Talk:Charles Taze Russell/Archive 4

NPOV Still Unresolved
I am a new user to Wikipedia but I was instantly struck with the biased view of this article. I don't believe the facts listed are false, they are just lacking in documenting much of the controversies surrounding Mr. Russell's life and how specifically the Jehovah's Witnesses were founded by him. I have made some revisions that I believe add to an unbiased view of this man historically. Shaneroosky (talk) 00:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The information you added was actually quite against the NPOV, both by the way it was worded, and by the rejection of a balanced point of view. In order for NPOV to be properly addressed there must be the claim followed by the answer else it goes against fairness and becomes a tirade.  The NPOV issues were all resolved.  If you want to assist in the editing then do it kindly and with fairness.  You may have issues with Russell, but there are those who believe those issues can be addressed.  Pastorrussell (talk) 03:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms and Controversies extremely biased
Anyone reading this section can see that the writer is clearly slanted towards portraying a good name for Russell. I propose that some additional facts and revisions be added for furthering a NPOV.Shaneroosky (talk) 05:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I have just contributed heavily to this section. The first two paragraphs concerning his business practices and marriage issues are hardly disputed as "controversial", and thus removed. The other two sections, regarding his court cases with Rev. Ross and with the Brooklyn Daily Eagle, were expanded upon with AMPLE references added where there was previously no references for information.Shaneroosky (talk) 06:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, the removal of the original Criticisms section was tantamount to vandalism. The language put in its place was defamatory, factually inaccurate, and biased toward a specific point of view.  The original Criticisms contain both the critical claim and is followed by a rebuttal, thus giving both the positive and negative viewpoints which is a balance that all articles should have.  Any other points to be made should be added to the section, and not be put in place of the entire section.  Pastorrussell (talk) 03:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism? Well, I suppose I'm not surprised. I ready through this talk page before I started editing and found that you continually conduct yourself in a manner as to assume that you are the authority of information on this man. Additionally, the information you are currently posting on the Criticisms section has NOT ONE reference. Let's stick to the facts, everything I added to this section was referenced by newspaper articles, court cases, books, and other publications. Until you can prove that they are not facts, the additions I made will stand. Keep in mind that by definition the "Criticisms and Controversies" section should contain, well, criticisms and controversies. It is not a platform for you to refute any history of the man that reflects negatively upon his character. Shaneroosky (talk) 19:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think those who know the most about Pastor Russell should be those who can keep an eye on whether or not accurate information is presented. Alternative viewpoints are valid, but to present information in terms of subjective point of view is contrary not only to wikipedia policies, but also to fairness.  In order to be balanced and in order to not violate NPOV it is necessary to present a criticism and a rebuttal so that both sides of the equation are dealt with.  Additionally one must be very careful in the way they present the information especially in terms of language used.  I think, with all due respect, that you should also look to your own attempts at editing and see whether or not you are attempting to use this article as a platform.  Am I?  I don't think so.  Why?  Because I have stood by those who add valid criticisms.  There is a proper and improper way to address those topics.  Even in a typical encyclopedia that appears in print there would be a claim and a rebuttal.  "Such and so said that xxxyyy.  In response Russell said xxxyyy."  That is a fair way to address those issues.  Pastorrussell (talk) 21:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

A question
The article says:

Russell denied [...] the validity of the infinite atonement...

What is "the validity of the infinite atonement?"

--Vassilis78 (talk) 13:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, well I'm glad you ask ;)

The infinite atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ is one of the most important doctrines of the Bible, since it is the guarantee of eternal life through the complete forgiveness of sins to whoever appropriates its cleansing power. The Old Testament clearly teaches, "It is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul: (Leviticus 17:11). Hebrews 9:22 corroborates this beyond doubt, for in truth "without shedding of blood is no remission." The Lord Jesus Christ became the one blood sacrifice for sin that ensures everlasting life, as John said upon seeing Jesus: "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world" (John 1:29). The apostle John writing in Revelation 13:8 declares that the Lamb (Christ) slain from the foundation of the world is God's own eternal sacrifice that cleanses from all sin and provides redemption for lost souls who trust in its efficacy.

