Talk:Joseph Franklin Rutherford

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jeffro77 (talk | contribs) at 08:46, 15 May 2010 (→Scope). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 08:46, 15 May 2010 by Jeffro77 (talk | contribs) (→Scope)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Biography B‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Christianity: Witnesses B‑class High‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses (assessed as Top-importance).

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Revert multiple changes

I have reverted an extensive rewrite of the article because of a multitude of problems. Wording drawn from the source material has been altered, he was referred to subsequently as "Joseph" instead of Rutherford, opinion injected on "unfair" charges laid against the directors, the patently absurd assertion that Rutherford's requirement for Bible Stidents to sell literature door to door and file weekly reports was "in line" with first century Christians; that the altered date of Christ's return was "carrying on" from Russell's teaching and the capitalising of birthdays. LTSally (talk) 19:27, 2 February 2010 (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)

Birth of the theocracy

Jehovah's Witnesses do NOT view the "birth of the theocracy" as having occurred in the 20th century, but in the 1st century per 1 Peter 2:9.
The Watchtower, January 15, 1994, page 18, "Through Jesus Christ, Jehovah established a new theocracy. ...Soon after the birth of the new theocracy, the rulers of fleshly Israel tried to force some disciples to cease obeying a command that Jesus had given them. The response? “We must obey God as ruler rather than men.” (Acts 5:29) Truly, a theocratic viewpoint!"
Currently, this article contains a section title which applies the term "birth of the theocracy" to changes at the Watch Tower Society and among Jehovah's Witnesses in the 20th century (apparently misrepresenting JW beliefs). The section title is needlessly mealymouthed, inserted without attribution by an editor with a history of anti-Witness activism. That has no place here at Misplaced Pages. --AuthorityTam (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. I changed the section heading before you created this section at Talk.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

An appreciated improvement. --AuthorityTam (talk) 13:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Another day, another personal attack ... AuthorityTam might wish to spend less time concocting his increasingly rabid comments on the supposed evil motives of other editors and more time on soberly, calmly dealing with content. Here is what some sources say about the Theocracy being introduced in 1938.

Jehovah's Witnesses in the Divine Purpose notes (page 95) regarding administrative changes in 1919: "true, it was limited, but the visible theocratic organization got started with this arrangement."
Page 127 refers to events in 1932 in which elected elders were abolished: "Of course, Jehovah's organization was not by this act fully restored to theocratic operation as had existed in the days of the apostles. This was still ahead ..."
Page 147: In 1919, along with the birth of the New World society, we saw the initial feature of theocratic order established in the congregations ..."
Page 148: "It was not until 1938, however, that the final change to strictly theocratic order took place ..."
Page 186: "When the year 1938 brought into the ranks of Jehovah's witnesses a completely theocratic arrangement ..."
In A People For His Name (page 200): "By 1938 Rutherford was appointing not only the service director, but also all the other officers of the congregations. That same year he introduced the term "Theocracy" to describe the government of the church."
"In Apocalypse Delayed (p. 304): "...Their leaders seem determined to maintain the course that, in general, they have followed since Judge Rutherford created 'the Theocracy' in the 1920s and 1930s."
In Armageddon Around the Corner (Whalen, pg 64): "Finally in 1938 the cult announced a complete change from congregational to 'theocratic' control."
The Watchtower, June 15, 1938 (pg 186, 187): "Individualism of the respective companies has been done away with, and the Society, by the will and grace of Jehovah, has taken its proper place in Jehovah’s theocratic government ... There is no room for such now in the organization of the Lord. Jehovah’s theocratic government is now in full control of the people of God ..." Question 30-32: "Relate what has taken place in 1937 and 1938 clearly in fulfillment of the completing by Solomon of that part of his building program recorded at 1 Kings 7: 1,2,7 and 9: 10, showing that the Society has taken its proper place in Jehovah’s theocratic government and that the Lord is guiding his people and his theocratic government is in operation and in complete control."
The Nations Will Know That I am Jehovah (pg 330): "They became more fully fortified in the year 1938 when the centralized theocratic rule, rather than the local congregational rule, of organization was applied to all the congregations around the globe."

