Talk:Joseph Franklin Rutherford/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

IBSA v WT

Before 1931, the religion itself of Jehovah's Witnesses was known as the "IBSA" (International Bible Students Association). Charles Taze Russell explicitly stated that he chaired a committee overseeing that unincorporated global association (though Russell was also the president of a British corporation with the same name). By contrast, "Watch Tower"/"Watchtower" is/was a corporate/magazine name, and never a name of the religion. Previously, I had replaced "the Watch Tower adherents" with "IBSA adherents", but an editor reversed that without comment. I have reinstated the religion name (per adherents), rather than the corporation and/or magazine. --AuthorityTam (talk) 22:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Those who followed Russell's teachings gained their information exclusively from the Watchtower magazines and other publications of the Watch Tower Society. Books commonly refer to such followers as members of the Watch Tower movement. Use of the term "IBSA" in relation to those people would be rare indeed and I don't recall ever seeing the term "IBSA adherents". Although it's noted at the Bible Student movement#International Bible Students Association article that Russell, in his final years, coined the term International Bible Students Association as a means of advertising meetings, I don't see evidence in old Watchtowers that the term IBSA was widely used; it seems to appear mainly in reference to the organization of major conventions. For that reason use of the term "IBSA adherents" in the article imparts less meaning than the more informal, but far more widely used term of Watch Tower adherents. BlackCab (talk) 23:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Adherents do not "adhere" to a corporation or magazine; they adhere to a cause, movement, or religion. The religion now known as Jehovah's Witnesses has adherents, and it had adherents before it adopted its current name. What was the former name of the religion? International Bible Students Association (IBSA).

• Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses, page 138, "The Watch Tower Society’s first president, Charles Taze Russell, as chairman of the IBSA (International Bible Students Association) committee of seven, first visited the Orient early in 1912 [that is, years before the formation of the corporation]"
• Awake!, February 22, 2004, "Among the Richmond Sixteen were five International Bible Students, as Jehovah’s Witnesses were then known."
• The Watchtower, March 1, 1991, page 11, "For years when I was asked what my religion was, I answered, “IBSA,” which letters stood for International Bible Students Association."
• 1976 Yearbook of Jehovah's Witnesses, page 88, "[He] assured the magistrate that he did not belong to John Chilembwe’s sect but that he belonged to the religion called “International Bible Students Association.” "
• The Watchtower, March 1, 2000, page 22, "Prior to [1931], when people asked us what religion we were, we said, “International Bible Students.” "

So, if there are now "Jehovah's Witnesses adherents", then there were formerly "IBSA adherents" (or International Bible Students Association adherents). This idea is also supported in non-Witness references, including in some of the 60 references at #Founder refs (on this page for now). It is encyclopedically inappropriate to replace "Jehovah's Witnesses" or "IBSA Bible Students" or "IBSA adherents" with a loaded term such as "Rutherford's followers" or "his followers". I've replaced the inappropriate terms.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Whilst the Bible Students did identify themselves generically as IBSA for a period of time , the Proclaimers book states, "True, our brothers often referred to themselves as Bible Students, and starting in 1910, they used the name International Bible Students’ Association with reference to their meetings. In 1914, in order to avoid confusion with their recently formed legal corporation called International Bible Students Association, they adopted the name Associated Bible Students for their local groups." (Jehovah's Witnesses—Proclaimers of God's Kingdom, p 151) It would seem therefore that the generic use of the term was relatively shortlived.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

