One of our commenters brought an interesting court case to our attention. It involves a libel case brought against brother Rutherford and the Watch Tower Society in 1940 by one Olin Moyle, former Bethelite and legal counsel to the Society. Without taking sides, the core facts are these:
1) Brother Moyle wrote an open letter to the Bethel community in which he announced his resignation from Bethel, giving as his reasons various criticisms of the conduct of brother Rutherford in particular and the Bethel members in general. (He did not attack nor denounce any of our beliefs and his letter makes it evident he still considered Jehovah’s Witnesses to be God’s chosen people.)
2) Brother Rutherford and the board of directors chose not to accept this resignation, but rather to oust brother Moyle on the spot, denouncing him by resolution adopted by the entire Bethel membership. He was labelled as an evil slave and a Judas.
3) Brother Moyle returned to private practice and continued to associate with the Christian congregation.
4) Brother Rutherford then used the Watch Tower magazine on repeated occasions in both articles and news or announcement pieces over the following months to denounce brother Moyle before the worldwide community of subscribers and readers. (Circulation: 220,000)
5) Brother Rutherford’s actions gave Moyle the basis to launch his libel suit.
6) Brother Rutherford died before the suit finally came to court and was concluded in 1943. There were two appeals. In all three verdicts, the Watch Tower Society was found guilty and ordered to pay damages, which it eventually did.
Before continuing, a brief caveat
Using the court transcript, it would be very easy to attack personalities, but that is not the purpose of this forum, and it would be very unfair to question the motives of individuals long dead who cannot defend themselves. There are individuals in this world who try to persuade us to leave Jehovah’s organization because of what they claim are bad actions and motives of prominent members of the leadership. These individuals forget their history. Jehovah created his first people under Moses. Eventually, they demanded and got human kings to rule over them. The first one (Saul) started off good, but went bad. The second one, David, was good, but committed some whoppers and was responsible for the death of 70,000 of his people. So, overall, good, but with some really bad moments. The third was a great king, but ended up in apostasy. There followed a line of good kings and bad kings and really bad kings, but through it all, the Israelites remained Jehovah’s people and there was no provision for going off to other nations in search of something better, because there wasn’t anything better.
Then came the Christ. The Apostles held things together after Jesus ascended to heaven, but by the second century, oppressive wolves had moved in and began treating the flock abusively. This abuse and deviation from truth continued for hundreds of years, but through all that time, the Christian congregation continued to be Jehovah’s people, just as Israel had been, even when she was apostate.
So now we come to the Twentieth Century; but we now expect something different. Why? Because we were told that Jesus came to his spiritual temple in 1918 and judged the flock and cast out the evil slave and appointed the good and faithful and discreet slave over all his domestics. Ah, but we don’t believe that anymore, do we? Just recently, we have realized that the appointment over all his belongings comes when he returns at Armageddon. This has interesting and unexpected ramifications. The appointment over all his belongings is the result of his judgment of the slaves. But that judgment happens to all the salves at the same time. One is judged faithful and appointed over all his belongings and the other is judged as evil and cast out.
So the evil slave was not cast out in 1918 because the judgment did not occur then. The evil slave will only become known when the master returns. Therefore, the evil slave must still be among us.
Who is the evil slave? How will he become manifest? Who knows. In the meantime, what of us individually? Will we allow abrasive personalities and perhaps even legitimate injustices to cause us to leave Jehovah’s people? And go where?? To other religions? Religions who openly practice war? Who, rather than die for their beliefs, will kill for them? I don’t think so! No, we’ll wait patiently for the master to return and judge the righteous and the wicked? While we’re doing that, let’s use the time to work on getting and keeping the Master’s favor.
To that end, a better understanding of our history and what got us to where we now are can’t hurt. After all, accurate knowledge leads to everlasting life.
