Talk:Joseph Franklin Rutherford/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Former sections with one or zero posts, before 2008 July

Each bullet point in this section was formerly a section. The only change was to group them together and use "* " to replace the first "==" which had made each a section. No text was deleted; no signature was deleted. Many of the former sections were either empty or unsigned.--AuthorityTam (talk) 14:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• IMPORTANT NOTICE ==

There's a lot of facts that can be put on this page that Jehovah's Witnesses don't seem to want us or the public (the ones who haven't been poisoned yet) to see. This article is no where near done.

I think it is important to get a group of people to moderate this page. Ideally, the moderation team should contain members of the JW and non-JW communities. My concern, however, is to find JW members reasonable enough to approach the article from all point-of-views.

--Bart weisser 04:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Changes made to the Bible ==

Nothing has been mentioned about the parts of the bible that rutherford changed, there are a lot of passages that he claimed were "errors". it also needs to be mentioned that there are a lot of controversies over these changes to the bible.

• there needs to be secession link ==

• Declaration of Facts ==

I understand that Judge Rutherford wrote a sypathetic letter or a declaration of facts to the German Nazis in 1933. Should some mention of this and a link to the declaration itself be included in the article? 10 February 2007

• Missing facts ==

Why hasn't Rutherford's death been mentioned? I can understand the complete embaressment to Jehovah's Witnesses because he died by means of excessive alcohol (which contradicts his "liquor is of satan"), but that doesn't mean it should be missed out, this article is currently biased.

May I also add that his predictions are not mentioned.

• A weak article==

Please, this article is weak.Such as told up, this man was a drunk.He was also linked to freemasonry , a supporter of many quacks such Albert Abrams, an eugenicist, a racist and many other terrible failures.I think that this article didn't showed even 10% of sins of this bad man.About the politic of the watchtower under nazism in Germany, also there's nothing.Until 1940 this man and his watchtower society, were suporters of eugenic sterilization.Also, he told that any follower of watchtower couldn't be vaccinated. Agre22 (talk) 22:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)agre22

• One source about the link between watchtower and eugenics==

The site http://www.seanet.com/~raines/homicide.html has a short text, about the support given to eugenics, by this protestant leader.The watchtower gave many support to eugenics, racism and racial segregation, during this times.This was the general rule, among all american protestant denominations.Agre22 (talk) 14:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)agre22

Rutherford a former atheist?

We need a source for such a claim. Tony Wills, in his A People For His Name, claims Rutherford was born to baptist parents but "had not taken to religion in his youth". He adds (p.131): "Rutherford, although he looked down on the Churches, had never become doubtful of God's existence. The orderliness of the universe and the existence of life proved to him that there was a higher intelligence." Only one of those claims can be correct. What is the source of the claim that he had been an atheist when he bought Russell's books? LTSally (talk) 10:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Alert the media: an anti-JW book with demonstrable factual errors (yawn).

Rutherford's atheism has since been cited in the article's body, but here is the reference with quoted text...

"Know Jehovah—The Personal God", The Watchtower, October 1, 1997, page 6, "[Rutherford] became [Watch Tower] president in January 1917. Yet, at one time this young lawyer was an atheist. How did he become such a motivated Christian servant of Jehovah? In July 1913, Rutherford served as chairman of an International Bible Students Association convention held in Springfield, Massachusetts, U.S.A. A reporter from the local newspaper, The Homestead, interviewed Rutherford, and the account was reprinted in the souvenir report of that convention. Rutherford explained that at the time he planned to marry, his religious views were those of the Baptist denomination, but those of his wife-to-be were Presbyterian. When Rutherford’s pastor said that “she was going to hell fire because she had not been immersed and that he was going straight to heaven because he had been, his logical mind revolted and he became an atheist.” It took Rutherford several years of careful research to rebuild his faith in a personal God."
--AuthorityTam (talk) 15:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

A reasonable and sincere question asked, some snide sarcasm delivered. You really are a joy to work with, Authority Tam. LTSally (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

About one month AFTER the above exchange, an editor created a section titled "From baptism to the Board" (which is fine) and introduced the following (which is not fine) (see diff):

"The Watchtower (October 1, 1997, p. 6) claims Rutherford has become an atheist after his Baptist minister claimed his wife Mary would go to Hell because she had not been baptized. Wills (p. 131) claims Rutherford had never doubted God's existence. Neither publication cites a source for their claims." Retrieved 2009-08-26

Huh? About three inches above (on this very Talk page), my comment quotes the Oct 1, 1997 WT, and thusly,

"Springfield, Massachusetts, U.S.A. A reporter from the local newspaper, The Homestead, interviewed Rutherford, and the account was reprinted in the souvenir report of that convention. Rutherford explained that...his logical mind revolted and he became an atheist.”"

It seems rather plainly stated; in fact, The Watchtower of October 1, 1997 cites both The Homestead newspaper and The Messenger (the title of that souvenir report, which is available on the internet). Why would an editor here pretend that...

"Neither [The Watchtower nor the other] publication cites a source for their claims." ?

