Talk:Charles Taze Russell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Jehovah's Witnesses. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

• Talk:Charles Taze Russell/archive1

Contents 1 Theology, Teachings, and Influence 2 International Bible Students Association 3 POV and accuracy problems 3.1 Wikipedia policy 3.1.1 Wikipedia Process 4 Early life 4.1 Siblings 5 Armageddon 6 General wikifying 7 Archive1 created 8 Divorce ? 9 Legacy 10 Locking attempt 11 What NPOV really means 12 Introductory paragraph 12.1 Concerns about replacement of intro 13 Wikifying and abridgement 14 Pyramidology ? 15 Official/Chief website by Bible Students 16 Neutrality 17 Worldwide Church of God 18 Zionism 19 Watch Tower versus Watchtower 20 Death, Aftermath and Legacy 21 Masonry (again) 22 Russell's baptism 23 Split with Barbour 24 Citations? 25 Schism 26 NPOV Still Unresolved 27 Criticisms and Controversies extremely biased 28 A question 29 User with potential COI 30 "Official" Website 31 Burial

[edit] Theology, Teachings, and Influence

I have revised the section formerly called "Personal Beliefs" to be called "Theology, Teachings, and Influence". I have added a summary of the major teachings of Pastor Russell in respect to how they disagreed with usual Protestant teachings. My source is an external link within the existing article. I have labeled the section as a stub. It needs expansion. Robert McClenon 00:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you to Pastorrussell} for expanding the discussion of his theology. Robert McClenon 02:50, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] International Bible Students Association

The article says :

Russell founded [...] the International Bible Students Association of London in 1914, a branch of which came under the control of the modern Jehovah's Witnesses.

Now, as far as I can tell, the IBSA that was founded in London in 1914 has always been in it's entirety under the control of the JW or their precursors. At least, the legal entity always stayed with the two other Russel founded (which are the Watchtower Bible and Tract Societies of New York and Pennsylvania). The three associations seem to have exactly the same path. Flammifer 06:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Yep. Due to this, it's probably a bit misleading to say in the intro that "a branch of which" became JW. Whether JW took control or not, those corporations are all run by JW today. Any info on what happened to the US IBSA? --K. 07:22, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Apparently it never had the kind of legal status that the UK IBSA had, mostly because such a role was fulfilled by the already existing Watchtower societies. So, while some groups did use that name in the US (and, I assume, elsewhere) before 1914, I don't know how official / legal / formal that was. It seems it was just a label to allow easier identification. Flammifer 07:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV and accuracy problems

1. What is the relationship between Russell and the Jehovah's Witnesses? The lead implies that the JWs formed separately, invaded his organization, and took it over. Other sources indicate that his followers fragmented after his death, and the JWs were the largest group.
2. The article describes his divorce as "This arrangement eventually fell apart, causing Charles great distress, and became grist for the mill to many of his critics." What exactly happened, and why did it become a popular subject for his critics? (According to the contemporary Russell obit, ZWT, Dec 1, 1916, "they disagreed about the management of his journal and a separation followed". It then turned very nasty; in court, Mrs Russell alleged his sexual misconduct with Rose Ball, a stenographer in their house: see Brooklyn Daily Eagle, October 29, 1911 - this newspaper had a definite downer on Russell). The account according to Russell - editorial disputes, church politics and all - can be read here - Tearlach 12:00, 22 July 2005 (UTC))
3. "Great controversy surrounded the publishing of [The Finished Mystery]". What was this controversy? (Authorship dispute - JWs say he wrote it, Bible Students say he didn't Tearlach 10:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC))
4. "However, controversy erupted when interpreting parts of his Will that dealt with [the Watch Tower magazine]". What was this controversy?
5. "Those who stood by [Joseph Rutherford] believed that a new and better understanding of the Scriptures, as well as important prophetic events, was now due." What did the others believe? The sentence implies they believe the opposite, which seems unlikely to me.
6. "After several years of confusion, those who supported and respected Russell's spiritual views" - this implies that the JWs didn't respect Russell's views. I find this hard to believe.
7. "Yet, many Protestant groups have, in the years following Russell's death, formed around, or adopted one, some, or nearly all of his views in one way or another." - Which groups?
8. "Even the Anglican Church has altered their view of Hell." - Was this a result of Russell's work? If so, where's the proof?
9. Source citation required for the whole of the biography. If not, the required procedure is to remove it to the Talk page for analysis.Tearlach 10:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

--Carnildo 07:01, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Your post is proof that this article will continue to be torn apart by those who have no care for the facts. EVERY point you just raised appeared in earlier versions of the article, but were cut out because THEY were considered to violate neutrality. It seems nobody is pleased. PastorRussell 07:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

PastorRussell, you're missing the point. It doesn't matter if they got taken out before; they can go back in. The wording might need work to make it NPOV, but they are important issues. If these issues were answered before, point us to which previous revisions contained them so they can be incorporated into the article. --K. 07:32, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

PastorRussell, a more proper procedure for taking out the NPOV tag would be : You write a little blurb on this page saying "I think the NPOV problems have been resolved by now, are there still any issues left ?", then wait for answers. If after a couple of days, no issues are raised, you can remove the tag. If issues are raised, you (or anybody else) can try to solve them, then repeat the process.

There's no problem with leaving the NPOV tag there in the meanwhile, as long as there's the hope that everyone can work together on the article and solve those issues. That's pretty much standard wikipedia procedure, and there's a wide consensus about it. By violating established wikipedia policy, you'll only attract animosity from other wikipedians, no matter what they oringally think of the Bible Students or Pastor Russell, and I don't see how that can be of any help at all. You seem to be willing to help create a good article, which is good, but you haven't shown many signs of accepting wikipedia policy, which is probably even more important. Flammifer 08:17, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

What is happening is that individuals with little or no knowledge of the actual facts are attempting to make the article more favorable to Jehovah's Witnesses. I kneeled to some of those requests, but cannot support, and will not agree to, the article being torn apart piecemeal. As far as violation of wikipedia policy is concerned, this whole mess started when a certain individual refused to discuss with me what we could do to work together on certain items. The policy is that BEFORE an NPOV tag is put up that there be a cooling down period where individuals attempt a concensus. This never happened. From that point on this individual went on a crusade to make sure things are done his way. Because that is what has happened, it has made me more resolute to make sure this article maintains its integrity rather than having it ripped apart. There is a right way, and a wrong way, to handle disputes. This individual went the wrong way, and a can of worms has been opened up, and everyone and his brother has come to this article with their two-cents BECAUSE OF HIM. He not only violated the cooling down policy by riling everyone up, but also violated an ethical standard and got involved in something he had no right getting involved in. PastorRussell 16:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia policy

I just looked at the Wikipedia neutrality policy. I do not see a requirement for a cooling off period before posting an NPOV banner. Please provide me with a link or a quote. In any case, there is now consensus that there is a neutrality problem and that the article as written should have an NPOV banner. There has been one very clear violator of Wikipedia policy, and that has been Pastorrussell for violating the Three-revert rule with respect to the NPOV banner.

I will be restoring the NPOV banner shortly.

If you think that Tearlach and Robert McClenon are in violation of Wikipedia policy, then I suggest that you post a formal Request for Mediation.