An unexpected benefit
One thing that is evident from even a cursory reading of the court transcript is that if Rutherford had simply accepted Moyle’s resignation and left it at that, there would have been no grounds for a libel suit. Whether Moyle would have kept to his stated objective and continued to be a Jehovah’s Witness, even offering his legal services to the brotherhood as he stipulated in his letter, or whether he would have eventually turned apostate is something we may never know.
By giving Moyle just cause to bring a lawsuit, Rutherford exposed himself and the Society to public scrutiny. As a result, historical facts have come to light that might otherwise have remained hidden; facts about the makeup of our early congregation; facts which affect us to this day.
As things turned out, Rutherford died before the suit ever came to trial, so we can only guess at what he might have had to say. However, we do have the sworn testimony of other prominent brothers who later served on the Governing Body.
What can we learn from them?
Our view of obedience
Under cross-examination by the Plaintiff’s attorney, Mr. Bruchhausen, Nathan Knorr, Rutherford’s successor, made the following revelation when being questioned about the fallibility of those who reveal Bible truth through our publications: . (From page 1473 of the court transcript)
Q. So that these leaders or agents of God are not infallible, are they? A. That is right.
Q. And they do make mistakes in these doctrines? A. That is right.
Q. But when you put out these writings in the Watch Tower, you don’t make any mention, to those who get the papers, that “We, speaking for God, may make a mistake,” do you? A. When we present the publications for the Society, we present with it the Scriptures, the Scriptures set forth in the Bible. The citations are given in the writing; and our advice is to the People to look up these Scriptures and study them in their own Bibles in their own homes.
Q. But you don’t make any mention in the fore part of your Watch Tower that “We are not infallible and subject to correction and may make mistakes”? A. We have never claimed infallibility.
Q. But you don’t make any such statement, that you are subject to correction, in your Watch Tower papers, do you? A. Not that I recall.
Q. In fact, it is set forth directly as God’s Word, isn’t in? A. Yes, as His word.
Q. Without any qualification whatsoever? A. That is right.
This was, for me, a bit of a revelation. I have always worked under the assumption that anything in our publications was below the word of God, never on a par with it. That is why the recent statements in our 2012 district convention and circuit assembly programs bothered me so much. It seemed that they were grasping at an equality with God’s Word which they had no right to and which they had never before attempted to do. This, was for me, something new and disturbing. Now I see that this isn’t new at all.
Brother Knorr makes it clear that under Rutherford as well as under his presidency, the rule was that anything published by the faithful slave[i] was God’s Word. True, he admits that they are not infallible and that, therefore, changes are possible, but only they are allowed to make the changes. Until such time, we must not doubt what is written.
To express it simply, it appears that the official position on any Bible understanding is: “Consider this the Word of God, until further notice.”
Rutherford as the Faithful Slave
Our official position is that the faithful and discreet slave was appointed in 1919 and that this slave is made up of all the members of the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses at any point in time from that year onward. It would therefore be natural to assume that brother Rutherford was not the faithful slave, but rather only one of the members of the body of men that made up that slave during his tenure as legal president of the Watch Tower, Bible and Tract Society.
Fortunately, we have the sworn testimony of another brother who eventually served as one of the presidents of the Society, brother Fred Franz. (From page 865 of the court transcript)
Q. I understand that you say that in 1931, the Watch Tower discontinued naming the editorial committee, and then Jehovah God became the editor, is that correct? A. Jehovah’s editorialship was indicated thereby citing Isaiah 53:13.
The Court: He asked you if in 1931 Jehovah God became editor, according to your theory.
The Witness: No, I wouldn’t say so.
Q. Didn’t you say that Jehovah God became the editor of this paper at some time? A. He was always the one guiding the course of the paper.
Q. Didn’t you state that on October 15, 1931, the Watch Tower discontinued the naming of an editorial committee and then Jehovah God became the editor? A. I didn’t say Jehovah God became the editor. It was appreciated that Jehovah God really is the one who is editing the paper, and therefore the naming of an editorial committee was out of place.