Mistakes like this remind editors of the need to conscientiously check references, and to request actual quotes from supposed references (especially references which are not readily available). This has been corrected (see diff).
--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

No need for histrionics, AuthorityTam. (1) Assume good faith. (2) Correct the error. (3) Move on. LTSally (talk) 22:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Huh? It seems odd for an editor to lecture another about 'assuming good faith' just two words after accusing him of "histrionics" (incidentally, regarding a comment containing neither exaggeration nor emotionalism).
--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Moved from Talk:Joseph Franklin Rutherford/Comments where it would not hazve been seen. Astronaut (talk) 17:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

By all means, lets have a discussion. Only I'm not sure I would actually find anyone reasonable to have a discussion with. Perhaps you could prove me wrong since you apparantly know all even though clearly you are not even nearly associated with Jehovah's Witnesses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.5.69.66 (talk) 04:10, 30 June 2009

Alcoholism

I would like to bring to your attention that it is improper for a biographical article to dedicate so much space to a specific negative incident, as it was that of Mr. Moyle. Since the whole article is brief, the Moyle case doesn’t deserve more than two or three lines.

But I would like first to focus on something more specific in the Moyle's section. In the article it is said: “Moyle condemned the alleged alcoholism of Rutherford in the same letter.” Can you please show me where Moyle claims that Rutherford was an alcoholic? --Scientia est opulentia (talk) 14:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The "alcoholic" claims have been removed from the article.[1]

Incidentally, the Moyle case is problematic for anti-JWs. Moyle himself wrote in a July 1939 letter, "I protested against the unjust happenings at Bethel and urged him [Rutherford] to remedy the conditions at Bethel. ...This doesn't mean that I have left the truth or am leaving the truth, although I am aware that many will consider that to be the case. ...I still believe the Society is the Lord's organization and that he is using the judge [Rutherford] greatly at this time."
Later in 1940, Moyle wrote, "In spite of all this I am still convinced that the Lord is using the Society as His channel for the dissemination of truth. ...Sister Moyle and I will continue to do our bit in preaching the Kingdom message as we have opportunity."

--AuthorityTam (talk) 02:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

In his famous letter Moyle tendered his resignation as Society legal counsel and from the Bethel family, levelling certain accusations against Rutherford and his method of leadership. There were no accusations against the religion per se and he said he would continue to serve God and his organization. It seems a direct, but reasonable letter expressing his disappointment with the way things were going. His complaint from that point centered on the response from the Society's board of directors in The Watchtower in which they described him as a liar, a Judas, an evil slave etc etc. He obviously felt he had been defamed and used the courts to defend his reputation. He returned to his former congregation, presumably intending to continue as a member, but was disfellowshipped. The letter from his congregation members, as I recall, said they didn't want to know what Moyle had accused Rutherford of and didn't care; they did, however, listen to Rutherford's response and decided he was in the right. Funny way of making a judgment, but that was the depth of faith they had in their leader. LTSally (talk) 03:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

There are two facts that must be discussed. The one is that, contrary to what the paragraph said (maybe for years), Moyle nowhere claims that Rutherford was an alcoholic or even a heavy drinker. It would be very sad if the editors of the article and those who cited Moyle’s letter as a resource intentionally altered Moyle’s accusations. The second fact is that, comparing to the size of the article, too much space is given to the Moyle’s case. I believe that the Moyle’s case must be mentioned more briefly.--Scientia est opulentia (talk) 05:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The alcoholism claim has been removed. Re shortening the Moyle affair: The coverage itself is brief, but may appear relatively overemphasised because of the shortage of other material about Rutherford. I'll be adding to the Rutherford article soon, which will help address this issue, but you might like to suggest an abbreviated version of this incident on the talk page. LTSally (talk) 06:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Fringe theories about Rutherford

For the article Joseph Franklin Rutherford, the self-proclaimed User:Pastorrussell insists upon including this statement:

Despite official denials by the Watchtower Society, some have speculated that Rutherford was buried on a plot of land at Beth Sarim.

Most recently, he/she restored the sentence, commenting "Documented history".diff Huh? What sort of "documentation"? The only "documenting" cited was a blog entry which concludes "Judge Rutherford is said to have been illegally buried on the property, though this has frequently been disproven." Wikipedia's intention is not to immortalize every bit of grounded or groundless outrageousness "speculation" that has ever occurred. Such "documented history" as is repeated in that self-mitigating blog is patently unencyclopedic. --AuthorityTam (talk) 00:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree. The blog merely says that 'some' people say a particular thing, but gives no indication about who says it or how widespread that view is.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Russell's Will and reprints

The article formerly said:

"Russell indicated that the [Editorial] committee was to ensure the Watch Tower magazine contain only material written by him during his lifetime".