If the Three-revert rule, which is official policy, is violated yet again, I will assume that Pastorrussell is not interested in mediation, and will have to submit a Request for Arbitration and request a temporary injunction against removal of the banner. Robert McClenon 17:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

How can you say that I'm not in favor of working things out? I have been the only one supporting a logical, reasonable process. You are the only one I can see that has made an honest effort to at least try. Most everyone else is pushing the matter in unfair directions. There are no problems with POV. Everything the article is as dry as can be. At worst, there are additional details that can be added. We need to work together to make the best article possible, but the only things I'm seeing are that JWs are not represented enough, or that the article is biased toward Bible Students. Both positions are incorrect because JWs are not in control of Pastor Russell's legacy, Bible Students are. Over 3/4ths of Bible Students broke away from the Society by 1931. At that point, Rutherford chose the name "Jehovah's Witnesses" to separate himself from those Bible Students. Also, at that point, Rutherford became the leader of the JWs and any doctrinal and organizational connection to Pastor Russell was severed. As far as a bias to Bible Students is concerned, I have stripped the article of just about anything that could be construed as being a bias, therefore the continuing problems are beyond me. It seems that there are individuals who want to make the article pro-JW, which would not only violate the very neutrality many are claiming, but also violate the facts of history. It appears at this point that nobody will be happy until the entire article is scrapped and re-written. I will not permit that because the article as it stands now is perfectly sound in principle, and may at most require adding some details about the criticisms Pastor Russell faced, and adding some thoughts on doctrinal positions, which in fact had been there last week, but stripped because someone said it violated neutrality. As Lincoln said "you cannot please all of the people all of the time". That seems true here. I sincerely doubt there will EVER be a point when everyone will agree. But one fact remains true: the legacy of Pastor Russell lays with the Bible Students, and not the JWs or any other split group. PastorRussell 19:18, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Am I reading this correctly? "Jehovah's Witnesses have no right to be represented in this article"? That's about as biased as you can get! --Carnildo 19:32, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

No, of course not. That would be historically inaccurate. Forgive me if I misspoke. What I meant to convey is that JWs are not represented BY Pastor Russell. In other words, once 75% of Bible Students left, Rutherford took the Society in a different direction from the pattern and style used by Pastor Russell, and left in his Last Will & Testament. Therefore, to say that Pastor Russell is only and primarilly represented by JWs would be historically inaccurate, and extremely biased. The Bible Students are the sole group representing the doctrinal, and organizational, practices of Pastor Russell. JWs have control of the administrative arm founded and used by Pastor Russell, but their doctrine, organization, and practice are the exact opposite initiated by Pastor Russell. PastorRussell 20:16, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

The continuing NPOV problem is that the article draws entirely on sympathetic accounts written through the filter of a particular religious viewpoint. It's written from a "Pastor Russell can do no wrong" stance of viewing his every action as personally and religiously justified.

Where does the biography come from? Pastorrussell: you've repeatedly been asked to cite the source(s). If you can't or won't, it's effectively unsubstantiated, and should be rewritten based on what sources others can find and substantiate. I suggest a good start the biography here (which comes from the Zion's Watchtower obituary issue, Dec 1 1916). It's still selective, but has a deal of solid information such as details of his publications and travels. Tearlach 20:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

A good deal of the information presented in the article comes from the very source you refer to. The article is not at all written from a "Pastor Russell can do no wrong" stance. Information regarding controversy was originally left out due to space issues. Those items can be added, if they are fairly stated. In fact, I was going to put in information on the issue with The Brooklyn Daily Eagle last night, but there are so many who wish to follow a pro-JW stance that I've just about given up on even trying anymore. An honest person cannot win when so many have organized to push honest and historical data out the window in favor of biased pro-JW and pro-"cult watcher" individuals. Truth always falls by the wayside when history is rewritten and revised. That is what is clearly going on here. PastorRussell 20:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

A good deal of the information presented in the article comes from the very source you refer to.

In which case, Wikipedia requires that you say exactly where, so that other readers can verify it. A trivial example: the diverticulis. Where exactly does that detail come from? You keep putting it back in, with no substantiation.

The article is not at all written from a "Pastor Russell can do no wrong" stance. Information regarding controversy was originally left out due to space issues.

If that's so, fair enough - but with any controversial figure, it's bound to look like whitewashing if such detail is omitted. To take the example of his marital problems,

"This arrangement eventually fell apart, causing Charles great distress, and became grist for the mill to many of his critics"

comes across as a very airbrushed account. Once you get into the detail, it starts looking far more like a clash of egos. The Zion's Watch Tower obit is rather more informative with its "they disagreed about the management of his journal and a separation followed". And when you get into his own Zion's Watch Tower account "Truth is stranger than fiction", you find a mess of committee politicking, editorial disputes worthy of Wikipedia, Russell's belief that his wife was getting too uppity because of contact with "woman's rights" arguments, and so on.

[edit] Wikipedia Process

Pastorrussell writes: "There are no problems with POV." Your unilateral statement that there are no POV problems is arbitrary. The majority of Wikipedians who have read the article think that it has POV problems. You state that revising the article to make it more favorable to the Jehovah's Witnesses would rewrite the truth. The best way to allow the truth to be known is to state it verifiably. Please cite your sources.

Pastorrussell writes: "I have been the only one supporting a logical, reasonable process. You are the only one I can see that has made an honest effort to at least try." I have not read all of the diffs, but it does not appear that anyone has been trying to alter the content of the article, but only to state that certain statements should be presented as POV with sources. I started to try to improve the article by adding a section on theological views. That is NPOV because what the theological views of any religion are can be determined by reading its doctrines. In a pluralistic society, every citizen has a right to their own religious views, all of which are POV, and all of which should be respected.

I asked for details, as did some other Wikipedians. I asked for a source on how widely sold his works were. I have not seen it. Some Wikipedians asked for a link to an account of his divorce, which was a matter of public record. If other Wikipedians state he and his wife divorced, I consider a reference to his 'separation' to be less than accurate. That is why I put an NPOV tag on that section.

Pastorrussell writes: "I sincerely doubt there will EVER be a point when everyone will agree. But one fact remains true: the legacy of Pastor Russell lays with the Bible Students, and not the JWs or any other split group." I agree with the first ssentence, which is why the differing points of view are presented. The second sentence is a point of view, since it is contested by the Jehovah's Witnesses. The readers of Wikipedia can be best served by having sourced facts presented about the details of the schism, which have been requested.

Wikipedia has processes, policies, and guidelines. So far, you are having difficulty in learning to comply with them. If you think that other Wikipedians are being unreasonable, then we can resort to one of Wikipedia's processes, which is mediation. If you do not want mediation, please provide us with facts and sources. I provided the facts that I could from an external link. If you have the other facts and sources, please provide them. Robert McClenon 21:51, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate the efforts everyone is making to have the article be suitable to everyone. Some of the changes to the article were not entirely accurate and required tweaking, deleting, or adding to, as follows: As has been pointed out several times, and by several users, this is an article about Pastor Russell, not Bible Students or JWs. Therefore, any links or statements that show favor to either of these groups do not belong in this article. I removed one of the two links from the 'exjws' website because it was regarding JWs, not Pastor Russell. The first one is biographical, but the one removed is inappropriate for this article. As far as removing the phrase "Official CT Russell website" - that is a big, HUGE slap in the face to the thousands of Bible Students worldwide. There is no "estate", as Pastor Russell had no heirs. There are numerous homepages made by Bible Students worldwide, but only the Pastor-Russell.com website representative of the whole by consensus. The statement made about JWs changing the date for Armageddon, etc... does not apply to Pastor Russell, but solely to JWs. The Bible Students still see 1914/1915 as the beginning of the process of the breaking down of the nations in an Armageddon process. If everyone desires a statement about Armageddon (which I see as appropriate), it should be in the Theology section, and stated in a way which accurately represents the views of CHARLES RUSSELL, not the movement which followed after his death. Thank you. PastorRussell 18:06, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I can't see how removing "Official CT Russell website" is a "HUGE slap in the face" to Bible Students. An "official" website of a deceased person must be controlled by the estate of that person, otherwise how is it official? There are thousands of websites about Elvis, but only one official one (http://www.elvis.com), because it is controlled by his estate. When I checked your website, I couldn't find anything stating that it is under the control of his estate, so I removed that claim from Wikipedia, as it is POV and not verified. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 02:16, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Please take a step back and look at what you are saying. Pastor Russell HAS no estate. He had no heirs. Bible Students do not believe in organized christianity such as do JWs. They have an "official" site. Ours is not under a central organization. Pastor-Russell.com is the official CT Russell website, and to deny that fact is to slap us in the face. Efforts have been made to work together here, and they have so far been successful. Please join in, and consider the reality of the situation. Removing that phrase from the link, whilst leaving links to anti-jw and anti-Russell sites is the height of hypocrisy and a destruction of the neutrality of the article. It's too bad that I feel anything I say will be taken out of context and seen as hostile. PastorRussell 02:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

You missed the point of what I was saying. I mean no disrespect to you or any Bible Student. I'm simply stating that only a site that is controlled by the estate of a deceased person can accurately be termed "official". For your POV, you carry on his legacy, but from a NPOV point of view, only an estate controlled site can be termed "official" in a Wikipedia article. Flammifer's comment below explains it nicely. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 07:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't think wikipedia should qualify certain cites as being "official" without grounds. Apart from being under control of the estate, I don't see what criterion can be used to decide if a website is official or not - the "official" tag shouldn't be give to any site only based on their word. Do the Jesus Christ or Martin Luther articles point to "official" sites ? (Also, something being a slap in the face to anybody has never carried much weight in shaping wikipedia policy) Flammifer 06:35, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

This issue doesn't seem to have been raised before ... I posted a little comment about it over here. Flammifer 07:59, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I removed one of the two links from the 'exjws' website because it was regarding JWs, not Pastor Russell

It comes from an online book, and the standard Wikipedia citation format, both for books and electronic equivalents, is to cite both the chapter and overall title. On balance, the second link is unnecessary as the top menu is easily found, but the title is required. Tearlach

Okay, now I'm upset ... Why are you adding that??? It has absolutely, positively nothing to do with Pastor Russell!!! Why don't you just add a link to Henry Ford while you're at it because he criticised Rutherford, who knew Pastor Russell. Your reference makes positively no sense whatsoever. It is biased and not at all neutral. This is insanity. You guys are picking everything apart, and while claiming neutrality keep breaking it yourself, and fight against anyone who shows it up. I'm sure if you tried hard enough you could justify adding references on Maybelline lip gloss. PastorRussell 18:52, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

There should be nothing to get upset about. Read those links about book citation format. You cite a chapter; you have to cite the book too. Tearlach 19:01, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I just read further, and the book most certainly is relevant to Russell. Apart from the Chapter II general biography, Chapter IV is largely about financial scandals surrounding him, and the start of Chapter VI covers the final years of his life when he was losing control of the organisation. Tearlach 14:28, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Early life

Some good progress has been made on the introduction, despite the revert war. I think now we should focus on the Early life section.

My feeling is that it has a lot of extraneous detail. Is Russell's mother's maiden name important? Is it relevant to list the name and dates of birth and death of each of his siblings? --K. 05:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

In general, for a famous individual with non-famous relatives, the consensus on VfD is to merge articles on those relatives to the article on the famous person. Based on that, I'd say that including basic biographical information on his immediate family is a good idea. --Carnildo 06:23, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Siblings

Can anyone fill in the gaps for Russell's siblings?

1. Frank (1850 - 4 September 1855), died from whooping cough (at what age? 4? 5?)
2. Charles Taze II (16 February 1852 - 31 October 1916) (I'm assuming he was second)
3. Margaret/"Mae" (? - late 1940s), married name Margaret Land (we need a source for her death and I'm assuming she was third)
4. Lucinda (1857 - 1858)
5. Joseph Jr. (1859 - 1860)

--K. 02:35, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I've searched and searched and I can't find any sources that give the above dates for his siblings. The only thing I could find was this image from an "interesting" site about Russell being a Satanist and part of the Illuminati. --K. 03:04, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

That site's a hoot ! :) It's tempting to put it in the references ^^ Satanists, Clinton and Tesla ... Flammifer 05:41, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Yep! I cackled the whole way through. :) --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 06:37, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Armageddon

I added a bit on his views on the end of times. Sources : [1], [2] and [3]

Those contain citations from the watchtower from that time, if those are contested they can be looked up. Flammifer 08:46, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Good idea: the article as it stands doesn't convey how colossally they screwed the pooch with failed end of times predictions.

BTW, I'm not keen on that Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh page. The account of his death is very sensationalized: the contemporary accounts show he'd been getting progressively iller for at least a day, and the "wrap me in a Roman toga" makes him sound a nutter. In context, it makes sense: his blankets kept slipping off, and he asked a colleague to pin them at his shoulders like a Roman toga to stop this. Tearlach 12:17, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Please, I ask you nicely, when sourcing Pastor Russell's views on anything, please use a Bible Student or neutral party as a source. JWs are not a neutral party, nor are Catholics, etc... In fact, if you want to know something, ask me. I'm a Bible Student, and my family goes back to the days of Pastor Russell. I think I know what he believed better than a Catholic website. I'm sure your intentions were good, however. PastorRussell 18:09, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

The best is probably to refer to his writings at the time, which can be found all over the net, I've seen several sites offering searcheable versions of the Watchtower.

As for the links above, they are imperfect sources, but do you question their quotes from the warchtower ? I didn't take them too much to the word.

I agree that the section I added may need work, but I have put it back in in the meantime. The bit on the second coming since 1874 is now mentioned elsewhere, but him seeing 1914 as the Armageddon should probably be mentioned. I think those things fit better in the chronological order than in the theology section, but that's debateable.

Also, in order to stick to the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy, we can't just take your word on what he believed. However, you can probably find relevant quotes, especially on his vision of the outbreak of WWI.

(also, if you don't mind, I've moved your comments a little bit so the order of the conversation doesn't seem too akward) Flammifer 18:25, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

The only reason I removed the part about 1874 and the Second Advent was because it is mentioned in the Theology section and didn't want it to seem redundant. Having it there is fine, and I have no quarrel with it. However, the line about JWs and 1914 is inappropriate. This is an article about Pastor Russell, not JW doctrine. Your line belongs on the JW page, and how they changed their doctrinal and prophetical viewpoints. If you disagree, please think about it seriously, and realize what that line is saying. Bible Students changed nothing. JWS are a movement following his death, and prior to that statement, there is nothing about JW doctrine. If you wish to include it, it would, at best, belong in the paragraph about Rutherford in the Death and Aftermath section. PastorRussell 18:30, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I pretty much agree, it would probably fit better in another section, either death and aftermath, or maybe a section dedicated to the survival of his theology - how much of it can still be found in current JW doctrines, in other splinter groups, in more mainstream groups, etc. Flammifer 18:40, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

(hehe, edit conflict, I had written this : )

Hmm, you removed :

The Jehovah's Witnesses later changed their doctrine, holding 1914 as the date of the Second Coming.

I believe that fact is relevant, though it would probably need to be stated in a different way. A lot of the original fundamental doctrine of the JWs was Pastor Russell's theology, even though it seems they changed quite a bit (especially the dates) afterwards. A bit of info on that lineage would be useful in the article somewhere, especially considering that the JWs have been criticized for changing the dates (by, say, the Layman's Home Missionary Movement, who split off because of that). Flammifer 18:36, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. The fact is not relevant to an article on Pastor Russell, it is only relevant to the JWs. If you are going to add something about JW doctrinal changes, then it would require balance by adding Bible Student doctrinal views, neither of which belong here, but only on their own respective pages. You are right that the item is significant, but not in this artile. As far as changing dates and the movement is concerned, you are thinking of the Pastoral Bible Institute, not the Layman's. PastorRussell 18:42, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

A section on "survival Pastor Russel's theology in present-day movements" (or something a bit shorter and less fuzzy) is probably an adequate solution. It *is* relevant that some of his teachings are still alive and widely publicized today, and it *is* relevant that the JWs claim him as a founder - highlighted what changed and what stayed the same is probably worthwhile. Flammifer 18:52, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

(Sigh. I give up.) Former reply. New reply: I think your idea is a good one, but as I'm sure you would agree, it is of the utmost importance that balance and fairness are in mind when working on such a section. At the same time, it must be remembered this article is about Pastor Russell, not the Bible Students, not the JWs, not anyone else. It is about the man. I'm glad we are finally beginning to work together rather than being in opposition. Working together involves compromise, sacrifice, and no ego. PastorRussell 18:54, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] General wikifying

Any thoughts on this? Currently, the verbosity and Edwardian flavour don't look very encyclopedic to me. The pages for other evangelists make interesting comparison: John Wesley in particular suggests possible sub-headings - such as Literary works - that could be useful in organising it into smaller paragraphs. Tearlach 12:32, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Archive1 created

I've archived discussions that have (mostly) reached closure or are just preamble to the current dispute to Talk:Charles Taze Russell/archive1. The first entry there summarises the archive. Best check to see if I've snipped anything important that I shouldn't.