JW literature says the term wasn't used officially after 1914 but also that it was still used into the 1930s. For clarity, within the scope of this article, association with the Watch Tower Society would seem to be the simplest form of reference, given that the distinction is usually in contrast to other Bible Student groups not affiliated with the Watch Tower Society.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The IBSA was never used as the name of a religion. CTR had no intention of forming a religion. His view was that those who associated with him were coming out of the churches into a state of personal independence, free from organized religion, to worship God outside of those realms and outside of the creeds which bind people to organized religions and to various denominational names. The use of the term IBSA was simply a moniker used for public consumption to show that the Bible Student movement was international in scope. This view is still held to by Bible Students today. But when Rutherford had nearly completed his doctrinal, administrative, and organizational changes - having as a result formed his own religion - he gave it a name. This group, Jehovah's Witnesses, was a formal organization with the Watchtower Society as its corporate head. Later, Rutherford developed the doctrine of "the theocracy" at which point he defined the Society as the earthly representative of God's organization. By this point you have numerous groups of Bible Students all over the globe, most of whom had severed ties with the Society. Rutherford felt that it was essential for his followers to be identified separately from anyone else. Thus, the name Jehovah's Witnesses. Pastorrussell (talk) 01:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's try to keep one main point per thread, please. While non-IBSA Bible Students may have strong opinions about IBSA Bible Students (better known since 1931 as Jehovah's Witnesses), such opinions are not relevant here. But... is "Bible Student" a religion in 2011? It's hard to imagine anyone seriously arguing that it isn't, so why argue that it wasn't a religion since the 1800s?
It might be mentioned that Russell personally visited congregations, commended those who separated from "Catholic" and "Protestant" denominations, and functioned as the chairman of the religious association for years before and after a corporation of the same name was formed in Britain. Earlier in this thread I quoted from five references showing that the Jehovah's Witnesses religion was indeed formerly known as International Bible Students Association (IBSA). Here are four more, all copied from the existing section at #Founder refs:

• A World of Ideas by Chris Rohmann, Random House, Inc., 2000, page 209, "Jehovah's Witnesses...began as the International Bible Students Association, founded in 1872 by the adventist Charles Taze Russell"
• The Concise Dictionary of Christian Tradition by J. D. Douglas, Walter A. Elwell, Peter Toon, Zondervan, 1989, page 332, "Russell, Charles Taze (1852-1916). Founder of Jehovah's Witnesses (the International Bible Students Association)."
• American Decades: 1910-1919 by Vincent Tompkins, Judith Baughman, Victor Bondi, Richard Layman, Gale Research, 1996, page 478, "Thousands [attended] a speech by the founder of the International Bible Students' Association (later Jehovah's Witnesses), Charles Taze Russell."
• Religious Diversity and American Religious History by Walter H. Conser, Sumner B. Twiss, University of Georgia Press, 1997, page 136, "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..."

I've again reverted "[Rutherford's] followers" to "the group".--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Rutherford himself stated that he was adopting the name of "Jehovah's Witnesses" to differentiate his followers from those who had left, and had been going by the same generic title of Bible Students or some variation on the name. (Associated Bible Students, et.al.) The I.B.S.A. was not a formalized organized religion. The Society was not the "headquarters" of the movement in the way in which JWs of today consider it to be the "headquarters". What is the problem here? Why do you feel the need to debate the fact that Rutherford's adherents or "followers" is an invalid term? If Russell's followers is valid then so is Rutherford's followers. Matters such as this are simple and straightforward until we begin to over-analyze. Pastorrussell (talk) 21:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

No, despite PR's claim, it seems unlikely that Rutherford ever actually referred to his coreligionists as "my followers".
Of course, in certain contexts, it is entirely appropriate to refer to "Rutherford's followers". When there is no possible ambiguity, however, it seems best to limit application of that possessive term to the entire body of religious adherents.--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

JFR's First WTS-sponsored Book & "New Publications" Controversy

Under the section Administrative Changes it was stated, prior to my edit, that he had published his first book, The Harp of God, in 1921. This isn't accurate because his first book (some call it a booklet) through the WTS was Millions Now Living Will Never Die, published in 1920. However, we could go even further back and include The Finished Mystery or that which is in fact his first true Watch Tower Society publication dating from 1917/18 - Harvest Siftings parts 1 and 2. The publication of Harvest Siftings proved to be controversial because it was generally understood at the time that Russell's Will specified no new publications were to be created. (This was why the Golden Age magazine was published outside of the auspices of the WTS). These facts seem relevant enough to warrant at least a brief mention in the appropriate context. I'm interested in knowing what other editors think about this. Pastorrussell (talk) 02:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The Finished Mystery was written by Woodworth and Fisher; Harvest Siftings were in the format of pamphlets or magazines. Millions Now Living was much more a booklet than a book. I have no objection to adding Millions Now Living in that section, but I don't see it as necessary to describe it as a "Watch Tower Society-sponsored booklet". The reference to his authorship of those books is to acknowledge that he was a prolific writer, but there's little significance in his earlier authorship of those magazine-style rebuttals of published criticism. Was there something significant in your changing the line that he "gained control" to "acquired control"? "Gained" would be a more common expression. BlackCab (talk) 12:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

JFR - Second or Third President?