Except that the will doesn't say that.
Russell's will is at Wikisource[2], but even the cited reference[3] didn't actually support the point! Here is the contradicting excerpt:

I direct that the entire editorial charge of ZION’S WATCH TOWER shall be in the hands of a committee of five brethren whom I exhort to great carefulness and fidelity to the Truth. All articles appearing in the columns of ZION’S WATCH TOWER shall have the unqualified approval of at least three of the committee of five... As the Society is already pledged to me that it will publish no other periodicals, it shall also be required that the Editorial Committee shall write for or be connected with no other publications in any manner or degree. ...Copies of my Sunday discourses published in the daily newspapers covering a period of several years have been preserved and may be used as editorial matter for The WATCH TOWER or not, as the committee may think best, but my name shall not be attached nor any indication whatever given respecting the authorship. [emphasis added]

One wonders how such an obviously untrue idea became so perpetuated. Editors should work to correct this error when they see it in other articles related to Russell, Bible Students, and Jehovah's Witnesses. --AuthorityTam (talk) 20:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Major rewrite alert

As a courtesy, this is an advice that I'll soon be making a substantial change to this article. The article on Rutherford has so far been inadequate in several areas, providing insufficient information on his background, the major challenges he faced in 1917 and the impact he made on the Bible Student/Jehovah's Witness organisation and teachings. I have addressed all these areas, and I have also added sections on his character and personal life, which were barely touched in the existing article.

I have endeavoured to be fair, balanced and inaccurate, excluding some of the criticisms or allegations about his life that lack reliable, verifiable sources and drawing on both WT and external sources. Where I've included allegations about his conduct in the battle for leadership in 1917-18, I have endeavoured to balance it with Rutherford's own defence. By all means read my draft of the article at User:LTSally/JFR and let me know if you have any serious objections to the way I've handled it or can see any areas you believe may be lacking neutrality or carry the wrong emphasis. I'll admit now that the coverage of the 1917 leadership challenge is long, but his victory was, I believe, pivotal in the history of the Bible Student movement and I'd prefer to see it cover all the main bases. I can split it off easily enough, however. The overall length without images is 58kb; the Jehovah's Witnesses article, by comparison, is 79kb. I'll carry over existing images and do other tidy-ups as required. I'll hang back and wait a few days for comments. LTSally (talk) 11:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

LOL. Nice typo.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Uh, am I missing something? I'm not sure what to do about JFR's place in the sequence of presidents: someone has altered my draft to say he was third WTS president. Conley was certainly first, before the society was incorporated, but is omitted by historians in discussing the succession of leaders. For all practical purposes, CTR was the founding president and JFR succeeded him. I'll have to work out some form of wording to sidestep Conley. LTSally (talk) 22:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

See #How_can_JF_Rutherford_have_been_the_2nd_pres_if_Conley_was_the_1st_and_then_Russell_next.3F.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 22:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've returned to something similar to the wording that was there in the first place. It seemed a bit clumsy, but obviously needs to stay. LTSally (talk) 23:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Any particular reason why you've "endeavoured to be ... inaccurate"?? I have done a fair bit of copyediting of your article, but only on a local file so far. Do you want me to apply them to your sandbox article, or to wait until you modify the live article?--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, there it is. I've looked at that a dozen times and never spotted it. Unless there's anything major, hold off if you like and then you can go town. I'll put it on tomorrow night if there are no great objections from other quarters. LTSally (talk) 11:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

As of now, it's been just over 24 hours since this major rewrite was announced here. It seems advisable to mention the proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Jehovah's_Witnesses (and any Bible Student Movement project) and give those participants time. Personally, since yesterday I haven't yet had time to read the proposal, and I'd appreciate the opportunity to do so before it overwrites the existing article. --AuthorityTam (talk) 12:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I've added a message at the JW project page, but there appears to be no BSM project page. The message I've left on this talk page should be sufficient for anyone interested in Rutherford. I'll leave it a little longer before uploading. I'd suggest that unless there are major problems with the draft you think should be addressed before I upload it (and these can be raised on this page or on my talk page), leave normal/minor edits of the article until it goes up. LTSally (talk) 22:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Funeral

The controversy over Rutherford's burial place has been well covered and I've found a link to a pdf of Consolation that deals with the issue. Does anyone have any details of his funeral though? Some online forums refer to only four people attending his funeral, and that group included neither his wife, son, nor Knorr, his successor. It seems puzzling that there's so little written about it; even Macmillan ignores it. Did the WT or Consolation report on it? LTSally (talk) 00:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Schism

One of the largest, if not the largest, schism occurring in relation to the Watchtower organization occurred during the years of Rutherford's administration. This is noteworthy to the article on Rutherford. I propose editors add a section addressing this.

According to information published by Watchtower, between 1927 and 1928 there occurred an 80 percent drop in attendance for the organization's most important single event known as the Memorial. In 1925 attendance for this event was 90,434. In 1926 attendance for this event was 89,278. In 1927 attendance for this event was 88,544. In 1928 attendance for this event was 17,380. It took more than a decade for the number of persons associated with Watchtower’s most important event to regain its former high of over 90,000. --Marvin Shilmer (talk) 15:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I've added those figures, which are significant, although the immense growth in numbers under Rutherford's leadership has also been noted. I've also changed the reference in the intro to the increase under his leadership. This previously compared memorial attendees with active preachers. Comparing memorial attendance figures for the two years provides a more accurate comparison. LTSally (talk) 03:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)