Charles Taze Russell and Jehovah's Witnesses argue that the Atonement is not wholly of God, despite 2 Corinthians 5:15,19, but rather half of God and half of man. Jesus, according to their argument, removed the effects of Adam's sin by His sacrifice on Calvary, but the work will not be fully completed until the survivors of Armageddon return to God through free will and become subject to the Theocratic rule of Jehovah. For Jehovah's Witnesses, the full realization of the matter is reconciliation with God, which will be completed in relation to the Millennial Kingdom. This utterly unreasonable and illogical interpretation of Scripture does away with the validity of the "infinite atonement" unconditionally administered by God and through God for man. Russell and Jehovah's witnesses have detracted from the blood of Christ by allowing it only partial cleansing power.

-- From The Kingdom of the Cults by Walter Martin

Shaneroosky (talk) 18:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Good thing this subject came up. Jehovah's Witnesses hold to the point of view stated above, but Russell most certainly did not.  He taught that the full redemption of mankind came only through the shed blood of Jesus.  Where he differed with orthodox Christian viewpoints was by showing his view that the Apostles stated that Jesus would select a bride from among mankind.  This bride would work with Jesus as a helper in the reformation of mankind as they are lead up to human perfection on earth.  The redemptive work was accomplished only by Jesus.  Pastorrussell (talk) 03:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

User with potential COI
It should be noted that User:Pastorrussell manages the website www.pastor-russell.com, which is associated with certain elements of the Bible Student movement. His forthrightness in revealing this is appreciated. The issue was recently discussed in this thread at WP:COI/N. There is nothing wrong with any person editing an article on which he/she holds strong opinions due to their life circumstances, though one should always adhere to WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:Undue weight. However, User:Pastorrussell should be careful not to make any edits that unduly promote his website or his sect. As long as he does not, his good faith should be assumed. If anyone has specific questions regarding this article, I would be happy to discuss them if you alert me by my talk page or by email. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * In response I will say that I have worked harder than anyone to avoid bias and have tirelessly attempted to keep the article neutral. My attempts have always been to make sure that the article is balanced, neutral, and uses encyclopedic language as should be expected of any encyclopedia - online or off.  All statements should be cited or linked to sources, and language should always be factual, and non-inflammatory. Pastorrussell (talk) 03:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

"Official" Website
I have a hard time seeing the description of Pastor-Russell.com as the "Official CT Russell website" being NPOV. I see here (I have to quickly hit the "stop" button on my browser, before the page is redirected to another one) that the website itself claims to be "the only official Charles T. Russell website", but I don't see any further documentation of this "official" status even on the website itself.

Again, the question is who has declared the website "official"? Russell himself is not around to endow such status. If it is someone who has a reasonable claim to represent Russell's family, then you might call it the "official website of the Russell family." If it is any particular Bible Students organization, then call it the official website of that organization. But any claim of "official website" needs to be backed up by a credible source. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 04:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * An Official website does not violate NPOV in any possible way unless someone is blatently attempting to advertise it rather than use it as a reference source, etc... What do you consider to be "credible sources"?  The use of "official website" has only been contested by a few, and with those we worked it out to the satisfaction of all.  As a result, you are the only one questioning it, and I do not consider it fair.  Please list for me what YOU consider "credible sources" and I'll cite them.  Thank you. Pastorrussell (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I see above that this issue has been raised in the past, but no indication that it was "worked out" to anyone's satisfaction. If you could point me to the discussions you have in mind, I would be grateful.  On this talk page, the last word on the topic appears to be this:  "Prove it's official, in whatever sense you claim it to be."  That is what I am also saying.