I would argue that JFR was the second President of the incorporated WTS, but the third chartered president. My adding it to the text after other gentleman's edit was deleted was merely a friendly attempt to accommodate both views because both are accurate. To say that he was the third President wouldn't be technically accurate. Pastorrussell (talk) 22:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Please, also check this conversation. Bertrand77 (talk) 06:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

It's far from clear what a "chartered president" is. Though some published sources acknowledge Conley's position in the initial WT body, all refer to Russell, Rutherford and Knorr as the first, second and third presidents of the society in terms of the impact each made on doctrines and practices. It is much better to state that Rutherford was the second president of the incorporated society and note in a footnote that before incorporation Conley held the position of president. BlackCab (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I've found nearly 1500 independent references which identify Rutherford as "second president". I have never found a single independent reference which identifies Rutherford as "third president". With a nod to WP:V ("The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.")... Wikipedia articles should respect that convention; it's simple to do so with careful wording. Sadly, an editor will occasionally interject the "correct" number without context; editors should revert such honest but encyclopedically-unhelpful edits.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Kingdom songs

I've no idea why such a minor point should have become such a point of contention for a certain editor (see his reverts here and here), but the fact that the term "Kingdom songs" was in common use among Jehovah's Witnesses for years before Rutherford's death seems sufficient to establish that the term is appropriate in an article on Rutherford. Ironically, the term itself wasn't even used in the article's text, but only in a link. When an editor insists upon "evidence that he did use that specific term", that ignores the international ubiquity of the term as early as 1934. I'd look for additional examples, but it seems unwarranted. For now, see Between Resistance and Martyrdom: Jehovah's Witnesses in the Third Reich by Detlef Garbe, Univ of Wisconsin Press, 2008, ISBN 0299207900, 9780299207908, page 207.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 15:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Because 'Kingdom Songs' aren't being discussed specifically. Rutherford said not to sing hymns at meetings, which has no special reference to the more specific term. There is no reason why readers, expecting an article about 'hymns' should be taken to a more specific article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

What do you have against the more general term? Is there any evidence that Rutherford specifically said that "Kingdom Songs" should not be sung at meetings? Was the edict issued prior to the existence of 'Jehovah's Witnesses' in 1931?--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

A person would likely be discouraged from singing Amazing Grace or any hymn at a 2011 meeting of Jehovah's Witnesses, but he wouldn't be discouraged from singing a Kingdom song. Discouraging the former is not the same as discouraging the latter. The cited secular reference earlier in the thread already shows that the term "Kingdom songs" was in ubiquitous international use by Jehovah's Witnesses by 1934. It seems odd to imagine that only Rutherford refused to use it; frankly, it seems likely that he pushed the new term, no? During Rutherford's presidency:

• The Bible Students Monthly title was replaced by Kingdom News.
• Rutherford suggested local houses of worship be termed Kingdom Halls.
• The word "Kingdom" was added to the full name of The Watchtower.

I'm not sure there is any evidence that post-1931 Jehovah's Witnesses ever used the word "hymns" to describe their worship music.--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

If Rutherford proscribed the singing of any hymns at their religious meetings, then discussion of whether they would sing any particular hymn is redundant. Discussion of what might happen "in 2011" is also irrelevant. It is unclear what you have against the more general term.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, Rutherford said there was to be "no singing" at meetings. 'Discouraging' only one particular type of hymn is irrelevant, and at the time, their hymns were not all unique to JWs anyway. Rutherford was certainly not saying 'don't sing Kingdom songs, but singing other hymns is fine'.

In any case, you're complaining about a link that isn't even in the current version of the article. If such a link were to be reinstated, the correct word would be the general term 'hymns', and per WP:EASTEREGG, the correct link would be hymn.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Rutherford and "Kingdom songs", editor User:Jeffro77 asked for "evidence that he did use that specific term"; hence my comment. I simply tried to answer some of his question.
JWs have not applied the term "hymns" to their "Kingdom songs" for more than sixty years, and almost certainly did not do so during Rutherford's last decade or so. A Witness or Witness publication would not interpret a proscription of "hymns" as a proscription of "Kingdom songs". When JWs avoid singing "hymns", they avoid singing songs related to other denominations. --AuthorityTam (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Speculation about what Rutherford "almost certainly did not do" aside, Rutherford proscribed all singing at meetings, not only specific songs that were loosely branded as 'Kingdom songs', which at the time included hymns from other sources. Songs at religious meetings are generically referred to as hymns. The horse is well and truly dead.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

