Judge Rutherford - You Are Accused.
Do you remember when JW's dismissed intellectuals critiquing their beliefs, claiming the 'Truth' attracted simple people with good hearts?
I've just listened to David Splanes explanation of the new '1914' generation explanation and I've come to the conclusion that it is so complicated and convoluted that you need a University education to understand it - and of course JW's are discouraged from getting one of those!
I'm not going to try and explain it here because it will change again anyway at some point - it always does. (Sorry, I sound so cynical today for some reason!)
In my last blog I briefly mentioned Judge Rutherford. As any Witness (and ex-Witness) will know, Rutherford is a key figure in JW history. He was the second President of the organisation (though he was not one of CT Russell's preferred choices as his replacement). He was reportedly a charismatic orator and a strong leader.
Obviously it is easy to pick fault with anyone, nobody is perfect. However in Rutherford's case the evidence reveals a man who is far from the ideal leader of 'Gods chosen religion'.
As you read the evidence keep in mind Jesus reaction to the money changers in the temple.
Judge Rutherford adopted his grand title after substituting for absent Judges in Missouri on four occasions (the States bar would at that time appoint local attorneys as substitute judges) . On two of these occasions there were no trials and on the other two he presided over minor trials. Sub Judge Rutherford would be a more accurate title.
He was elected president in January 1917, just eleven years after being baptised and quickly gained total control over the organisation, engineering the removal of four dissenting fellow Watch Tower Society directors—Robert H. Hirsh, Alfred I. Ritchie, Isaac F. Hoskins and James D. Wright - who tried to return control to the board. This action caused a rift in the congregations with some siding with Rutherford and others with Hirsh, Ritchie, Hoskins and Wright. Many left the organisation at this point.
Rutherford's tenure at the helm of the Organisation coincided with both Prohibition (1920 - 1933) and the Great Depression (1929 - late 1930's) These two events and his personal affairs caused serious rifts within the Governing Body. His drinking was legendary with many of his close associates and members of the Bethel family testifying to his frequent heavy alcohol intake.
One of the most famous indictments of both the man and the culture within the bethel came in the resignation letter of Olin Moyle, an attorney used by the Society in their 'Freedom of Worship' cases.
In his letter dated July 21st 1939, which was later used as part of the evidence against Rutherford in a libel lawsuit, Moyle detailed the discrimination, profane language, mistreatment of workers and drinking culture that prevailed in Bethel during Rutherford's reign. This extract details the drinking culture;
Liquor
Under your tutelage there has grown up a glorification of alcohol and condemnation of total abstinence which is unseemly. Whether a servant of Jehovah drinks alcoholic liquor is none of my business, except in giving a helping hand to a brother who is stumbled thereby. Whether I am a total abstainer is nobody's business but my own. But not so at Bethel. There appears to be a definite policy of breaking in newcomers into the use of liquor, and resentment is shown against those who do not join them. The claim is made, "One can't be a real Bethelite without drinking beer." Shortly after we arrived it was arrogantly stated, "we can't do much with Moyle, but we'll make a man out of Peter." A New York brother intimated that I was out of harmony with the truth and with the Society because I didn't drink liquor. A New York sister stated that she had never used liquor or served it until some of the Bethel boys insisted upon it. A brother who used to drink liquor to excess became a total abstainer after getting the truth. He knew that a single drink of liquor would start him off to his former drinking habits, but in spite of that brethren from Bethel insisted upon his imbibing liquor and inferred that he was out of harmony with the organization through refusing. Total abstainers are looked upon with scorn as weaklings. You have publicly labeled total abstainers as prudes and therefore must assume your share of the responsibility for the Bacchus like attitude exhibited by members of the family.
W F Salter, branch overseer at the Canadian Bethel also wrote to the 'Judge' about his habits, including alcohol. In 1937 he wrote;
As the scales by the Lord's grace, have fallen from my eyes I have been astounded to see how blinded I have been to your actions, through a superstition that the WATCHTOWER was the Lord's channel of meat in due season for the household of faith and that you as President of the Society were God's chief servant amongst His people, and that you being responsible we should be submissive to whatsoever you required done, foolishly thinking that I had no responsibility in the matter and that anything you did that was wrong, or that I did as ordered by you, the Lord would overrule. It was with this thought in mind that I, at your orders would purchase 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. He was heaven's favorite, why should not he have everything that would gratify his desires for comfort. True, I had a part therein for I partook of your hospitality, or shall I say the Society's hospitality for it was the Society's money but I partook, as above stated, being blinded with the idea the THE PRESIDENT was in charge and therefore responsible and not I. Today I see that the thought was absolutely wrong and that the squandering of the Society's money in that respect was a mis-appropriation of funds, and I should have taken no part therein whatsoever. I confess my wrong before the friends and before the Lord and ask their forgiveness and His.