New readers note that this article is in a NPOV dispute, and a dispute resolution process, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pastorrussell, is ongoing. Tearlach 17:44, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Divorce ?

In a letter to the editor, it's said :

Next, you commented: "He [Rutherford] became the legal counsel of the Jehovah’s Witnesses society and Charles Taze Russell’s attorney in his divorce proceedings and his ‘miracle wheat’ scandal". There are a few problems with this oft repeated account of matters. Let us see what the data show.

The records show that in June 1903 Charles’ wife, Marie Frances Russell, filed in the Court of Common Pleas at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania a suit for legal separation-- not divorce. Furthermore, on March 4, 1908 the decree of the court was that the two were legally separated--not divorced.

Anybody know about the early century legalese involved ? Is there truly a distinction between divorced and "legally seperated" ? o.O

Also, the bit on the sexual misconduct with the dactilographer could probably take some closer inquiry. The divorce (or whatever it was) wasn't filed for adultery, though it seems fairly likely that there was some.

A dactilographer is a secretary who types. A stenographer is a secretary who takes short-hand. Robert McClenon 22:29, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

(That letter to the editor has some interesting stuff, the miracle wheat thing probably isn't worth reporting though) Flammifer 19:04, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

It seems to be a disputed point. The Barbara G Harrison account (hostile but well-referenced enough to check) has a detailed timeline and argues that it was actually a divorce, but that JWs portrayed it as a separation or "partial divorce" for the lesser stigma. Tearlach 19:16, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Legacy

I've seperated "Theology, Teachings, and Influence " into "Theology and Teachings" and "Legacy", and reworked the "Legacy" part.

I mainly took out two statements that may have there place there but could take some work :

The effect of Pastor Russell's studies and ministry can be seen in the change of doctrine throughout Protestantism since the early 20th century.

and

Even the Anglican Church has altered their view of Hell.

The first one doesn't look very NPOV to me, and the second insinuates something that would need proving (that this change was due to Pastor Russell). Was he the first one to have such a view ?

So something could still be added on the influence outside of the direct successors of the movement he founded (if there was such an influence), and eventually on the partial abandonment of his teachings by the JW. Flammifer 21:25, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Locking attempt

For general information, now noted in the RfC, check out Pastorrussell's recent attempt to have the article permanently locked in his preferred version: [4]

The admin who commented on the request is now endorsing the RfC. See Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Charles Taze Russell. Tearlach 23:05, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I would like to withdraw it. That was placed during the heat of battle, so to speak. Everyone was going willy nilly trying to put in anything they wanted or could think of, but none of it dealing with Pastor Russell. Most of it dealt with JWs, and that is unfair. Not because I am a Bible Student writing this, but simply because it was wrong. A conscientious JW would do the same as I, since they would probably have access to 75% of the sources I have. PastorRussell 01:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What NPOV really means

Pastorrussell, some of your posts give evidence that you aren't fully aware of the NPOV policy's implications. I hope this will help in making clear Wikipedia policy.

NPOV doesn't mean no POV is allowed. It means that POVs must be expressed with the qualification that it is the POV of a particular group, and not stated as fact.

For example, it is a fact that Russell started 3 corporations that are now controlled by JW. What Russell intended to happen to those corporations cannot be determined, so the article should include that JWs claim that they come from Russell, and that the Bible Students claim that they come from Russell. That both groups claim to be from Russell is a fact, and maintains neutrality. However, to state which one did come from Russell is POV.

In addition, if a statement about the POV of a side is included, this does not require a counter-statement or claim from the other side. There is no required "balancing" of claims from each side. Countless POV wars happen on Wikipedia because a minority wants equal space in an article. But that isn't what Wikipedia is about. Generally, space is devoted according to the size of the group represented.

This may seem unfair, but it is necessary. An encyclopedia doesn't strive to present all POVs. It strives to inform what is generally accepted, and any significant alternates. I urge you to read Wikipedia:NPOV in full, as the main reason for the original NPOV dispute and the subsequent RfC result from your apparent misconceptions about what NPOV means. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 07:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, to be fair the JW don't seem to put *too* heavy an emphasis on their lineage from Russell - see this (already linked to by tearlach earlier) :

In all my years as a Witness-including the three years I spent at Watchtower headquarters-no one ever mentioned the Russells, least of all the old-timers, who, when past presidents of the Watchtower Society were mentioned, discoursed on the fact that they didn't follow "personalities" or "any man," but only God's organization.

... whereas the Bible Students do still (apparently) consider Russell holds a major place.

(In the recommended readings category, I'd also add Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles. Flammifer 12:20, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Generally, Russell isn't mentioned at all, but in the official JW history book Proclaimers, a great deal of information is given about him and what they claim was the start of the JW organisation. They quite definitely say he was the beginning of the JWs. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 00:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Introductory paragraph

I've left this article for a while, but now looking at it fresh, the first paragraph is a bit misleading. It seems to indicate that ZWTTS had two breakaway groups: first the BS in 1917 and then the JW in 1931. In addition, the Watchtower was founded before the ZWTTS, so it should probably be mentioned first.

Can I suggest this as an intro:

Charles Taze Russell, (February 16, 1852 - October 31, 1916), also known as Pastor Russell, was an American Protestant evangelist. In 1879 he founded the religious journal "Zion's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence", still published today as The Watchtower. In 1881 he founded one of the first Bible Societies in America, Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society. A schism in 1917 led to the modern sects known as the Bible Students and Jehovah's Witnesses.

Any comments? --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 04:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I think putting the magazine first detracts from the larger acts and puts the magazine in an unfairly prominent light. The magazine is currently most closely tied to JWs and as a result the first thing a person would be reading would give them the idea that Pastor Russell is connected or tied to the JWs which is a false impression. That would be a dishonest thing to do. But I see your point of putting things in date order. It makes sense to me. Your rewording of the schism also looks just fine to me as you put it. As a matter of historical note, the WTS had numerous break-away groups at varying times. Those who formed the Stand-Fasters broke away in 1914. Those who formed the modern Bible Students broke away in 1917, and so on, &c. In fact, once Rutherford died, there were split groups rejecting any changes after his death, too. Here is my suggested intro. We're both close on this, so it shouldn't take more than a few hours to get this one pounded out:

Charles Taze Russell, (February 16, 1852 - October 31, 1916), known as Pastor Russell, was an American Protestant evangelist from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He is known for founding the religious journal "Zion's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence" in 1879, and one of the first Bible Societies in America, Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society, in 1881. A schism in 1917 led to the modern sects known as the Bible Students and Jehovah's Witnesses.

PastorRussell 15:44, 03 August 2005 (UTC)

Looks pretty good to me. I'd just take out the "He is known for...", and replace with "He founded". See Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 01:01, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

That substitution looks fine. It's less cumbersome. If there is no objection from others, I think you should go ahead and post it. PastorRussell 05:24, 04 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Concerns about replacement of intro

I'm not so sure about the new intro. I think the previous one was more specific, and frankly more accurate. Does anyone outside of the Bible Student use the term Bible Student Movement, or has it been invented at Wikipedia? If it's not a term in use, it shouldn't really be used here either. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 04:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you 100%. The original intro we both worked on was perfectly fine, more accurate, and gracefully worded. The new one is very course. I'd change it back but am sick and tired of the people who cause me trouble for doing it. It's impossible to please everyone, which is even more frustrating considering none of these people respect the Pastor or the work he did. PastorRussell 05:40, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

The term "Bible Student Movement" has been used outside of Wikipedia, though admittedly not *that much*. Hmm, maybe "Bible Student movement" (no capital letter) would be better :-P I created the page mainly becaue it seemed easier to write about than Bible Students or Jehovah's Witnesses splinter groups - talking about the movement as a whole makes more sense.

I reverted the intro, but I still think that refering to the Bible Student movement in general may be better. At least, presenting things as a schism that led to the JWs and the Bible Students is overly simplistic. Some "Bible Students" left before his death, and there are more than two groups concerned. Flammifer 06:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I think the original intro can be improved, and it's probably a good idea to rename the other page to Bible Student movement. I think though that the movement more or less revolves around the WT companies that Russell founded. Groups split off from them when they disagreed or thought the leaders were going in the wrong direction. Using "movement" IMHO gives a misleading impression. I think using "schism" and "splinter" is more accurate, as long as the other splits are documented and at least alluded to in the intro. Thoughts? --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 06:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

This discussion would probably better fit on that page, but I think it's more than splinter groups. Most (all ?) groups split before the JWs took that name, some even before Russell died. Maybe there could be a better name, but I think that the name shouldn't reference the JWs. Flammifer 06:47, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, I renamed the "Bible Student Movement" to "Bible Student movement", which makes more sense. For the record, the version of the intro before I reverted was :

Charles Taze Russell, (February 16, 1852 - October 31, 1916), known as Pastor Russell, was an American Protestant evangelist from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania who founded what is known as the Bible Student Movement. The most prominent association in the modern era are the Jehovah's Witnesses. Groups such as the Bible Students assert a closer association to his teachings.

I just noticed that in reverting I had left in a bit about the Bible Student movement. left it there, but feel free to rework.

Also, the "Bible Students" page was moved to "Associated Bible Students" since it mainly concerned those. I'm not sure about that move, but it seemed the best way to represent the fact that there are other groups like the "Free Bible Students" who were not covered. Admittedly, nowdays "Bible Students" alone seems to refer only to the "Associated Bible Students". As for the Bible Student movement page, I chose the name not based on current use but to avoid ambiguity (For something similar, China doesn't point to the People's Republic of China even though it's used in that sense in 99.9% of cases) Flammifer 06:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Flammifer. I think the best thing is the make the intro two paragraphs so a bit more info can go in. It's a complicated subject so more info will make it clear. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 07:07, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

(I moved a bit of the discussion to Talk:Associated Bible Students, it fits better over there Flammifer 03:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC) )

[edit] Wikifying and abridgement

A repost of a comment by DavidH 06:24, August 1, 2005 (UTC) in [Wikipedia talk: Requests for comment/Pastorrussell]:

Finally, I think the article is just too long. It should be a biographical sketch, not the definitive discussion of every relevant idea.

I agree. Certainly the paragraph lengths and overall article length aren't looking good by the standards advised in Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Layout.

Is there material than can be split off? For instance, posthumous developments could go to the Bible Students article.

Is there material that could be just trimmed without losing salient points? For instance, does the article need every twist and turn in the falling-out with Barbour? Tearlach 12:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I've been digging into the history of Russell, the JWs and associated groups. I've started a page on Jehovah's Witnesses splinter groups (I'm not entirely satisfied with that name), and I definitely think a lot of info on the posthumous developments could be moved over there. Note however that some left the movement Russell founded before his death, and some left after the JWs changed their name. Flammifer 15:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with the premise that this article should be shortened some. In fact, I attempted to do this rather early on in this process and Tom, Dick and Harry objected. It is difficult to find just what should be removed that satisfies, or at least doesn't create objection, from all. There are salient points which can be abridged in effective ways. I will make an attempt to do this later tonite (being a Bible Student and best knowing what is salient) and see what happens. The unfortunate thing is that as one thing is removed, even if there is no objection, there are others who believe something else should be added. There are innumerable topics that can appear in this article. Perhaps it shall never be "done". PastorRussell 00:07, 07 August 2005 (UTC)

As I said before, I think the John Wesley is a good model. It's a trifle long, but broken up into short paragraphs and sections for clarity. There is most certainly worthwhile material that could go in, such as reference to the Photo Drama of Creation.

I think the worst offending section currently is "The Beginnings of his Ministry". He formed a partnership with Barbour; it split up over their different interpretations of the non-appearance of the Rapture. It doesn't need some 650 words to explain this. There's a pretty good version of this section on 28th February 2005. Tearlach 02:33, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Down by 250 words: that's a start. I've split it into sections. Tearlach 12:54, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Ouch ... "a start"?? I spent three hours working on abridgment. Many of the sections have very tiny paragraphs now. It's practically down to bare bones. It could not be cut any further without removing salient points. The points remaining aren't merely useless information, but required to indicate necessary biographical information. It would take great skill to further abridge the remaining details, but I'll certainly give it a try. "You can't please all the people all of the time". By the way, those 250 words weren't the total cuts. It also included adding the section on the Great Pyramid and other info, so the cuts were larger than that. PastorRussell 19:05, 07 August 2005 (UTC)

Ouch ... "a start"?? Yep. I was thinking about 50%. You can help if you want. One area is just excessive phraseology. Tearlach 00:21, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

No, more like 80% - 90%. "Help if I want" is a rather inappropriate phrase. Bible Students are the ones with the expertise to work on this article, so you are the one that can "help if you want". The article is already bare bones. I've done more work to this article than all of you other guys combined. Not a single thanks, or act of appreciation or willingness to bend on anything anywhere, just constant criticism and rudeness and pushing. And you wonder why I'm getting frustrated with you all. PastorRussell 05:23, 08 August 2005 (UTC)

Posthumous history moved to Bible Students. Tearlach 14:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

PastorRussell: please stop padding the text out with fiddling phraseology with edits like this. It produces minimally greater accuracy, at the expense of verbiage that detracts from the overall readability. Tearlach 19:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pyramidology ?

Something on pyramidology should probably be added too. Here's a link with a bit of info.

In fact it's still current: check out Chart of the Ages. Tearlach 03:26, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

And I've found a detailed analysis of the attributions behind Russell's acquaintance with it: here. It comes from an article by David J. Penton and M. James Penton at watchtower.observer.org, cached here. It ought, then, also to be mentioned in the Beginnings section: George Storrs was heavily into it. Tearlach 12:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Those analyses are quite off the mark as to the how and why Pastor Russell and Bible Students use and analyze the Great Pyramid. My reference to it in the Teachings section is not an off-topic comment, but part of the body of theological differences from other Protestants. Pyramidology has taken on a somewhat occultic frame of reference in the days since the late 1960s. Our use of it, however, has nothing to do with the occult, and everything to do with the Bible. Additionally, the use of a pyramid shape in the Chart of the Ages has no reference to the Great Pyramid at all. Our belief (and Pastor Russell's) is that the Bible both uses and mentions pyramid shapes numerous times. The shape is used in the Chart to convey an idea very similar to the recently famous "Food Pyramid" - that those at the bottom represent the larger groups, and those things at the top represent the smaller. The Chart is a symbolic outline of the Bible and God's plan for humanity. Our use of the Great Pyramid is on a different plane altogether. (no pun intended) We believe that the history of mankind is outlined in the Pyramid, and that it was built as a monument by Shem, one of Noah's sons, by inspiration/direction of God. The ancient Egyptian culture formed AROUND the pyramid and its mystical symbology. No other pyramid on earth has ascending passageways, only the Great Pyramid does, and they were only discovered in the 19th century. We believe that one should not study the Pyramid at the expense of the Bible. Only the direct word of God should be the devotion of believers in the salvation of Jesus Christ. However, we are convinced, based on prophetic statements in scripture, and the evident harmony of the Pyramid, that it was built under God's direction and meant to be understood only in our day. This has also been part of Jewish tradition, especially in the first century. The Essenes are known to have studied the purpose of the Great Pyramid under the belief it was built by God for some 'mystical' purpose. To include the names of all individuals Pastor Russell referred to in studying the Great Pyramid would create a problem since nearly all of the truths espoused by the Pastor were compiled from others who brought them forth. In other words, view A came from ministers x,y,z; view B came from ministers q,r.s, etc... etc... There is nothing unique or different with Smyth and the Edgar brothers (whose works Bible Students publish and distribute) PastorRussell 18:16, 08 August 2005 (UTC)

If you examine Russell's writings you'll find quite clear references to the Great Pyramid, and not only to a pyramid shape. For example, measurements of the Great Pyramid were used to calculate Christ's return. See http://quotes.watchtower.ca/pyramid.htm for numerous quotes. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 00:05, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Quite. The discussions with George Storrs and George Stetson at the preamble of Russell's ministry were not just about the Bible, but also very specific conversations about pyramid measurements. User:Tearlach 00:23, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think your advice should apply more to you than myself. I've been reading Pastor Russell's writings since I could first read. I have a pretty good grasp on what he taught and the history, definitely more than either of you, if for no other reason than that I've read everything he ever wrote. You missed the point of my previous comments, and I'd ask you to read them again more carefully. The use of the pyramid shape in the Chart of the Ages has no connection to the Great Pyramid, but rather, to the concept that the Bible uses and mentions pyramid shapes, and also that the pyramid shape is able to show the size of the church (really tiny) comparred to the entirety of all humanity (really large). The shape on the Chart of the Ages is not the Great Pyramid. It is a symbol using a pyramid shape. Now, yes, Pastor Russell (and Bible Students to this day, myself included) talked about and studied the Great Pyramid. We have examined every inch and shape of the structure, and come to some significant conclusions about things, including calculations of dates, etc... But it must be understood that this took the form of more a 'hobby' than a center of focus. Russell learned more about 'pyramidology' from Barbour than Stetson and Storrs combined. He began to study the matter, and investigated it in study with the group in Pittsburgh. This is where the views were 'pounded out' as it were, and formulated into a logical and cohesive perspective. The sum total of Russell's writings on the Pyramid are tiny comparred to the entire library. Pyramids are not the end all and be all of Pastor Russell's writings, and it is a mistake to assume that it is. Important point: Pastor Russell never used the Great Pyramid to calculate Christ's return, merely to corraborate a conclusion already made by use of the Bible. This statement applies to every date. (Bible first, pyramid backs up) PastorRussell 05:14, 08 August 2005 (UTC)

Pyramids are not the end all and be all of Pastor Russell's writings, and it is a mistake to assume that it is.

No-one here has assumed that.

The shape on the Chart of the Ages is not the Great Pyramid..

Or that. Nevertheless, the chronological frame on the Chart of the Ages is the same as that shown in other Bible Students literature as correlating with the Great Pyramid A Bible in Stone. As for it being just a 'hobby', it's not as if he was interested in, say, stamp collecting, and put a chapter about it in one of his books. As Thy Kingdom Come, Ch. X shows, it was integral - obviously secondarily to the Bible - to his religious belief system. Tearlach 17:10, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I must be failing somewhere in conveying some important and salient concepts to you, although trying quite hard, so I apologize in that. The purpose of referencing *anything* with the Great Pyramid, at any juncture, is merely to show that it has a purpose, and to illustrate that it was built by God, in our (and Pastor Russell's) belief. It is not secondary to the Bible, it does not replace the Bible, its study does not bring salvation, and, in fact, anyone who spends too much time studying it is advised to not spend so much time on it, although it is thier choice and freedom to do so. Indeed, we (and Pastor Russell) respect its symbology and believe God's intention was to show the various planes of existence He intended, and planned, in dealing with humankind, and other specific aspects of His plan, to show He knows the end from the beginning. Most Bible Students don't even mention it on a daily basis. In a years time it may come up, even in study of the volumes, three or four times in a year. My discussion of this topic here is the first time I've probably even mentioned it this year, despite the fact I have a good knowledge of it. To ever attempt to show Pastor Russell (or Bible Students) spent an inordinate amount of time on it, or put it in such an esteemed place that it took up an entire chapter of volume three is off base. The purpose of the volumes is to touch on each and every topic/point of truth in a logical and appropriate order, the Great Pyramid and its message being merely one. It is in the third volume, not the first or second. If you ever pick up a volume and see what topics are touched on in previous chapters will note that entire chapters are devoted to one topic. Picking out the Pyramid, and forcing the point that it has a pre-eminent position is showing an ignorance of the purpose of the volumes, and Pastor Russell's (and Bible Students) perspective on it. It is one point in a myriad. It is interesting and significant. It warrants study as one point of truth. Yet, it holds no pre-eminent position in Pastor Russells (or Bible Students) field of study. One might use the word "integral" to refer to a part of a whole, or to indicate it is more important than anything else. In this case, "integral" would of necessity refer to the former when discussing this topic, not the latter. Yet, the Tabernacle is also integral, and so is the Jubilee system of ancient Israel, and the gentile dominion of the world's governments (gentile times). It all makes up part of a whole, yet none of them are pre-eminent, and have no place as most important. It is necessary to mention it as a part of Pastor Russell's (or Bible Students) theological perspectives, but not a place of highest esteem. Surely that is what you meant, and surely that is what you understand to be the case. It is essential to make this point clear as many have misunderstood the use of studying the Great Pyramid, and given it undue focus. PastorRussell 19:49, 08 August 2005 (UTC)

Please, hold your water! Nobody has said it's central, just that it ought to be mentioned, because it is mentioned in Russell's works and on Bible Students web sites. Tearlach 23:18, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Official/Chief website by Bible Students

To repeat the comment made on the Bible Students talk page: We follow a congregational style of order, and therefore have no central "headquarters." This means that each congregation (Ecclesia) is independent of another. If your definition of 'official' means that something is run by an estate or central headquarters then we have two problems: (1) your definition is too narrow, and (2) nobody outside of our congregations has an 'official' anything. It's important to understand that WE operate differently and function differently. Certain entries in Wikipedia entries are broad and cover many areas, groups, and functions, and shouldn't be made to narrowly follow only one set order of things down to the very word else other groups with different modes of functioning are ignored and left out. Let me give you an example of the idea: when the Evangelical Alliance was formed in 1845 the Quakers and a few other groups objected to certain clauses of their charter because it would leave them out, in essence ignoring their existence. So, certain words were changed to acknowledge the problem and become more inclusive. As another example, the process of ordination merely means that one has been chosen by any group of Christian individuals that agree to make one an elder, pastor, etc... It has nothing to do with being associated with an accredited organized religion. If one were to assume that, then nobody can ever be considered chosen ("ordained") for anything. That is, no minister outside of organized Christianity would have any validity. Under that assumption no Wikipedia entry of a minister would be 'proper' because 'he isn't properly ordained.' The Pastor-Russell.com website is the official website by general agreement of Bible Students. Why do you think we have that URL? You must be more inclusive of how we operate, else you become part of a machine that refuses to acknowledge the existence and processes of other groups. In this context of our discussion it is a more serious matter as it does in fact refuse to acknowledge us. So, I changed the word to "chief" in order to placate to the objection of a minority few. Then even THAT is objected to. Nothing, not a thing, is ever acknowledge or appreciated. I've bent over backwards and made myself sicker than I already am due to the unfair changes and inane actions made by some of you. If it does, in fact, kill me to defend the truth, then I will do so. Does that sound overly dramatic or even strange to you? Think about it for a moment, and put yourself in my shoes. You've done most of the work on something, others want it changed, so you change according to their wishes. They don't acknowledge it, or thank you, but keep running over you with change, after change, after change asking for more and never satisfied. Israel is battered the same way to give up land for peace. Despite constant efforts, they are constantly criticised and never appreciated. I'm starting to feel like Israel here. PastorRussell 12:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Why do you think we have that URL?

Because you happened to be the first to buy the domain name; just as individual persons and Ecclesia got biblestudents.com, biblestudents.net and biblestudents.org without being chief sites in any sense.

Does that sound overly dramatic or even strange to you?

I'm sorry you're ill (I don't wish that on anyone). But please don't use it to guilt-trip me. You've been told many times what Neutral Point of View means, with specific reference to NPOV#Religion. It goes into detail explaining how you can expect "critical historical treatments" of religious topics, not merely the history as seen by believers.

Furthermore, every single time you press Save Page, you buy into the agreement If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly ... do not submit it. These are the stated conditions of participation on Wikipedia. I'm not going to feel guilt if you don't accept these, yet still participate, then complain that it's stressful and upsetting to deal with others working according to those conditions. Tearlach 15:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry you considered my statement regarding illness to be a guilt-trip. It was merely an intent to point out that I will stand my ground regardless of the consequences. This is not a debate about a religion, nor religious views, but the accurate, unbiased representation of the life of a man - Charles Taze Russell. There is not, nor ever will be, an "Official Bible Student website". Should anyone ever use that term I'd be the first to disagree. However, the statement that Pastor-Russell.com is the "official PASTOR RUSSELL website" is an accurate statement. The website is documentary, and not doctrinal. It is accepted by Bible Students as the official website. Did some committee proclaim it 'official'? No. That is because we do not operate in that fashion. This is why the website appears under the name of the webmaster, not an Ecclesia, because it would create dissension for there to be an Ecclesia overseeing the Pastor Russell website as there are many different Bible Students. We have an 'official' archivist, not because a committee apointed him thus, but because he is accepted as the official archivist. This matter goes beyond what you may consider to be "official" into what WE consider to be "official" as we are the direct descendants of Pastor Russell's doctrinal and ministerial heritage. Those points must be taken into consideration when attemtping to bring logic to this discussion. PastorRussell 18:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Prove it's official, in whatever sense you claim it to be. Anything on Wikipedia must be verifiable. Tearlach 12:07, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

What neutrality issues remain? The article has been significantly changed from what it was when the NPOV was added. The wiki tag was removed, it is time for the NPOV tag to be removed, as well. PastorRussell 13:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

What neutrality issues remain?

In my view, it's still a hagiography, with continuing source bias: the majority of citation is drawn by a sympathetic interpreter from contemporary sources already sympathetic to Russell.

What did contemporary critics, such as the Brooklyn Daiyl Eagle, say about him? How do modern critics, whether religious or secular, interpret the history: for instance, Barbara M. Harrison (see here and here) or M. James Penton?

Nearly all of that is glossed over as "Russell, however, had many critics, and was labled a heretic, amongst other things. As he became more prominent the number of critics increased". Tearlach 18:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Then let's begin a section called "Criticisms". I have no opposition to that, as long as it is added as part of the history, and not for the very same reasons I was bashed for in other discussions. It should be based on truth, and not someones POINT OF VIEW, of which many criticisms are. A "criticisms" section existed at one time but was opposed by someone, so it was removed. This again illustrates that nobody will EVER be pleased with this article and will perpetually be considered "unbiased" by someone. That is inherently unfair because even a printed encyclopedia has a final version. PastorRussell 18:55, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

OK - as long as it doesn't preclude criticisms in context also. Tearlach 19:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I think a few issues remain - while rereading the article, there are still some points that struck me as "hey, that's not very neutral". However, I think the NPOV can probably go in the near future. You've done some great work on this article, pastorrussell :) Flammifer 03:34, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate your recognition of my efforts to make the article more neutral. It's been very difficult to try and please the alternate and widely varying views of many. Indeed, the NPOV should go soon as there are very few spots where one could find a lack of neutrality. PastorRussell 12:19, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

It's looking better. However, I think the lack of neutrality has shifted from overt to covert. As I said above, there's a deal of remaining POV by omission of negative material. Tearlach 18:24, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

...and no reason for anonymous removal of the NPOV tag. So what about it? If this is supposed to be neutral, where's the Miracle Wheat scandal? Or the time Pastor Russell was shown up in court as lying about his claimed ability to read the Greek alphabet? Tearlach 23:40, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Wow, that was really hitting below the belt and far from any form of ethical discourse. I did not remove the NPOV tag anonymously. If I wanted to remove the tag I would do so openly. My IP address is 71.65.65.165. I am currently working on a criticisms section which will be up in two days with both sides to accusations, but have been quite ill, as I've told you before. I've had two surgeries in two months. Knock off the false accusations and act like a professional or I will have absolutely no respect for you. You owe me an apology. PastorRussell 04:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

You're in no position to play the professional conduct or ethical discourse cards: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Pastorrussell is still ongoing. The Brooklyn Daily Eagle thought he was a crook. The historical existence of such a view, and the evidence that supported it, shouldn't be swept under the carpet. Tearlach 12:24, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I've been over zealous, but never once unprofessional or unethical. Your conduct is beyond unacceptable. Your rewording and reworking of sections is appalling. The Brooklyn Daily Eagle was a scandal rag, akin to the New York Post or the London Sun. There are doctors, lawyers, school teachers, and a budding college history professor who are Bible Students. If any of us believed for a moment that Pastor Russell was a crook we'd never step within 100 feet of anything connected to him. You're putting me on the defense, and I do not like that. You are testing my patience despite the fact I have been extremely patient with you - you who have just proven in your statement that you have no interest in neutrality, but only to prove him a 'crook'. I've never swept ANYTHING under the carpet and I'm extremely offended by your conduct and wild assumptions. This article doesn't belong to you. You have no connections to Pastor Russell or Bible Students. You know very little of our history, and have presented it in very unclear ways. If you do not stop this ridiculous behavior I will immediately report you to the administrators of Wikipedia, who have already told me in email that they support my efforts to keep this article free of your form of bias, and the fact you aren't even a Bible Student and are attempting to write our history. PastorRussell 16:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

There are doctors, lawyers, school teachers, and a budding college history professor who are Bible Students.

See Appeal to authority.

you who have just proven in your statement that you have no interest in neutrality, but only to prove him a 'crook'.

Not at all. My personal view is that he was sincerely deeply religious (but with the infinite capacity for self-justification that comes from that mindset) and steeped in the prejudices of his era (some of the reasons for the editorial dispute wth his wife, that she had been swayed by ideas of "women's rights", are fairly repulsive by modern standards).

who have already told me in email that they support my efforts to keep this article free of your form of bias

Prove it. Who e-mailed you? What did they say? Tearlach 01:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Worldwide Church of God

Hmm, any evidence that the Worldwide Church of God was influenced by Russell ? It was founded in 1933 and I see no mention of the Bible Students, Pastor Russell or the JWs in it's history or that of his founder, and google apparently doesn't find anything either. Flammifer 12:08, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

In the early documents of the WCG, Armstrong praised the efforts of Pastor Russell as guiding him "out of darkness". In a short period of time, all references to Russell were removed and Armstrong was seen as the sole supporter of their doctrinal standing. Many of their views accord to the teachings of Pastor Russell, such as the non-existence of Hellfire, lack of belief in the Trinity, to name a few. PastorRussell 12:22, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, any sources / links on this ? I can't find anything with Google. I don't consider that their teachings being similar is enough. Maybe a note could be added on the artcles about the WCG or Armstrong ? Flammifer 07:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, what's the historical connection with the Layman's Home Missionary Movement? Some anonymous editor keeps adding The Bible Standard link, but that site makes no reference to Russell in its historical outline. Tearlach 15:59, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