All of those sources support the wording in the article that Rutherford in 1938 introduced the term "theocracy" to describe the government of the religion. I'll leave it to you to work out how they fit with your theories about my "anti-Witness activism". BlackCab (talk) 14:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

No, of all that the editor metaphorically 'throws against the wall' above, only two sources use the word "theocracy" and both are in reference to the new use of the term rather than any supposed newly birthed theocracy. Even the supplied quotes regarding the extension of "theocratic government" and "theocratic rule" make it clear that such pre-existed. By comparison, it seems rather obvious that congregations existed before the term congregational was introduced; presbyters existed before the term presbyterian was applied.
Incidentally, it seems certain that BlackCab aka LTSally has overwhelmingly surpassed AuthorityTam at "personal attack", "rabid comments", and accusations of "evil".
Regarding the editor's activism...... --AuthorityTam (talk) 16:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

All I ask is that you deal with content as content and discuss that. I see no purpose in prefacing your comments with yet another slur about me and concluding with more "evidence" of my evil campaign. You seem to be a little fixated. And your argumentation is once again false and contrary to all reliable sources. BlackCab (talk) 21:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

No.
BlackCab's supplied sources do not support his claim that theocracy was born in the 20th century.
AuthorityTam did supply a source which plainly dated the 'birth of the theocracy' in the 1st century.
Regarding the so-called "slur": It's above, and reads, "an editor with a history of anti-Witness activism".
Does BlackCab aka LTSally seriously suggest that that simple statement of background is more offensive than his own rants against JWs and alleged JWs? --AuthorityTam (talk) 21:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no complaint about the development of the doctrinal viewpoints about 'theocracy'. Only that it is not necessary and doesn't have encyclopedic tone to include the phrase in the subheading in a historical article. Regarding the doctrine of 'theocracy', they believe that the 'theocracy' started in the first century and they started using the term 'theocracy' in the 20th century. There is really no argument.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Scope

This article has accumulated information which is more-appropriately discussed elsewhere. It has become a "christmas tree" upon which to hang an ever-increasing mass about the history of the Watch Tower Society and Jehovah's Witnesses. There's already an article on that history; let's not duplicate material which is more-appropriately discussed there or somewhere other than this biography page.
For one example, Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania is a more appropriate place for the most of the material at Joseph Franklin Rutherford#Watch Tower Society.
For another, the article History of Jehovah's Witnesses#1917-1942 seems a much more logical location to place most of what is parked in sections here, at:

On August 6, 2009, this article about tripled in size. While the details may have been examined since then, it's unclear that this article is the place for all these details. --AuthorityTam (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The account of Rutherford's battle for control of the society is an integral part of the Watch Tower Society history as well as his own. The fact that the article tripled in size is of no great significance. It covered little of his life and career; now it does. You freely accuse me of having a "history of anti-Witness activism" which is pure rubbish ... I wonder how much of your desire to truncate these articles is prompted by a wish to see your religion portrayed only in a positive light. BlackCab (talk) 14:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, the general history of related organizations can be considered within a biography of a key figure. However, when articles exist for both the related organization and its history, it seems rather obvious that details which are not personal should not also (or only) be in the person's biography. In this case, organizational history seems more appropriately located at existing articles such as:

For good measure, much of this history is also recycled at:

Bible Student movement

Regarding the "pure rubbish" protestations: While BlackCab aka LTSally certainly doth protest, the facts are that others have reverted and corrected his anti-JW activism......