 * You claim above that your website "is accepted by Bible Students as the official website" and is "representative of the whole by consensus". But how do I know that even that is true?  How do I know that any Bible Student other than yourself has given you any kind of office or authorization?  Please forgive me, as I intend no disrespect, but the Internet makes it easy to make claims of that kind.  You need to be clear on what authority you are claiming, and then give some verification of it.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 04:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Pastorrussell recently updated the website's description at Bible Student movement to read "Official CT Russell website run by Bible Students". This seems perfectly acceptable to me, as it properly qualifies his preferred "official" designation. I've updated this page to read the same. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Burial
Why is there a stone pyramide on his grave? --84.56.4.185 (talk) 13:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The pyramid marker was placed at his grave site nearly eight years after his death. It was placed there by former friends and associates of his as a gift to commemorate the life of the man, not unlike what many friends or family may do for someone after said one dies. Russell was one of many Christians from the mid-late 1800s that believed the pyramid symbol is used throughout the Bible, and that the Great Pyramid of Gizeh itself was foretold in Isaiah 19:19.  A pyramid symbol is not inherently occult, nor masonic.  It is simply a shape used in the New Testament to represent how the members of Christ's body must be perfectly in line with Jesus' perfect example, and that Jesus personally works with each member of his body to perfect their character to his likeness.  A topstone of a pyramid is a mini pyramid itself, but all stones under the topstone must be of the same quality and cut at the same angle.  This is a concept the Apostle Paul refers to. Pastorrussell (talk) 05:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Death, Aftermath and Legacy
What does this mean? Under "Death, Aftermath and Legacy" here is this sentence: "For many Bible Students, Rutherford's rejection of the Great Pyramid in November, 1928, and Russell's role in restoration of the truth in February, 1927, was considered the last straw." Russell had died in 1916, and here he is said to have a role in the restoration of the truth? Something's wrong.
 * No, no; just more evidence of spirit medium influence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.137.101.31 (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

God's Mouthpiece (?)
A person has tried repeatedly to add a statement which in actual fact is a phrase taken out of its proper context, and put in such a way as to imply that Russell said something he did not. After repeated attempts to correct the wording, or add a link to the entire quote, or even to place the claim in the 'Criticisms' section where it properly belongs such efforts have been thwarted by the person. Any help would be appreciated here. While Russell used the words "God's mouthpiece" they were not used in the fashion in which the statement is presented by said person in this Wikipedia entry. You can read the entire quote in its proper context at this link. As for taking quotes out of context, there are some interesting comments made in the Wikipedia entry for Fallacy of quoting out of Context which may prove helpful here. Pastorrussell (talk) 07:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I have read the entire quote as posted on your website. The phrase you object to, however, is entirely within context and is sufficiently notable to be included in this Russell article. If I, or George Bush, or Elton John, or the Pope, claimed he was God's mouthpiece, that would be worth noting in their entry. The same applies to Russell. This is how he viewed himself, how he preferred his readers to view him and his writings, and is central to an article on him. This not a criticism, so it doesn't belong in that section; nor does it warrant your personal interpretation, entirely without citations, that "Some accuse Russell of claiming to be an inspired prophet. This view is based upon (and here you insert your own suppositions)... Supporters of Russell counter that the statement is taken out of its proper context (who are these supporters? Where do they counter the statement?)... Many Bible Students continue to believe that God used Russell in the work of (Many Bible students continue to believe? Please back this up) ... but do not consider him an inspired prophet." (how do I verify this?)