Q. At any rate, Jehovah God is now the editor of the paper, is that right? A. He is today the editor of the paper.
Q. How long has he been editor of the paper? A. Since its inception he has been guiding it.
Q. Even before 1931? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Why did you have an editorial committee up to 1931? A. Pastor Russell in his will specified that there should be such an editorial committee, and it was continued down till then.
Q. Did you find that the editorial committee was in conflict with having the journal edited by Jehovah God, is that it? A. No.
Q. Was the policy in opposition to what your conception of an editing by Jehovah God was? A. It was found on occasions that some of these on the editorial committee were preventing the publication of timely and vital, up-to-date truths and thereby hindering the going of those truths to the people of the Lord in his due time.
By the Court:
Q. After that, 1931, who on earth, if anybody, had charge of what went in or did not go in the magazine? A. Judge Rutherford.
Q. So he in effect was the earthly editor-in-chief, as he might be called? A. He would be the visible one to take care of that.
By Mr. Bruchhausen:
Q. He was working as God’s representative or agent in running this magazine, is that correct? A. He was serving in that capacity.
From this we can see that up until 1931 there was an editorial committee of faithful individuals who were able to exercise some control over what was published in the magazines. Still, the origin of all our doctrine was from a single man, brother Rutherford. The editorial committee didn’t originate doctrine, but they did exercise some control over what was released. However, in 1931, brother Rutherford disbanded that committee because it was not allowing what he felt were timely and vital truths originating from him to be disseminated to the Lord’s people. From that point forward, there was nothing even remotely resembling a governing body as we know it today. From that point forward everything published in the Watchtower came directly from the pen of brother Rutherford with no one having any say whatsoever into what was being taught.
What does this mean for us? Our understanding of prophetic fulfillments that are believed to have occurred in 1914, 1918, and 1919 all come from one man’s mind and understanding. Almost, if not all, of the prophetic interpretations regarding the last days that we have abandoned over the past 70 years have come from this period of time as well. There remains a good number of beliefs that we hold as true, indeed, as the word of God, which originate from a time when one man enjoyed a virtually uncontested rule over Jehovah’s people. Good things came from that time period. So did bad things; things we had to abandon to get back on track. This isn’t a matter of opinion, but of historical record. Brother Rutherford acted as “God’s agent or representative” and was viewed and treated as such, even after he had died, as can be seen from the evidence brothers Fred Franz and Nathan Knorr presented in court.
Given our latest understanding of the fulfillment of Jesus’ words concerning the faithful and discreet slave, we believe that he appointed that slave in 1919. That slave is the Governing Body. However, there was no governing body in 1919. There was only one body that governed; that of Judge Rutherford. Any new understanding of Scripture, any new doctrine, came from him alone. True, there was an editorial committee to edit what he taught. But all things came from him. In addition, from 1931 onward to the time of his death, there was not even an editorial committee to check and filter the veracity, logic, and Scriptural harmony of what he wrote.
If we are to wholeheartedly accept our latest understanding of the “faithful slave”, then we must also accept that one man, Judge Rutherford, was appointed by Jesus Christ as the faithful and discreet slave to feed his flock. Apparently, Jesus changed from that format after Rutherford’s death and began to use a group of men as his slave.
Accepting this new teaching as the word of God is made more difficult when we consider that during the 35 years following his death and resurrection, Jesus used, not one, but a number of individuals working under inspiration to feed his flock. However, he didn’t stop there, but also used many other prophets, both men and women, in the various congregations who also spoke under inspiration—though their words did not make it into the Bible. It is hard to understand why he would depart from that means of feeding the flock and use a single human who, by sworn testimony, was not even writing under inspiration.
We are not a cult. We must not allow ourselves to follow men, especially men who claim to be speaking for God and want us to treat their words as if from God himself. We follow the Christ and humbly work shoulder to shoulder with like-minded men. Why? Because we have God’s word in written form so that we can individually “make sure of all things and hold fast to what is fine”—to what is true!
The admonition expressed by the apostle Paul in 2 Cor. 11 seems fitting for us in this instance; especially his words in vs. 4 and 19. Reason, not intimidation, must always guide us in the understanding of Scripture. We do well to prayerfully consider Paul’s words.
[…] así como bajo su presidencia, la regla era que cualquier cosa publicada por el esclavo fiel [i] era la Palabra de Dios. Es cierto, él admite que no son infalibles y que, por lo tanto, los […]
I love the content on your site. Thanks a lot.
Both Russell, Rutherford and indeed Knorr were regarded as the Faithful and Discreet Slave as can be seen from the declaration made at the first annual meeting October 1st after Rutherford’s death in January 1942. To quote. ” (5) All faithful servants of the Lord have recognized that The Theocracy, of which the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society is a servant, operrates from the Top down, and not from the bottom upas in the worldly governments, and, therefore, thar instructions come to the Lord’s people on earth from the office of the president of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society,… Read more »
Striving for Unbiased research you say, twice I have put comments on your site and as it would appear and twice they have been censored by not been allowed. This is the organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses way of doing things, but if you are striving for unbiased research then it should not be your way. Having said that it would be of real value if you would consider reading for once what others who are not Jehovah’s witnesses have to say. But as before, I will now post this link to a site that I feel are striving for unbiased… Read more »
The pages “About This Forum” and “Commenting Etiquette” explain the rules governing participation on this site. The key phrasing is “unbiased research”. Everyone has opinions and, of course, has a right to them. However, Bible research makes use of scriptural citations and references to support one’s point. As for the “unbaised” part of that phrase, first, we are striving for it. It is very difficult to eradicate all bias from any line of reasoning. If you wish to help us do that, then again we need not personal opinion, but reasoning on the scriptures. If you wish to share your… Read more »
It must be pointed out that anointedjw.org has an article entitled “The Little Known Twelve”, on John’s apostles (to which I will not link here) which appears to be an almost verbatim quotation from a certain Urantia book. I found this on Wikipedia about its authorship: As early as 1911, William S. Sadler and his wife Lena Sadler, physicians in Chicago and well known in the community, are said to have been approached by a neighbor who was concerned because she would occasionally find her husband in a deep sleep and breathing abnormally.[11][12] She reported that she was unable to… Read more »
Thanks Alec.
In addition I noticed in one of their replies to readers they claim that their local elders and circuit servant (!?) knows who they are. They also claim to be JWs of good standing.
Any true JW will know that these facts cannot both be true, so there is a level of dishonesty going on.
Apollos
Precisely Apollos, it would be very strange indeed, as you said, it can’t be true. You’re most welcome.
Well, why not? I think they have a good approach to Bibel research. In their newest Q&A they write: “We are not active according to the definition by the organization and we have ceased attending meetings for a few reasons. One, because of our ministry, we believe we would be too much of a distraction to the congregation. Two, as you allude to, subjecting ourselves to what is taught from the platform would grieve our spirit far too much. Three, we do not have family ties that could cloud our judgment or extort our allegiance. And four, we believe we… Read more »
I wasn’t commenting on their newest Q&A. I haven’t looked at it. I was commenting on what they had written at the time. And to say that the local elders know who they are, but that they are at the same time in “good standing”, implies that the local elders and circuit overseer have no problem with them publishing the material that they do. I did not comment on or criticize their research, but I still believe that they were capable of making a false representation in this way, so it has tainted my personal view of the authors. But… Read more »
Dear Apollos,
I know you were reffering to an older statement, so I thought a newer statement about their connections to the local congregation would be interesting. I could imagine that their elders/CO know about some of their opinions and interpretations, but not about their website.
Unfortantely I have to agree that noone can have an opinion on his own and stay in “good standing” whenever these opinions don’t match the JW publications. As JW, I find myself in the same dilemma as I guess you and Meleti do.