Unlike the editor who proclaimed himself "sickened" by the "claustrophobic, sycophantic, incestuous community" of Jehovah's Witnesses, I've not advocated or attacked any religion. My efforts to improve Misplaced Pages (and my comments in Talk) have focused on sources, standards, and common sense. Laughably, BlackCab aka LTSally has repeatedly and for many months pretended that I'm motivated by what he inventively claims is 'my religion', also claiming I've been trained "to hate those who criticize your dear leaders", claiming I've been "skewed with the good old Watchtower-tinted spectacles", and numerous other examples of unwikipedian argument. I'd be happier to focus on Misplaced Pages rather than personalities if only a certain "BlackPot" would allow that. --AuthorityTam (talk) 16:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Once again, please limit your comments to the article and stop using this talk page and others as a vehicle to attack me. BlackCab (talk) 21:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The editor is disingenuous. The thread referred only to the article until the editor chose to change that.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Ignoring AuthorityTam's efforts to start another personal spat, I think his suggestions of material that should be deleted are deeply flawed. Rutherford was solely responsible for the change of doctrines and administration within the religion under his presidency and it is instructive for the article to relate his introduction of those changes to better measure the impact of his leadership, particularly in view of the fact that most of today's administrative system and many of today's doctrines were created by him. I don't see that it's terribly wise to start hacking out sections because they are also related on other articles.

Similarly the battle for control of the society was waged between Rutherford and his four opposing directors and because most of the dispute was about Rutherford's conduct and claims, it's logical that the article cover those developments and the tactics he adopted to retain the presidency.

I don't see that AuthorityTam's attempt to link the article with a Christmas tree bill, a type of American legislation that attracts amendments affecting unrelated groups, has any validity. As stated above, the events covered in this article are very much a part of the history of the Watch Tower Society he came to lead, the Bible Student movement that eventually abandoned him and Rutherford himself.

One possible solution might be to split off an article dealing with the battle for the presidency in 1917 and link that from all three articles, although each article has a different focus on those events. But AuthorityTam goes further, suggesting that the sections on post-1918 activities, Rutherford's promotional campaign for The Finished Mystery, his Millions Now Living campaign and his authoring of a series of books and initiation of the radio broadcasts and increased emphasis on back calls all be deleted. He has yet to explain why he wants to delete that historical material that explains the development of today's JW organization and says so much about Rutherford's character and qualities. BlackCab (talk) 04:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Huh. I wouldn't have guessed the metaphor of a "christmas tree" to be difficult to grasp. Others prefer the metaphor of a coatrack. Rather than deleting information from Misplaced Pages, I've explicitly suggested adding information to articles where it is more appropriately discussed and preserving a more general, less detailed discussion of the larger organizational history in this biographical page. BlackCab is shockingly dishonest in characterizing my suggestion just paragraphs above, giving additional insight into his relative credibility. --AuthorityTam (talk) 20:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Ho hum. Today I'm "shockingly dishonest" and lack "relative credibility". Again please ... no more personal attacks. Please limit your comments to the content of the article. BlackCab (talk) 20:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

You suggested above that "most of what is parked in sections here, at Joseph Franklin Rutherford#1918 election and aftermath, Joseph Franklin Rutherford#The Finished Mystery and Joseph Franklin Rutherford#Reorganization" be taken from this article and moved to other articles. That would involve the removal of:

Detail about Rutherford outmanouvering his opponents before the 1918 election, his comments about his feelings on the pursuit of the presidency and his subsequent apology;
Rutherford's launching of his anti-government, anti-religion diatribes following publication of The Finished Mystery, his launching of the Millions Now Living talks, his arrest and his re-election;
His re-energizing of the Bible Students on his release, his authoring of books, his radio broadcasts, his choice of the religion's new name, his development of the modern-day JW concept of Armageddon, his reversal of early Russell doctrines and his introduction of the anti-flag salute doctrines.

They are all vital to an understanding of Rutherford. Are you still suggesting that such material you say is "parked" here be struck out of this article? BlackCab (talk) 21:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

As per my earlier suggestion, I'm happy to create a spinout article on the 1917 leadership crisis that can be summarised with a much shorter section in the Bible Student movement,Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania and Joseph Franklin Rutherford articles, this removing the duplication in all three articles. Hopefully that will deal with much of AuthorityTam's concerns. BlackCab (talk) 04:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree, though I'm not sure about a suitable name. "Watch Tower Society leadership crisis" sounds a little dramatic.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Categories: