truth. He offers a complaint about every reference trying to weaken the claim. Pastorrussell (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Founder of Jehovah's Witnesses

It's inaccurate to describe Rutherford as the founder of Jehovah's Witnesses. He was president of the WTS when the religious group known until then as the Bible Students adopted a new name. It's rather like identifying the chairman of a 100-year-old corporation as its founder simply because the corporation changes its name. BlackCab (talk) 12:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

It is arguable that Rutherford was founder of JWs as he coined the name and significantly diverged beliefs from those of the Bible Students. However, you're probably right that there is not a valid source for directly stating as much. However, my chief concern here is only about the run-on sentence.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Current version is fine. The second time that I previously changed reverted the wording, I'd misread it and thought it had been put back to the old version I'd changed the first time.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's not entirely true. Most of the original Bible Students had left by 1931 and were a comparatively larger group than those under his leadership, by his own admission. Thus, the name was adopted by a small faction of the Bible Student movement, not the entire movement, and not all of "the Bible Students." The Watchtower Society of today is vastly different from what it was during the time of Pastor Russell. It really is essentially a new religion both in terms of organizational practice and doctrine. There are references which indicate that while CTR founded the Watch Tower Society it was JFR who founded the Jehovah's Witnesses. If I added such and restored the wording to what it was (i.e. that JFR founded the JWs) would it cause "dissension in the ranks" of editors? Pastorrussell (talk) 20:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the churn in membership, there was a gradual change of administrative and doctrinal process. The religion that was the Bible Students in June 1931 was the same religion in August 1931. I'd be curious to see any reference that identified Rutherford as the founder of Jehovah's Witnesses, given the wide acknowledgments of Russell as the father of the religion. BlackCab (talk) 20:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I've noted before and elsewhere that PR's claim fails when analyzed. Most who stopped attending IBSA Bible Students events did not begin attending non-IBSA Bible Students events. Those persons were lapsed, attending nowhere for a time; ironically, statistics over the years show that either 1.) most eventually returned to IBSA Bible Students or 2.) the IBSA Bible Students had extraordinarily rapid growth after the metaphoric dust settled (from the beginning to the end of Rutherford's presidency there were six times as many adherents). Again, no verifiable reference has ever claimed that the combined attendance statistics at non-IBSA Bible Students groups ever surpassed contemporaneous attendance statistics of IBSA Bible Students groups. --AuthorityTam (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Poor ignorant me. Yes, the group size of those who left and joined with other Bible Students are well documented and it was larger than the JWs until the early 1930s. In fact, some of the sources appear in this very Wikipedia article. Also, Rutherford himself so stated. "The total number of those who have withdrawn from the Society and now oppose its work is comparatively large, when such are taken all together." (The Watchtower November 15, 1930 pg 342). The meaning of the term "comparatively large" should be self-evident. No, most of those who left did NOT return to the Society. Some did, but the vast majority did not. Facts are unbiased until our prejudices get in the way. Early Bible Student literature from the 1920s and 30s list a veritable "Who's Who" of those that worked with Pastor Russell and had left and began working with the Dawn. A very large retinue of former "Pilgrims," (traveling speakers) elders, and deacons listed in the Convention Reports up to the 1920s are then found in the Dawn Bible Student Convention Reports and were then elected as elders in local congregations all over the country, and when the Dawn instituted a similar Pilgrim service as the Society once had under Pastor Russell many of those original Pilgrims again joined and many new Bible Student congregations were founded. By the early 1940s the membership of all Bible Students was nearly 100,000 worldwide. Still smaller than the JWs to be sure, but still a very large number. Some were new converts, but most of them left the Society in the period from 1917-1928. Pastorrussell (talk) 09:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

No, for "comparatively large" does not mean "comparatively larger". If PR claims statistics from a verifiable reference, he should share them somewhere appropriate.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't just mean 'a large group' because he is making a comparison. The purpose of using "comparatively large" is to convey that those who left are the "majority" as Rutherford went on to say, "when taken all together" and compared to those that stayed, otherwise he would have said "comparatively small." That is how most people would understand the meaning of that phrase. There would be no purpose in his even mentioning it if those who left were less than the majority because in that case it wouldn't relate to the point he went on to make. There are other places where Rutherford stated that those who stayed were a small number. The Memorial attendance records are evidence that those who left were the majority "when taken all together" in 1930. Pastorrussell (talk) 22:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Unless the 'claims of PR from "before and elsewhere"' are somehow relevant to this discussion, there is no need to mention them here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

AuthorityTam has raised this issue previously, trying to win an argument on the validity of his religion based on its size compared with the Bible Students. It is a petty point-scoring exercise that is no more relevant now than it was then. The issue is whether, in July 1931, Rutherford formed a new religion. BlackCab (talk) 09:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, but 'my religion' ? Month after month, BlackCab aka LTSally pretends that I must motivated by what he inventively claims is 'my religion'. This editor claims of me: "[you] hate those who criticize your dear leaders", and "[you're] skewed with the good old Watchtower-tinted spectacles". It's tiresome, and unwikipedian. Just because an editor wishes to see religions in general, or a particular religion, discussed accurately and fairly, that does not mean he is a religious adherent.