It is quite evident from the court transcript that the majority of Jehovah’s Witnesses at the time did believe that Judge Rutherford was “revealing the will of Jehovah”. LIkewise today many feel that the Governing Body is revealing Jehovah’s will for us. The trouble with such a belief is that it creates an irreconcilable conundrum. If the Governing Body as a group is revealing God’s will, then how can they err. If they err, as they self-admittedly do, then how can they say they are revealing God’s unerring will. We can say that when they err, they are revealing their… Read more »
I agree, we would become the very thing we swore to destroy, so to speak, not that we swore to destroy false religion, but that we left it not to be sharers in its wicked works.
An interesting point is, I used to believe, many years ago, that the Gb and others in a leading position weren’t inspired but had some kind of ability to ”sense Gods wil indirectly”. And somehow we normal witnesses didn’t have that ability. I know this sounds weird, but I really thought this was how it worked. When I became a witness I also thought that the Members of the Gb were chosen by ”a representative number of anointed friends”. Maybe it was the fact that I wanted Jw to be true that my mind came up with these ideas.
Rutherford’s administration and personality must be evaluated by all those trying to understand theocracy and its modern history. Either he led us away from the truth on balance, or he “lead” the congregations of God’s people across the critical years from the death of Russell in 1916 to the appreciation of the “New World” that developed in reaction to Rutherford in the 1942-46 era. Page 221 of the 1993 Proclaimers book is in denial as to Rutherford’s leadership status in 1941. Moyle’s letter of July 1939 cites a publishing issue regarding C.J. Woodworth and a new calendar at the outset.… Read more »
When Jesus was enthroned as King over the Christian Congregation in 33 CE, he made an appointment as an “Apostle to the Nations” the unlikely personage of Saul of Tarsus. (Romans 11:13) That “Apostle Paul” did not consult the “twelve” in Jerusalem as to the content of his letters to the Congregations, which became scriptures and accepted as the inspired word of God. However he did present questions and evidence in behalf of congregations and submit to their decision in the matter of circumcision, as recorded in Acts 15. He later no doubt participated in transmitting news of the decision… Read more »
Hi Urbanus,
Thanks for your comment, but I am quite confused on where you stand in the matter of the two classes. On the one hand you have (correctly in my view) noted that Jesus did not talk of two classes of Christians – only that gentiles would be united with Jews as “one flock under one shepherd”. This would mean that a core doctrine of Rutherford’s that we still retain today is fundamentally flawed. And yet you seem to imply that this was done as a revealing of Jehovah’s will.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding your view on this.
Apollos
Thank you for the well-researched article. Without the Internet, many of us would not know the true history of our organization, only the sanitized version we receive through our organization. I am shocked to see that Brother Franz in actuality professed that Jehovah was the editor of the Watchtower. Did he honestly believe that or was he backed into a corner and couldn’t see his way out? My family has a history with Rutherford and I find it difficult not to put down the man himself, sorry. Some of our most controversial beliefs and the ones with which most people… Read more »
“Whatever the clergy taught, Rutherford opposed it.”
I couldn’t agree more with this. When the primary motivation becomes differentiation rather than objective truth, it can get us into all sorts of trouble. The pendulum can often swing too far.
I’m with you on this, Dorcas. Rutherford’s over-reaction to Moyle’s criticism, even if it were completely unfounded, was deplorable. Jehovah has been falsely criticized on many occasions, but he never lashes out. How thankful we can all be for that. It is lamentable that over-reaction to criticism from within out brotherhood is not a thing of the past.
When someone lashes out at a critic, it merely serves to give credibility to the critic. If nothing else, we should have learned that lesson from the Olin Moyle law suit.