 * All in all, your edits amount to an attempted justification of Russell's comment and a defence of it, neither of which belong in an encyclopedia. I note that the issue of your website, created to promote and defend Russell, has been raised in a Conflict of Interest complaint about your edits. Your latest edits, as well as your comments here and on my talk page, indicate that you are treating the Wiki entry on CT Russell as a fansite, designed to promote or defend this man. Please allow the article simply to present the facts. LTSally (talk) 08:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I am asking you nicely to please remove the quote because you are attempting to imply that Russell claimed to be the sole representative and spokesman of God which is completely false, and gives the wrong impression to readers of this Wikipedia entry. Russell referred to all who serve the Lord to be "God's mouthpiece" - he did not use that term exclusively for himself.  I've added references at the link given previously to establish this point - Click Here. The references there given are from What Pastor Russell Wrote for the Overland Monthly pages 160, 368, and the Convention Report Sermons pages 124, 162, 163, 309, 327, 383, and 434.  There you will see the term "God's mouthpiece" specifically applied to all faithful followers of the Lord who have received the Holy spirit.  There are dozens more references that could be added to the page, but it isn't my attempt to give an exhaustive listing, simply to show a representative number of quotes. Your attempt to make it appear that Russell was claiming exclusively that he represented God is false and misleading.  So, please, kindly remove it.  Pastorrussell (talk) 20:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the additional references. I take your point that he didn't consider that he, alone, was God's mouthpiece. I do, however, think that because of his prominence in his movement and the fact that he is regarded today by millions of Jehovah's Witnesses as the founder of their religion, it is worth a paragraph in the intro section to explain the way he viewed himself. Witnesses teach, after all, that God used him to cut through the false teachings of Christendom and reveal the truth. This places him, in their minds, as a significant figure in God's eternal purpose. I think the point can be softened with an explanation that he regarded all anointed as God's mouthpiece, but I feel strongly the remainder of the paragraph should stay to provide a better picture of the man. Would you be happy if the paragraph was prefaced with the words ... "Russell believed that, like him, all "anointed Christians" became ambassadors of God and, when preaching, were used as a "mouthpiece" of God. He wrote of himself ..." etc. Thinking further on this, the comments of Professor Chryssides do, then, have some relevance and are appropriate as a brief quote. I'm happy to reinsert the central point of that quote. I have no wish to wage war with you on this and hope we can reach agreement at some point. LTSally (talk) 21:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your kindly response. All efforts here should simply be to present the well documented truth of this particular matter.  Personally, I have no objection to the use of the term "God's mouthpiece" if it is necessary for the main point, but it is important that the reader does not gain the wrong impression, thus phrasing is very important here.  In my view it isn't even necessary to bring out the quote at all since the meaning you initially thought it had is not accurate.  Therefore, the wording would have to be a bit different.  Perhaps something like this: "Although Jehovah's Witnesses believe that they alone speak for God, Russell believed that all Christians anointed with the Holy Spirit, including himself, served as "God's mouthpiece" and special ambassadors of Christ. His wife Maria was the first to suggest to him that he was fulfilling the role of "the faithful and wise servant" of Matthew 24:45, which most Bible Students continue to believe and teach.  Although Russell never spoke openly about this claim when asked about it privately he indicated that he believed it was so."  Cite the references, and then tack on the comments from the Professor, although they don't all need to be used because it's a long and clumsy quote.  What do you think?  Would that work?  Pastorrussell (talk) 22:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not entirely happy with that suggestion. The problem is that (1) it focuses immediately on an unsourced assumption about Jehovah's Witnesses with, presumably, the intention of distinguishing their outlook about themselves from Russell's. (2) I don't think it's important who first suggested that he was the faithful and wise servant; far more relevant his view on that belief. (3) .."which most Bible Students continue to believe and teach" focuses on (again with an unsourced claim) Bible Students rather than Russell. (4) And I'm not sure how you intend proving with a reference that "Russell never spoke openly about this claim when asked about it privately he indicated that he believed it was so."