An editor, PR, purported to offer as fact that which is not fact (again). It's wrong for editors to pretend the only reason for correcting such an error is pro-religious propaganda. --AuthorityTam (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I keep hearing a quacking sound. I choose to make clear my (former) connection with the Witnesses so everyone knows where I'm coming from and it's your choice (like all other editors) whether you do or not. I respect your decision to keep that information confidential. But in my dealings with you I've observed enough about your sources, your inside knowledge, your fascination with WTS procedural and organizational systems, your defensiveness of the WT religion and its leaders and your antipathy towards those who have left the religion to form my own opinion about your affiliation. BlackCab (talk) 22:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Whether AuthorityTam is a JW is not of particular importance, though his stance seems fairly clear (and frankly, tip-toeing around the elephant in the room is tedious). That said, a passing reference to his likely affiliation is not quite the same as the resultant rant he has offered in rebuttal, again dredging up previous editor comments. Please stick to content.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Alright then, which fact "which is not fact (again)"? There was no need to use the "(again)" as that implies I neither know my facts nor ever use valid references, which is patently false. Most of what I said was based upon references already listed in the article which I didn't need to repeat. So, what makes a reference valid or invalid? If there is no evidence to impugn the character or credibility of the person who originated/wrote/published the reference(s) cited, is it then proper to attempt to undermine their credibility in order to eliminate the information gleaned from them? Fairness is very important, so is neutrality, but can one go too far? Censorship is dangerous to truth. Truth is not always pretty. Pastorrussell (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

According to Webster's dictionary, "comparatively large" means larger.Webster (slow site)Google cache--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

PastorRussell, thanks for the additional references. The Chall article and Sociological Yearbook do offer the explicit claim that he founded the religion, with the reasoning that he took an existing religious movement, made significant doctrinal, ideological and administrative changes to it, then gave it a new name to distinguish it from other Bible Student affiliates. Other books have noted the wide difference between today's JWs and the Bible Students of Russell's day. Penton (pg 62, 75) argues that the adoption of the JW name in 1931 marked a break with the past and that JFR, rather than CTR, was the one who shaped the Witnesses to become the religion they are today (though he nowhere identifies JFR as the "founder" in so many words). At the moment I'm content to leave the wording as is, noting Rutherford as the religion's founder and that it emerged from the Bible Students. BlackCab (talk) 03:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely right. The main problem though is that it has become habitual to simply refer to CTR as the founder of Jehovah's Witnesses and so references can be found saying it, but it's not historically accurate. The WT Society continues to insist upon Russell as their founder when in reality he only founded the Bible Society while, as you note, the significant doctrinal, ideological and administrative changes identify them as a new religion. Rutherford's intention was to break away from Russell. But while out of one side of his mouth saying that it was wrong to glorify a man he was eager to prop himself up. There's a sad story that's made the rounds among Bible Students. Toward the end of his life Pastor Russell had a very kindly and serene aura about him, very grandfatherly. Some of his last pictures are iconic. Well, one day Rutherford was sitting for a photograph, and each time he saw the result he kept yelling at the photographer telling him that he wasn't doing it right (despite being a professional). After repeated efforts he asked Rutherford, what did he want, and what did he expect? He plopped down a picture of Pastor Russell and said "make me look like that". Apparently the photographer responded rather snidely by saying that he wasn't a miracle worker. Essentially he wanted to be the new Pastor Russell. I like the comparison made in this article that in terms of organization Young was to Smith what Rutherford was to Russell. It's a true analogy. Pastorrussell (talk) 04:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Five references for a single point seems fairly excessive. I have retained the most explicit refs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. There was a method to my madness though. I was concerned what AuthorityTam would say so I just put them all there at once. Pastorrussell (talk) 09:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Founder fringe

While one ref claims Rutherford "created Jehovah's Witnesses" and a second ref calls Rutherford "the New York founder of Jehovah's Witnesses", the fact is that literally hundreds and hundreds of references explicitly identify Charles Taze Russell as the religion's founder. If two to five refs claim something that directly contradicts hundreds, then including the contradicting minority is WP:FRINGE. I've removed it. --AuthorityTam (talk) 20:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, Russell did not found the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses. It emerged from the organization he founded. As per the discussion above, the religion is today in many respects distinct from the 19th century Bible Student group and reflects the doctrines and organizational changes introduced by Rutherford. BlackCab (talk) 20:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

No, the preponderance of sources does not support the opinion of BlackCab aka LTSally. Three editors here have embraced a handful of refs to insist that the article declare Rutherford as the "founder" of Jehovah's Witnesses; their theory is (at best) a fringe theory. There are hundreds of references stating explicitly that a different person was the founder. I've reverting the article to what it said immediately before this theory was inserted, and hope disagreeing editors will better explain their willingness to ignore and contradict the preponderance of references.--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The wording was changed by consensus after discussion and consideration of the sources. You are simply edit warring by insisting on your own view. BlackCab (talk) 22:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I have a question here. AuthorityTam is insisting that Charles Taze Russell should be noted as the founder of Jehovah's Witnesses simply because there are "hundreds of references" stating this. However, those claims are false and known to be false by everyone. The Jehovah's Witnesses were not founded until 1931, almost fifteen years after he had died. Charles Taze Russell founded the Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society and its subsidiaries, and established the Bible Student movement. This is a fact. So my question is in a situation where the majority of references make a knowingly false statement do we still take those references while rejecting the ones that state the true facts? There is also the problem that there are only "hundreds" because they all quote from each other. Nobody can say truthfully that CTR founded the JW, they can only say truthfully that he founded the WTS. There is a very big difference. Pastorrussell (talk) 05:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not 'my own view' or a "knowingly false statement".
At #Founder refs on this page, I've provided quotes from five dozen references which identify Charles Taze Russell as the founder of Jehovah's Witnesses; it would be a trivial exercise to provide another 60 or 160, but it seems superfluous. I've again removed the fringe theory.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Unless you're referring specifically to a relevant edit by 'LTSally', there is no reason to make reference to the previous user name.

Irrespective of what is re-reported in various sources, it is pointedly obvious from known facts that Russell did not specifically found Jehovah's Witnesses in particular, but that he founded the Bible Student movement from which Jehovah's Witnesses later emerged. There was no group called 'Jehovah's Witnesses' in existence during Russell's lifetime, and his only references to a Witness in any special sense referred to a pyramid. However, for the purposes of this article, it is sufficient to use the alternative wording.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to make sure I'm not misunderstanding you, are you saying that you believe it is sufficient to say that Russell founded the Jehovah's Witnesses? If so then I will have to disagree. A dead man cannot found a religion. The Jehovah's Witnesses have an entire system of doctrine and congregational practice which is not only different from Russell's but in many cases diametrically opposed to them. Any reference which states that Russell was the founder of the JWs is perpetuating a lie. I have historically let AuthorityTam walk all over me due to timidity, but not this time. This I will "fight" to the end. Russell did notfound the Jehovah's Witnesses, and AuthorityTam knows it as well as I do. To state differently in this article is misleading, and even deceptive. Pastorrussell (talk) 07:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

All I stated was that, for the purpose of this article, it was sufficient to omit the specific wording that Rutherford founded the Witnesses. I did not suggest that some other person should be explicitly indicated as founding the Witnesses instead. I think I indicated quite clearly immediately above that there was no JW group during Russell's lifetime.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. Yes, I did see your earlier comment, but what I didn't understand was what you meant by alternate wording and was seeking clarification because in the context it could be read two ways. But no matter, the issue at hand is whether or not to accept references which state a known falsehood, or accept references which state a provable and uncontested fact. Someone could produce dozens of references that the Moon is made of green cheese, but that certainly wouldn't be accurate to stand by, and would only be mentioned in passing if mentioned at all. Why AuthorityTam is pressing the matter so hard is unclear to me, although I have a theory. Early on Rutherford validated many things he did by tying it to Pastor Russell. He often printed things that might be controversial by itself, but if somehow it could be connected to CTR it gave it legitimacy. A good example would be the book Angels and Women. Rutherford implied that Russell endorsed the book Seola and wanted to have it reprinted to reflect the view of what the world was like before the Flood. But those who knew CTR said that was baloney. Connecting the JWs to the name of Russell gives it an air of authority and legitimacy, but by perpetuating that lie they have now put themselves into an unenviable position of having to either (1) admit CTR didn't found their religion, or (2) to admit that things have changed so much since Russell's day that they cannot link themselves to him in a religious sense, but only a corporate one. (the WTS) Pastorrussell (talk) 18:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

You're tending to rant on this matter. See WP:SOAP.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

Without examining the veracity or reliability of AuthorityTam's references, it may be possible to overcome this issue by retaining as the opening sentence the indisputable, and quite neutral, statement that Rutherford was the second president of the WTS, then noting immediately, in a following sentence, that he is widely regarded as the man who constructed the modern-day Jehovah's Witnesses religion following earlier schisms in the Bible Student movement -- effectively moving higher the first sentence of the third paragraph. That third paragraph is necessary as some background of the broad scope of his changes, so will need to be retained but introduced slightly differently. The references AuthorityTam produced do outnumber those produced by PastorRussell, though some from both sides have their weaknesses: PastorRussell's Sociological Yearbook ref doesn't state explicitly that JFR founded JWs, but similarly several of AuthorityTam's are patently wrong in stating that Russell founded Jehovah's Witnesses. BlackCab (talk) 03:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it seems odd and troubling to insist that hundreds of independent (that is, not agenda-driven) reference works which identify Russell as JW founder must be "patently wrong". Furthermore, the references at #Founder refs are not "AuthorityTam's"; the references include well-respected almanacs, encyclopedias, histories, and texts on religion and sociology. All these independent scholarly works are not lazy or ignorant (or "patently wrong") in making the connection between Russell and Jehovah's Witnesses; Jehovah's Witnesses retain the most readily identifiable doctrines of Russell and the Bible Student movement, and more than 99% of the Bible Student movement's adherents are Jehovah's Witnesses.
Wikipedia editors cannot arbitrarily nullify hundreds of independent scholarly references to instead further opinions they like and prefer (and can source from a handful of references). In any event, it is silly for BlackCab, PR, and Jeffro77 to argue about Jehovah's Witnesses' founder here at this article. Editors can discuss that matter at History of Jehovah's Witnesses. I've again reverted the statement that Rutherford founded Jehovah's Witnesses.--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Then we obviously have a "situation". Neither you nor PastorRussell is prepared to back down, which means the article will become locked down in a slow-motion edit war. If the article needs administrator intervention, I'll call for it, but I've suggested a compromise proposal that involves adding no more information, just promoting a fact that is already in the lead section of the article.

AuthorityTam also raises new arguments about which group retains Russell's "most identifiable" doctrines and rehashes his juvenile and pointless argument that "my religion is bigger than your religion". Both those points are irrelevant at this discussion and don't need to be answered. The subject here is only Rutherford: did he found the JW religion or did he not? If not, did he, as I've suggested, construct much, or most, of the present-day religion? Was it made in his image? BlackCab (talk) 07:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you suggest the wording of how it might appear? I note your proposal of what should be done, but I'd be interested in knowing how you would word it. Obviously Russell didn't found the Jehovah's Witnesses. He founded the Bible Student movement from which the Jehovah's Witnesses sprang. To state otherwise is patently false, dishonest, and historically inaccurate. It must also be stated that the claim most Bible Students are former JWs is also false. Although I wouldn't be able to give precise percentages because we don't have membership roles, the following is very close to correct, based upon research that I and others have done: Descendants of those who left in days of JFR: 50%; New converts and descendants of converts post-JFR: 35%; Those who associated with the Society in the modern era (i.e. former Jehovah's Witnesses): 15%. Pastorrussell (talk) 21:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Tam said no but not necessarily to what BlackCab was proposing. From the little bit that I know, it seems fairly clear to me that Rutherford was not (technically) the founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses. From a legal perspective, from what I understand, the WTS represents the Jehovah's Witnesses religion, and the WTS was founded by Russell. If I had to pick one, I'd say Russell was the founder of the JWs. However, Rutherford did obviously play a big role in defining the Jehovah's Witnesses, including the name change. So that's what should be in the lede. We shouldn't say that Rutherford founded the Jehovah's Witnesses; we should say he had a big influence. This is essentially what BlackCab proposed, and I strongly support it. Note that only one quoted source puts Rutherford as "founder", the others imply "creator"; there is a subtle difference. Rutherford's influence can be seen in the fundamental structure of the JW religion today; in a literary sense it is fair to call him a "founder" for this, but most historians have apparently chosen not to, and I think we should follow suit.