No, Rutherford wrote explicitly against songs "which often express much that is out of harmony with the truth" – The Watchtower, May 1, 1938, page 139. While more research is indicated, it seems likely that the term "Kingdom song" was specifically introduced to exclude such 'disharmonious' songs, and in fact the term "Kingdom song" was in international use by the early 1930s. By and throughout the 1930s, The Watchtower reserved the term hymn for 1.) paraphrasing the Bible (eg '); 2.) when pointedly impugning the singers and; 3.) less than a handful of additional occurrences appear in letters from readers).--AuthorityTam (talk) 20:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Singing proscribed?

Rutherford did not "proscribe" (that is, "forbid", "condemn") songs at meetings. For most of its history, local Bible Students/Jehovah's Witnesses had selected whatever songs they wanted to sing, sometimes singing spontaneously from memory (such as during their midweek "Prayer, Praise, and Testimony meeting" which continued into the 1940s), and it seems that some in attendance sometimes chose well-known songs with lyrics contradicting the religion's official teachings. In 1938, Rutherford (presumably him anyway) wrote:
"Study meetings are for one purpose, to wit, to inform [and] equip all who love God to worship him in spirit and in truth... At all study meetings...the one presiding at the study might well, as a prelude to the meeting, briefly state God’s purpose which is now being performed... two minutes might well be devoted to such at the beginning of all meetings for study [by] the one presiding... A few words like the above pronounced at the beginning of the study would be far more beneficial than to occupy the same time in singing songs, which often express much that is out of harmony with the truth" – The Watchtower, May 1, 1938, page 139.
Singing at meetings was certainly not blanketly impugned. This was plainly not a "proscription", because Watch Tower periodicals from 1938 through 1944 include several neutral or positive references to specific 'Kingdom songs' sung at particular meetings during those years. Both the 1959 and 1993 "official history" books by Watch Tower use the same language: "singing [at congregations had been] dispensed with". This article has been edited to reflect that. --AuthorityTam (talk) 20:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The dead horse has left the building.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

In any case, the statement you've quoted—"which often express much that is out of harmony with the truth"—would hardly apply to songs Rutherford would 'endorse' as 'Kingdom songs', so he's specifically talking about hymns anyway. The horse is dead because you shot yourself in the foot.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

It's unclear what point if any is still in contention, related to hymns and/or Kingdom songs.--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

No point is contended. As previously stated, the edit you originally complained about hasn't been in the article for some time, and the quote you recently provided indicated your original position to be redundant. Horse = dead.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems best to simply note that the article 1.) no longer incorrectly labels post-1931 JW songs as "hymns", and the article 2.) no longer incorrectly says that songs were ever proscribed.--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not aware that the article ever used the word 'proscribed'. The term 'hymns' is and was still the correct general term for songs used at religious meetings, including those of JWs—this is not JW-Wiki. If you're quite finished, the putrefied horse carcass can be laid to rest.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:TLW--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Jeffro is absolutely correct - Rutherford discontinued the act of singing at congregation meetings. It does not matter whether they are referred to as "Kingdom Songs", "Hymns" or "Cantations of the Flying Spaghetti Monster", Rutherford discontinued their use, and Knorr restored it. Pastorrussell (talk) 21:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Soapboxing

It is unnecessary to assert that The Finished Mystery was 'misleadingly' presented as Russell's posthumous work. The article already quite clearly states that the book was written by others and that it was advertised as Russell's work. Lengthy quotes attempting to establish validity of the word 'misleadingly' (the cited sources only do this indirectly) for a point that is already obvious are redundant and constitute POV-pushing.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:21, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I disagree for two reasons: (1) The WTS claiming that The Finished Mystery was CTR's "last legacy" and a posthumous work was quite controversial and disputed by many Bible Students of the day. This is a well documented fact and it is not made in the relevant section. (2) To say that my pointing out the misleading nature of those claims is soapboxing unfairly calls into question my motives for making the edit. Perhaps the statement could have been worded differently but I can assure you that my intention was merely to make the point that it was a misleading claim and after having edited on Wikipedia for seven years have learned a lot about its policies and attempt to be very careful in what words are chosen and how thoughts are presented. Quite frankly I feel that many sections of this article on JFR are unnecessarily harsh and need to be changed. We're not trying to rip someone apart, we're merely seeking to lay out the facts as recorded in reliable sources. Bottom line: the misleading nature of the claims re: posthumous nature of the publication needs to be more clearly presented. Pastorrussell (talk) 20:36, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I disagree as well. The term is clearly implied in the two sources and is a statement of simple fact rather than barrow-pushing. The quotes have appropriate length to support the point. Pastorrussell, I much prefer the earlier wording. Your new rendering is too wordy, less direct and with the words "as a result of a publicity campaign and advertising" starts then to look like soapboxing. It's indisputable that the book sold well. BlackCab (talk) 23:06, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I do not agree with either of you, but I will leave it there for now. Pastorrussell's cries of unfair treatment are irrelevant; if he feels that his motives are in question, he should examine his motives more closely.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