 * Here, then, is another option you may consider. "Russell was a charismatic figure, but claimed no special revelation or vision to authenticate his teachings and professed no special authority on his own behalf.(ref here for George Chryssides). He wrote that the “clear unfolding of truth” within his teachings was due to “the simple fact that God's due time has come; and if I did not speak, and no other agent could be found, the very stones would cry out.” (ref here to the WT July 15, 1906, with a link to the article at your website) He viewed himself – and all other Christians anointed with the Holy Spirit -- as serving as a "mouthpiece" and ambassador of God.(ref to 1906 WT) He accepted without protest that many Bible Students viewed him as "the faithful and wise servant” (ref to 1923 WT) of Matthew 24:45 and was also described by the Watch Tower after his death as having been made "ruler of all the Lord's goods”. (ref to WT 1923)."" (end paragraph). The benefit is that this, for the article's introduction, deals more succinctly and directly with his view of himself in God's purpose, and also briefly, how his followers viewed him. LTSally (talk) 07:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I like most of your rewrite. The only parts I'd change would be the "mouthpiece" part which could be reworded to " ... -- as "God's mouthpiece" and ambassador of Christ. (ref to 1906 WT)" and to put the 1923 WT ref after the Scripture rather than before it. Other than that it's well written. Pastorrussell (talk) 15:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * In the Wikipedia article Fallacy of quoting out of Context, (also known as Contextomy) a good example is presented of a quote being made of Charles Darwin: "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." He said each and all of those words, conveyed a particular thought, but that thought and the manner of its presentation was not taken into consideration and it has been wrested from its proper context and given a meaning entirely at odds from his real view of the matter.  The same principle applies to claiming that when Russell used the words "God's mouthpiece" that it has the meaning you are attaching to it, namely that he believed he was speaking for God, on behalf of God, and/or that he was the only source of truth on earth, is completely false which is readily apparent to all who have read his writings. Jehovah's Witnesses have themselves made the claim that they are God's sole organization on earth, but Russell never ever said such things.  The content of Pastor-Russell.com is irrelevant to this issue, as is the past COI which was entirely resolved.  To bring up those matters here is but a red-herring.  The issue is, and only is, whether or not the statement that Russell believed himself to be "God's mouthpiece" is properly placed (i.e. whether or not the meaning you've attached to it requires its placement in the Criticisms section), and the fact which is clearly evident from many sources of his own writings that the meaning being attached and implied as presented is an inaccurate, and untruthful one conveying the wrong impression to a reader, and thus is not consistent with Wikipedia practices, or fairness. Pastorrussell (talk) 12:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Death and Legacy
The section dealing with Rutherford's election and the claim that three-quarters of the Bible Students abandoned him needs either some better references cited, or to be rewritten to remove these claims. According to Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose] (a PDF helpfully provided at the Past Russell website) there was an overwhelming vote by congregations for Rutherford's choice of directors, and that the memorial attendance figures provided on page 73 of that book seem to show that few actually left. This is a direct contradiction of what's written. The JW Proclaimers book, which admittedly is little more than a lavish PR exercise, supports this, though with less detail. I appreciate that Watchtower publications inject a huge amount of spin and always portray themselves in the best light, even if – as Raymond Franz showed – it involves bending the truth, but I don't see anything in that reference to support the contentions in the article. The same claim is made at several other articles including Bible Student movement and Jehovah's Witnesses splinter groups and similarly need addressing.

I'm also baffled by the page references for "Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose" and "Your Will Be Done on Earth". The material in the Divine Purpose book, as referred to above, is on pages 69-73, not 313. If possible a link should be provided to a scan of the relevant pages of the Penton book on the split, or a brief quotation from it that supports the claims in the article. LTSally (talk) 04:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, the evidence suggests a slightly larger exodus than the "three-quarters" often cited by researchers. It was actually closer to 80%. I will compile more references over the next couple of days in order to satisfy your concern. Rutherford's changes were initially very minor, at least to the naked eye.  Little changes here and there were not always picked up on.  But by the end of the 1920s it was evident that a huge change had occurred, and by the 1929 Reunion Convention of Bible Students those three-quarters that had been associated with the Society in previous years had fled believing God had removed his spirit from them and that they were going down the path of Biblical error and worldliness, which history has actually demonstrated. Pastorrussell (talk) 18:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Pastorrussell, I'm puzzled at why you say the "dispute" is "baseless". I'm not sure what the dispute is. As discussed above, I simply don't see anything in the references you quoted that supports the claim that three-quarters left. If anything, the Divine Purpose book you quote, and display at your website, contradicts it. Even the memorial attendance figures you cite contradict it. I'm not trying to create a dispute, but it's a big claim, and a reference should be provided that verifies it. Thanks. LTSally (talk) 02:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)