Articles where Rutherford is stated as the "founder" of Jehovah's Witnesses should, imho, be corrected to remove this false factoid. It is unclear who "founded" the religion so we should avoid pinning it down to one person. I've not yet thought about possible wording for this article, but I'll sleep on it and try to produce something tomorrow if someone else hasn't already. ...comments? ~BFizz 05:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I've made an edit both to this article and to the Jehovah's Witnesses article, to remove the word "founder" and replace it with the concept of "great influence". Look good? ...comments? ~BFizz 01:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

That's along the line we want, but his influence was more than just organizational. Many of the doctrines and prophetic chronology changed during his leadership and there were wholesale changes to the ideology of the group, turning it from a loose collective of Bible students to a rigidly controlled, doctrinaire religious organization that poured harsh criticism on govermental systems, other religions and anyone who dared to question the leadership. I won't have much time to revisit the paragraph for another day or so, but the discussion might be better conducted here than on the article page, given it might be difficult to gain consensus. BlackCab (talk) 02:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps "Rutherford...had great influence in defining the Jehovah's Witnesses..."? (I've performed this edit in the lede.) I'm fairly certain that a simple statement of this form can be satisfactory to all, though the ideal wording is, as always, elusive. There's a lot that can be said about Rutherford's influence in the Jehovah's Witnesses religion, but do recall that these details are quite nicely summarized in the intro's third paragraph. ...comments? ~BFizz 02:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The word "shaping" is in the 3rd par, which is accurate ... I think the intro is better saying he had great influence in the development of the JWs. That gets across the idea that they evolved, and also that the religion of JWs was in its infancy at that point. BlackCab (talk) 03:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

What are Jehovah's Witnesses? What were the Bible Students during Russell's day (and the Bible Students who still exist)? The differences are vast. True, there are some similarities, but the differences outweigh them. The fact is that CTR founded the WTS and through his ministry the Bible Student movement came into being. It was a break from organized religion and rejection of creeds. After he died JFR began to develop a new set of organizational and doctrinal views and rejecting many of the things that Russell believed and taught. If someone disagreed on a few matters during CTR's day they were still a Bible Student. If someone disagreed on a few matters in JFR's later days they were disfellowshipped because to disagree with his interpretations and "the theocracy" was equal to rejecting God. These and many other things outline vast difference between the two groups. The Jehovah's Witnesses organizationally, doctrinally, and developmentally did not come into being until after CTR's death therefore it would be factually and morally wrong to call him their founder. Technically speaking it is correct to call JFR the founder. However, BlackCab's proposal is a good one. We are trying to find the best wording to correctly define his role, and my current change is to the following: "played a primary role in the establishment, organization, and doctrinal development of Jehovah's Witnesses" because it is the most accurate to the facts of history. There is more than one reference citing JFR as their founder. Some added at the first were later removed, and some were never added. Pastorrussell (talk) 23:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I understand his primary role in the "(re?)organization" and "doctrinal development" of Jehovah's Witnesses. But I don't see how JFR played a primary role in the "establishment" of Jehovah's Witnesses. Can you please explain why you say that? ...comments? ~BFizz 00:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The Jehovah's Witnesses are a rather unique religious organization. They are an offshoot from the Bible Student movement which formed under the ministry of Charles Taze Russell who founded the Watch Tower Society. After he died Rutherford began a systematic and intentional (and well documented) shift away from Russell. Russell did not believe in organized religion and was congregationalist in practice. His doctrinal views were mostly in place by 1903 after which point changes were more in clarification of terms and statements. But under JFR doctrines were discarded entirely, and new ones established in their place. Congregationalist practices were eliminated and a centralized control was put in place. These changes caused such an uproar that nearly three-quarters of the membership severed their ties with the Watch Tower Society. In years later JFR established the doctrine of "the theocracy" wherein they, under the administration of the Watch Tower Society, were God's sole spokesman on earth. Under Russell the Society was a printing house, and nothing more. By the time 1931 had arrived he had put in place most of his changes and because so many had left the bulk of support came from new converts who often knew nothing about what had happened previously. To distinguish his movement and his followers from those that supported Russell and had broken their ties he adopted the name "Jehovah's Witnesses." A new name. A new religion. A new creed. Pastorrussell (talk) 01:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

So, for some definition of "founder", Rutherford fits the bill. I agree. But Rutherford didn't start from scratch; he had those 25% that didn't break away. Rutherford was not the first president of the WTS, which is the legal heart of Jehovah's Witnesses. Surely you can admit there is room to say that there are some definitions of "founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses" for which Rutherford does not qualify. Same legal entity; same religion (from the perspective of law). ...comments? ~BFizz 05:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I have undone that edit. If PastorRussell generally supports my proposal, then he should avoid using words such as "founded" or "established" to indicate Rutherford's role in JWs. As indicated above, the support for external sources for that claim is not strong enough to ignore the dominant view among other sources supplied here that he didn't. BlackCab (talk) 01:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

But there was no such thing as a "Jehovah's Witness" prior to 1931. Additionally, the vast majority of their organizational and doctrinal framework was established years after Charles Taze Russell had died. To state that he founded the JWs or to even imply it is wrong. I do not intend to bow to AuthorityTam's introduction of contention on this issue. Nobody else disagreed until he chimed in, and now he is getting his way again ... well, not with me in the picture. He's wrong. He shouldn't be getting his way again, especially on something that is historically and factually inaccurate. Pastorrussell (talk) 01:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Where does the JFR article state that Russell founded the JWs? BlackCab (talk) 01:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Just because we do not state that JFR "founded" the JWs, doesn't mean that we automatically support the position that Russell founded the religion. AuthorityTam, Pastorrussell, can we please let the founder wars rest? I think we can all agree to the following compromises:

• State on Russel's article that he founded the WTS and helped start the Bible Students movement, out of which came Jehovah's Witnesses.
• State on Rutherford's article that he had a heavy hand in the organization and doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses
• State on the Jehovah's Witnesses article both of the aforementioned points

That's all there is to it. It's difficult to pin down a true "founder", and both men could be seen as founders, depending on your POV. ...comments? ~BFizz 05:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I haven't even looked at this article in a week!
It was pure WP:FRINGE to present Rutherford as JWs' founder, and I make no apologies for reminding editors of the preponderance of references on the matter. I'm happy to drop this discussion here, but also willing to continue it someplace appropriate.--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

My main concern with this issue is that any false impression be given that Russell established the Jehovah's Witnesses. He did not. It's not complicated. Any competent historian can demonstrate this. There are some foundational similarities, but the majority of those things which Russell established and believed in were eliminated wholesale under Rutherford. They were a new religion, which is a term they've originated, not me. If we can keep these three articles (CTR, JFR and JW) from conveying false information then I will let it rest. The three points BFizz has mentioned are a good start. I'll step back from this for a bit, but will be keeping a very close eye on it, and if it is changed, or censored, as one of these editors has often done, then I will enter the fray again. References which state, for example, that Russell founded the Jehovah's Witnesses in 1872 or whatnot are blatantly false and while they can be noted, they should never be used to support such a view, a point upon which I'm sure most of us here agree. Pastorrussell (talk) 18:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Founder refs