Later in this same letter Salter alludes to the real motivation behind the Governing Body and in particular Rutherford;
Now a word regarding the financial progress of the Society. You inform the friends and the public that the books and booklets are placed with the public at cost - they surely are and more!! You well know that the price to the pioneers until recently covered all costs including all appropriate overhead charges and even now the loss is only slight on some items, while on the other hand the price to the companies and public nets the Society at least 100%! What is this 100% if it is not profit? Poor gullible friends. How they believe everything you tell them!!! Where do they think the millions of dollars invested in buildings, machinery, stock, etc, at Brooklyn, Magdeburg, London, Toronto and other places, to say nothing of your own dwellings, etc, come from if not from profit on the books? You know and I know that the gain the Canadian Office alone during the past few years was a hundred thousand dollars. And at the time I was relieved of my duties there was not only a large sum in the bank as customary but also over $25,000.00 in cash was lying in the Society's vaults at 40 Irwin Avenue and had for years, which could be used for the needs of the President or those whom he might designate in case of an international emergency - and the dear pioneers? Well, of course they could go hungry. Poor gullible friends!! My, were we not blind, and how blind the friends still are! And yet the annual reports tell of our great losses and how it is hoped the Lord will make it up. Well, it is said, "figures don't lie, but liars do figure."
Remember this is all going on during the Great Depression, where millions upon millions were in abject poverty, including many Witnesses and here was their leader spending fortunes on booze, properties for his personal use, expensive cars and first class travel. Interestingly Salter reveals the profitability of the literature and where the money was spent. Does it remind you somewhat of the modern TV evangelists, especially those that make millions and still get into debt because of their lavish spending?
Far from the respectable, upright, fearless leader profile that the modern Governing Body attribute to their former President, the so called Judge was a renowned alcoholic, a bully, politically ruthless and indulged in an expensive lifestyle funded by his organisation while most of the rank and file suffered austerity and hardship.
Salter pointedly attacks Rutherfords excesses in the same letter;
The squandering of the Society's money on liquor was only one thing I had cause to wonder over; there were other things. I could not help but contrast with the lot of the pioneers the luxury that you surrounded yourself with and the comfort that I enjoyed, and among these luxuries I cannot refrain from mentioning the following:
1. Not one but two 16-cylinder cars, one in California and one in New York. One would not suffice for THE PRESIDENT nor would a 6 cylinder car be big enough for THE PRESIDENT, but a 4 would do for a pioneer, or a bicycle or a hand-sleigh, or trudging along without any vehicle at all.
2. Your New York apartment, easily worth a rental of $10,000.00 a year. And its luxurious furnishings.
3. Your palatial residence on Staten Island, camouflaged as essential to the broadcasting station WBBR.
4. As though that residence were not sufficient, a further small place of seclusion in the woods of Staten Island where you can go and rest your weary body while the pioneers and others trudge from door to door.
5. Your further abode at San Diego, for which you yourself told me you were offered $75,000.00, but of course it could not be sold and the funds used to help the pioneers because it was deeded to David - what hypocrisy!
6. Commodious and expensive quarters in Magdeburg, Germany, for the convenience of THE PRESIDENT, to say nothing of the provision made for your comfort in London.
As what is your mental attitude toward all this? Why you glory in it and brazenly advertise it to the friends. "Who dares find fault therewith? Am I not THE PRESIDENT?" Yes, you glory in it, glorying in your shame.
The 'Am I not the President?' quote reveals another 'ungodly' trait, that of a man gloating over his position and power. If the congregation members would just do a little digging they would see the double standards that their leaders exhibit and realise this is not, and could never be, Gods chosen organisation. But of course that is the power of their religion, the ability to frighten them away from ever digging beyond the rhetoric and discovering the real truth. Fortunately for us they didn't manage to bully everyone!
There is a wonderful comparison between Al Capone and Judge Rutherford on the Freeminds.Org site. The link is here:
Comments