"Cries of unfair treatment"? You must be reading a different post than me. My second point was that by calling my edit soapboxing you were calling into question my motives. How? Read carefully what the linked Wikipedia page says about soapboxing. By making the claim you have accused me of making an edit for the sake of propaganda, and/or expressing a personal opinion, and/or scandal mongering, etc... I, in turn, attempted to politely ease such a concern even though I would have been completely justified in being much more blunt. Why do you even feel the need to call my motives into question? I try to be fair in my edits but am not perfect, and if you are unable to accept that explanation then that is your problem, not mine. What ever happened to "assume good faith"? Some of your edits positively boggle my mind, but I assume good faith and just drop it because most are not worth debating. Aren't we all in our own way seeking to form the best article possible, and present an unbiased, balanced, truthful and well referenced article? My initial edit was the addition of one word accompanied by two references in support. If you still feel that doing so was soapboxing then as the person making the edit I am able to tell you unequivocally that you are wrong. Without my edit or one similar, the section on The Finished Mystery does not make it clear to the reader that the WTS's initial claims about the book were intentionally misleading. Pastor Russell's name was attached to the book so that it would sell. The claims made were inaccurate, controversial, and a point of contention among many Bible Students. Reliable third party references support each of those conclusions. Pastorrussell (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

If the book was promoted as "CTR's last legacy", then the article should say just that, rather than injecting some other opinion that is only implied. It doesn't make sense to claim that the article doesn't make a particular point, and then not make that point.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The opening page of the book bears the words "Posthumous work of Pastor Russell" and "his last legacy to the Israel of God." Page 4 of the book states: "But the fact is, he did write it. This book may properly be said to be a posthumous publication of Pastor Russell." (emphasis in original). The most the introduction of the book states about Fisher and Woodworth is that they "prepared" it. (Page 5).[1] Both the sources now cited in the article state that Russell did not, and would not have, written the words in it, so the publisher's description of the book as a posthumous work of Russell was certainly misleading, particularly as Crompton points out that the book marked a dramatic departure from both the doctrine and argumentation of Russell, the supposed author. BlackCab (talk) 10:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying that it was not misleading. I am saying that the cited sources do not clearly convey that it was misleading, and that the presentation of those sources immediately after the word 'misleadingly' conveys a tone of POV-pushing. The first source only mentions the 'guise as a posthumous work' in passing rather than the purpose of the statement. The second states that it wasn't Russell's work 'in any straightforward sense'. Neither source unambiguously states that there was intent to mislead (even though there probably was). Either find a source that specifically says there was intent to mislead or reword to more accurately convey the sense of the sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Then why not contribute the wording you think best so that we can reach a consensus rather than being rude, pushy, and calling other editors motives into question? Maybe you're just having a bad day or what not, I don't know. But it takes up less time, uses much less emotional energy for everyone involved, and allows us to work together in a professional and friendly manner. Pastorrussell (talk) 20:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Lawson, one of the two sources cited, uses the word "guise" to describe the claim that the book was the posthumous work of Russell. My dictionary defines "guise" as "an assumed appearance, a pretence." I'll move the placement of the sources to make clear that the authors have noted the deception over the claim that the book was Russell's writing. BlackCab (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

GAN nomination

Just in case you haven't noticed there is a citation needed tag, since last year, at Witnesses collected over 14,000 signatures on a petition that Rutherford's dying wish might be granted. You might want to fix that up. otherwise it looks pretty good. AIRcorn (talk) 04:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Done. BlackCab (talk) 04:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)