1. "The first period was dominated by the founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses, Charles Taze Russell (1852- 1916)." – Winds of change by Manfred Ernst, Pacific Conference of Churches, 1994
2. "Charles Taze Russell, the Pennsylvania founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses." – The Cambridge history of Africa, Volume 8 by Andrew D. Roberts, Roland Anthony Oliver, Cambridge University Press, 1986, page 151
3. "Jehovah's Witnesses...began as the International Bible Students Association, founded in 1872 by the adventist Charles Taze Russell" – A World of Ideas by Chris Rohmann, Random House, Inc., 2000, page 209
4. "Konenkov's connection to the Jehovah's Witnesses in the United States and his special interest in the founder of this community, Charles Taze Russell" – The Uncommon Vision of Sergei Konenkov by Sergeĭ Timofeevich Konenkov, et al, Rutgers University Press, 2001, page 68
5. "Jehovah's Witnesses. Their nineteenth-century founder, Charles Taze Russell, calculated..." – Is Latin America Turning Protestant? by David Stoll, University of California Press, 1991, page 106
6. "Charles Taze Russell is regarded by observers as the founder of the Jehovah's witnesses" – The Theology of the Jehovah's Witnesses by George Dallas McKinney, Zondervan Publishing House, 1962, page 20
7. "Later, the founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses, Charles Taze Russell, would embrace..." – From Atlantis to the Sphinx by Colin Wilson, Weiser, 2004, page 63
8. "Jehovah's Witnesses, which was founded by "Pastor" Russell and..." – African American Religious History by Milton C. Sernett, Duke University Press, 1999, page 466
9. "Jehovah's Witnesses are a remarkably active and dynamic sect, visible to most from street-corner or door-to-door encounters. They were founded by Charles Taze Russell" – The New York Times Almanac 2002 by John Wright, Psychology Press, 2001
10. "Russell, Charles Taze (1852-1916). Founder of Jehovah's Witnesses (the International Bible Students Association)." – The Concise Dictionary of Christian Tradition by J. D. Douglas, Walter A. Elwell, Peter Toon, Zondervan, 1989, page 332
11. "Jehovah's Witnesses. ...They were founded by Charles Taze Russell..." – The New York Times Guide, Macmillan, 2004, page 503
12. "The founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses, Charles Taze Russell, was born in 1852 in Pittsburgh..." – Religious sects by J. Juan Díaz Vilar, Catholic Book Pub Co, 1992, page 35
13. "Founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses was Charles Taze Russell..." – Politics, Volume 2 by Dwight Macdonald, Greenwood, 1945, page 346
14. ""Pastor" Russell, the founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses, was raised a Presbyterian" – Encyclopedia of American Religious History, Volume 1 by Edward L. Queen, Stephen R. Prothero, Gardiner H. Shattuck, Facts on File, 2001, page 355
15. "Jehovah's Witnesses. Charles Taze ("Pastor") Russell (1852— 1916) , its founder, was reared in a Congregational family" – American Christianity: 1820-1960 by Hilrie Shelton Smith, Robert T. Handy, Scribner, 1963, page 332
16. "[Jehovah's] Witnesses acknowledge Jehovah God as their founder. The modern movement was organized in the 1870s by Charles Taze Russell." – Academic American Encyclopedia, Volume 11, Aretê Pub. Co., 1980, page 394
17. "Charles Taze Russell (1852-1916), the founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses..." – Great Events From History II by Frank Northen Magill, Salem Press, 1992, page 629
18. "RUSSELL, CHARLES TAZE, 1852-1916, founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses." – The New York times Encyclopedic Almanac, New York Times, Book & Educational Division., 1973, page 465
19. "The premillennialist views of Charles Taze Russell, founder of Jehovah's Witnesses in the nineteenth Century..." – Fides et historia, Volumes 20-21, Conference on Faith and History, 1988, page 13
20. "RUSSELL, CHARLES TAZE, 1852-1916, founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses." – Official Associated Press Almanac, New York Times, Book & Educational Division., 1970, page 425
21. "Jehovah's Witnesses furnish another interesting case. The founder of the movement, Charles Taze Russell, enjoyed" – Charisma and leadership in organizations by Alan Bryman, Sage Publications, 1992, page 75
22. "The nineteenth-century founder of Jehovah's Witnesses, Charles Taze Russell, supported..." – Living Religions by Mary Pat Fisher, Prentice-Hall, 2002, page 271
23. "Jehovah's Witnesses. This religious group is little more than 100 years old (1872). The founder was Charles T. Russell" – A Look at Today's Churches by Herbert J. A. Bouman, Concordia Pub. House, 1980, page 67
24. "RUSSELL, CHARLES TAZE, 1852-1916, founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses." – The CBS News Almanac, Hammond, 1976, page 903
25. "Charles Taze Russell, founder of Jehovah's Witnesses, published a book in 1891" – Methods of Modifying Speech Behaviors by Donald E. Mowrer, Waveland, 1988, page 36
26. "The founder of the Jehovah's Witness movement was Charles Taze Russell (1852-1916)." – Gods and Men by Brian Walter Sherratt, David J. Hawkin, Blackie, 1972, page 63
27. "[T]he modern Jehovah's Witnesses sect was founded by Charles Taze Russell in 1872." – The American Journal of Psychiatry, Volume 105, American Psychiatric Association, 1949, page 646
28. "Charles Taze Russell, founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses, first announced..." – The End of the World: A History by Otto Friedrich, Fromm International Pub. Corp., 1986, page 352
29. "Russell's Pyramid commemorates Charles Taze Russell (founder of Jehovah's Witnesses) who died in October 1916." – A Guidebook to Historic Western Pennsylvania by Helene Smith, George Swetnam, University of Pittsburgh Press, 1991, page 43
30. "Charles Taze Russell, the founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses, duplicated Miller's penchant..." – Contemporary American Religion: Volume 1 by Wade Clark Roof, Macmillan Reference USA, 2000, page 5
31. "Russell, Charles Taze [Called "Pastor" Russell.] b. at Pittsburgh, Pa., Feb. 16, 1852; d. in Texas, Oct. 31, 1916. American religious leader, founder of the sect known as Russellites or Jehovah's Witnesses. " – New Century Cyclopedia of Names, Volume 3 by Clarence L. Barnhart, Prentice-Hall, 1980, page 3432