Wow, thank you so much Meleti for the excellent article, and Apollos for the great comment. I couldn’t agree more! Like Meleti I had always known the Society had never claimed infallibility, I just had no idea our publications were to be viewed as the Word of God. I’m sorry, but as pointed out in a previous post in this blog: “21 And in case you should say in your heart: “How shall we know the word that Jehovah has not spoken?” 22 when the prophet speaks in the name of Jehovah and the word does not occur or come… Read more »
Hi Alec,
When reading your comment a thought that occurred to me was that our primary defence when we are criticized for false predictions is Acts 1:6. But there is a polar difference between 1) an open minded question directed to the Lord in person and 2) a demand that people believe a human prediction during the absence of the Lord.
Now in fairness to Russell he did not demand belief in his predictions. But that is primarily because he also did not demand a belief in an organization – he only directed people to God and His Word.
Apollos
Exactly Apollos, I hadn’t thought of Acts 1:6 in such a clear-cut way. And you’re right, Russell told people to beware of ‘organization’. I firmly agree and believe in this part of the post: “We have God’s word in written form so that we can individually ‘make sure of all things and hold fast to what is fine.’ ” Your comment makes me wonder, did the apostles ever demand that people believe them unquestionably? I don’t think so. And another thing—”by their fruits you will recognize those men.” Whilst we as a people do do Jehovah’s will, work hard to… Read more »
Incidently, Jesus, at Acts 1:7 told his followers that it did not belong to them to get knowledge of when the Kingdom will be established. Who are we to say that we know it was established in 1914?
Precisely!
A thought occurred to me when reading Matthew 24 again. Jesus said in v. 48 onwards: “48 But if ever that evil slave should say in his heart, ‘My master is delaying,’ 49 and should start to beat his fellow slaves and should eat and drink with the confirmed drunkards, 50 the master of that slave will come on a day that he does not expect and in an hour that he does not know.” I was thinking about what the evil slave says to himself, ‘my master is delaying’. At face value it would seem that almost 100 years later this slave… Read more »
Very sobering thoughts indeed, Alec. Thanks.
Hi Alec I agree. There is logically only one way that we can fall into the trap of thinking that our master is delaying. That is to set an expectation as to the period in which he would definitely return, or to say that he had returned already and so his millennial rule must be imminent, which would be in contravention of Jesus’ direction not to do that. If we simply live our lives with the CERTAINTY that Jesus will return and govern mankind, rather than create a theology that is concerned with it’s IMMINENCE, then we can avoid that… Read more »
Hi Apollos, I wholeheartedly agree. You’re right, we’ve never said we were able to calculate the date of the end, but we have set limits for it. Like the generation(s) teaching. We really need to heed Jesus’s words both in Matthew 24 and Acts 1:7. Here is what the Awake! said about the latter: *** g98 5/8 p. 21 How Significant Is the Year 2000? *** Clearly, the “knowledge of the times or seasons,” especially when it comes to the future fulfillment of Bible prophecies, is not under human jurisdiction. God has chosen not to reveal such information to us.… Read more »
Thanks Meleti. This is another very thought provoking article. There is an irony to the recent development of the official identity of the “faithful and discreet slave”. You will recall that up to Rutherford’s presidency the members of the IBSA believed Russell to be the “faithful and wise servant”. However, in the 1920’s Rutherford determined to do away with what he called “creature worship”, and he disbanded this idea. However the first irony is that Rutherford himself appears to have been much more of a self-promoter than Russell. Just read any issue of the Messenger from the period to get… Read more »
Just to correct a point… but quite a significant one… regarding the letter from Brother Moyle to Brother Rutherford… Brother Moyle’s letter was, the first instance, a private letter, addressed – in confidence – solely to Brother Rutherford, explaining why he and his wife felt they could no longer tolerate life in the Bethel, and why they were leaving. Brother Moyle was forced to make it a public letter after Brother Rutherford went off the deep end, accusing him publicly of being a Judas and in league with Satan, within the publications, without revealing the contents of the letter… In… Read more »