32. "Charles Taze Russell was the founder of the Jehovah's Witness movement. " – Religion in the Twenty-first Century by Mary Pat Fisher, Ninian Smart, Prentice Hall, 1999, page 83
33. "Thousands [attended] a speech by the founder of the International Bible Students' Association (later Jehovah's Witnesses), Charles Taze Russell." – American Decades: 1910-1919 by Vincent Tompkins, Judith Baughman, Victor Bondi, Richard Layman, Gale Research, 1996, page 478
34. "RUSSELL, CHARLES TAZE (1852;1916), founder of the "Jehovah's Witnesses." " – Who Was Who in Church History by Elgin Sylvester Moyer, Moody Press, 1968, pages 357
35. "Charles Taze Russell (1852-1916) was the founder-leader of the organization that came to be called the Jehovah's Witnesses." – Exploring New Religions by George D. Chryssides, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2001, page 94
36. "Charles Russell, founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses, was born in 1852..." – Extraordinary Groups by Richard T. Schaefer, W. W. Zellner, Macmillan, 2007, page 250
37. "Charles Taze Russell, the founder of Jehovah's Witnesses, was born on February 16, 1852..." – Pick a God, Any God by Doris Neumann, Doug Olson, Xulon Press, 2002, page 89
38. "Charles Taze Russell, founder of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, the official corporate name of what is popularly termed the Jehovah's Witnesses, was born..." – Religious leaders of America by J. Gordon Melton, Gale Research, 1999, page 482
39. "Charles Taze Russell, founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses..." – Journey from Texts to Translations by Paul D. Wegner, Baker Academic, 2004, page 364
40. "Russell, Charles Taze (1852-1916) Founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses" – Who's Who in Christian History by J. D. Douglas, Philip Wesley Comfort, Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 1992, page 600
41. "Jehovah's Witnesses. The Witnesses were founded...under the leadership of Charles Taze Russell" – Religion and the law in America by Scott A. Merriman, ABC-CLIO, 2007, page 81
42. "Charles Russell, founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses" – Encyclopedic Dictionary of Cults, Sects, and World Religions by Larry A. Nichols, George Mather, Alvin J. Schmidt
43. "Jehovah's Witnesses...According to founder Charles Taze Russell..." – The End of the World As We Know It by Daniel Wojcik, NYU Press, 1999, page 27
44. "Jehovah's Witnesses [came] into being in the 1870s. The founder, Charles Taze Russell..." – The complete idiot's guide to Christianity by Jeffrey B. Webb, Penguin, 2004
45. "Russell. Charles Taze. known as Pastor Russell 1852-1916 US religious leader, founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses" – The Riverside Dictionary of Biography, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2004, page 695
46. "Jehovah's Witnesses...But they have been called by many other names since their movement began in the days prior to 1872 when their founder, Charles Russell, began meeting with a small group of Christians" – The Religion Book by Jim Willis, Visible Ink Press, 2004, page 290
47. "Maria Frances Ackley was the wife of Charles Taze Russell, founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses." – Seeing God: Jonathan Edwards and Spiritual Discernment by Gerald R. McDermott, Regent College Publishing, 2000, page 125
48. "Russell, Charles Taze — The founder of what is the present-day Jehovah's Witnesses..." – Handbook of Today's Religions by Josh McDowell, Thomas Nelson Incorporated, 1992, page 556
49. "Charles T. Russell, 1852-1916, an American religious leader, founder of Jehovah's Witnesses" – The World Book dictionary, Volume 1, World Book, 2003, page 1826
50. "Witnesses' belief-system...is rationalistic and devoid of mystery. The movement's founder, Charles Taze Russell, asserted that..." – Religion in the Contemporary World by Alan Aldridge, Wiley-Blackwell, 2000, page 117
51. "Charles Taze Russell, founder of Jehovah's Witnesses." – Revivals, Awakenings, and Reform by William Gerald McLoughlin, University of Chicago Press, 1980, page 17
52. "Russell, Charles Taze 1 852-1916. Amer. founder of Jehovah's Witnesses." – Webster's II New College Dictionary, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2005, page 1388
53. "The founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses, Charles Taze Russell, was born in 1852..." – America's Alternative Religions by Timothy Miller, SUNY Press, 1995, page 35
54. "Charles Taze Russell, the founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses, followed the path..." – Judging Jehovah's Witnesses by Shawn Francis Peters, University Press of Kansas, 2000, page 17
55. "Charles Taze Russell, founder of the sect of Jehovah's Witnesses, based his own..." – Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology by Lewis Spence, Kessinger Publishing, 2003, page 759
56. "Jehovah's Witnesses [predicted more] than any other American religious group. Charles Taze Russell, the founder, was like William Miller..." – From our Christian heritage by C. Douglas Weaver, Smyth & Helwys Publishing, 1997, page 241
57. "The Jehovah's Witnesses...has maintained a very different attitude toward history. Established initially in the 1870s by Charles Taze Russell under the title International Bible Students Association, this organization has proclaimed..." – Religious Diversity and American Religious History by Walter H. Conser, Sumner B. Twiss, University of Georgia Press, 1997, page 136
58. "Charles Taze Russell, the founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses, made similar..." – Taking the Bible Seriously by J. Benton White, Westminster John Knox Press, 1993, page 123
59. "The founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses, Charles Taze Russell, claimed..." – The end of the world? by Reginald Stackhouse, Paulist Press, 1997, page 58
60. "JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES. Religious organization originated in the USA in 1872 by Charles Taze Russell (1852-1916)." – Hutchinson's New 20th Century Encyclopedia by Edith M. Horsley, Hutchinson, 1965, page 595

--AuthorityTam (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)