They were founded by Paul S. L. Johnson, who was one of the Watchtower Society board members kicked out by Rutherford in 1918; " Johnson taught since Russell was the Parousia Messenger during the Lord's parousia, he must be the Epiphany Messenger, during the Lord's Epiphany" [5]. Flammifer 16:44, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Here is some history: The LHMM, as just mentioned, is a group who formed around P.S.L. Johnson. He was Pastor Russell's closest and dearest friend, helping him word and formulate many of his later views. In 1917/1918 his activities in London were called into question by Rutherford, and he was called back to the United States. According to Rutherford in "Harvest Siftings", Johnson was causing a great deal of trouble at the Brooklyn "Bethel", and was expelled. In an attempt to maintain the clarity of the message preached by Pastor Russell, he established the magazine "Present Truth and Herald of Christ's Epiphany" in December, 1918. He eventually came to consider himself the "Epiphany Messenger", and the last member of the "little flock". At his death it was believed that there were no more places left in the 144,000. The successor to Johnson, Raymond Jolly, believed he was the last member of the "great multitude". As a result, all remaining members of the movement believe they will live on earth as a group called "the modern worthies", as opposed to "the ancient worthies" who are the Biblical prophets of old which Pastor Russell taught would be the administrators of God's Kingdom on Earth. The "Present Truth" magazine continues to be printed, as well as other journals, such as "The Bible Standard". The individual placing the link doesn't seem to realize the link belongs in the "Bible Students" article. Perhaps they see that now. PastorRussell 12:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zionism

Maybe something about Zionism should be put in ?

Apparently Pastor Russell was an early supporter of it, and the Jews played an important role in his vision. It also seems that this helped get the JW in trouble in Nazi Germany.

I've seen a few Bible Students groups who talk quite a bit about Israel (so yeah, this probably also concerns the Bible Student movement or Associated Bible Students articles). Flammifer

[edit] Watch Tower versus Watchtower

The article states: "Those remaining supportive, however, eventually adopted the new name Jehovah's Witnesses in 1931, and changed the name of the Society from Watch Tower to Watchtower." From looking at the bottom of watchtower.org, it seems that the New York corporation is Watchtower, while the Pennsylvania one is Watch Tower. Assuming that the article is actually talking about the New York one, that should be clarified.Tommstein 04:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Masonry (again)

I had many links reguarding PROOF of masonry influence reguarding both Russel & JW's I dont know who took my EVIDENCE and LINKS out - but I'm just going to do a much better, bigger and far BETTER job.

I might go as far as to make a list of what the church has done to those who have campaigned against it. I am a far, far bigger voice than you'd imagine - thanks for reminding me to do things right. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.169.171.236 (talk • contribs) 00:19, 5 May 2006.

This article is not about Masonry, nor about JWs, nor about conspiracy theories. Because CT Russell's official statements are that he was never a Mason, nor knew anything about them, attempting to place anything else in the article would be considered vandalism. If you want to create a page about how JWs (and CT Russell) are supposed to have links to Freemasonry, then you may create one. But you may not vandalise this article with supposition and heresay. Pastorrussell 04:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

If there's a disagreement over this, maybe you could have it here instead of in the article, and have your links here; then maybe move it back into the main article. Sticking on facts only could probably help keep the discussion cool :) Flammifer 06:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I just wrote an article on the Cross and Crown symbol, which is one of the supposed links between Pastor Russell and masonry. Flammifer 07:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I commend you on a well written, balanced and accurate article. Thank you. As far as the Freemason issue: if it is to be addressed in the main article, there is a lot of assumption to be made. The argument has to prove two things: 1) That Freemasonry is evil or of the occult, and 2) That Pastor Russell was a Freemason. The entire argument is based upon nothing but supposition. Yet, if it is to be mentioned in the main article, it should be written in a balanced and fair manner. That would entail a brief description of the claim, perhaps with a link to some information, but also a brief description of the other side of the story, with an appropriate link, such as what appears there now with direct quotes from his pen. Pastor Russell specifically stated, word-for-word, that he was not a Mason, nor familiar with their practices, and that membership in such earthly organizations is a waste of a Christian's time. He referred to Freemasonry and other such brotherhood organizations as parts of Babylon from which the faithful Christian must flee. He condemned Theosophy as being akin to demonism, and very dangerous to the true Christian. Yet, others are trying to say that they have proof of the opposite. Such individuals are essentially trying to say that he was an outright blatant liar. Regardless of the positions taken, there should be balance, and not a three-page treatise in the main article trying to prove a point -- from either side. The claims should be well written, brief, balanced, and to the point. Pastorrussell 21:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. While researching information on the Cross and Crown, I saw many webpages saying it was a masonic symbol that they got from the medieval Templar Knights. But I never saw an ounce of evidence that the Templar Knights used that symbol (and I did find plenty of other symbols they did use), so either those webpages had access to better sources than me, or they were just parotting each other without stopping to double-check. So, I won't put much faith in anything else they have to say. I don't even think the accusations of being a mason are that noteworthy.

Maybe "something" could be said about the relationship between Pastor Russell's ideas (especially the thing about pyramids) and some other stuff at the time (I wouldn't be surprised if some early Bible Students were into Spiritualism (which doesn't seem very occult, and would often go hand-in-hand with christianity), but a bit of googling didn't bring up much). But I wouldn't go out of my way to add it to the article. Flammifer 03:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Yikes, I guess you don't much about Bible Students! CTR and the Pittsburgh congregation in the 1870s were the first to introduce topical Bible study to a wider audience. (many believe they were the first, period) Many of the commonly held views in several segments of modern Protestantism were first brought forth by him, which in the context of this discussion would include the dangers of Spiritism and Spiritualism as demonism. ("What Say the Scriptures on Spiritism?") There were positively ZERO Bible Students who engaged in such practices, knowing them to be activities in violation of God's written word on the subject. On the next topic: he, and the Pittsburgh study group, believed that the books first written by Joseph Seiss and John Taylor that expanded upon the idea that the Great Pyramid was "The Bible in Stone" were truly based upon the Bible. If you read why from the appendix of "Thy Kingdom Come", with an open mind and Bible in hand, you will at the very least see why this could be true. He wasn't interested in pyramid/S/. Perhaps that is why some misunderstand the topic because in our modern day the Great Pyramid has been swiped as an occult symbol. A century ago it wasn't thought of that way by anyone. Such ideas emerged from the New Age movement and the "hippie movement" of the late 60s which adapted Eastern religions with occult beliefs and had evolved over the 20th century. Too many people who are uninformed make unfair assumptions. A study of Christian history is a good foundation to lean on. Pastorrussell 08:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I will most readily admit I don't know much about Bible Students! What I know I read from the internet.

I didn't mean to say that since Russell was interested in Pyramids, he was into occult stuff, but rather, that since in those times many things now associated with the occult (such as numerology, pyramidology ...) weren't necessarily considered so in that time, I wouldn't be surprised if he (or his followers) were associated with some things that'd seem unlikely now. A lot of things were new and exciting and "uncategorized". I can't express myself very clearly, but my general impression was that things in that time were different (The associations made between science, religion, archeology, etc. didn't map the way they do now), so I wouldn't have been surprised if Russell (or his followers) had been associated whith movements whose "descendants" are now seen on the rather occult side of things. Now, looking a bit more carefully into that Pyramid thing, I do see indeed that there's not much of a link. I also found interesting material for wikipedia, yay! I added a bit of info to the Charles Piazzi Smyth, and will add a bit to the Russell one too. (I'm not sure who associated the building of the pyramid to Melchizedek, would you know? I guess it was Smyth, but it may be Russell.) Flammifer 15:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh and by the way, thank you for the link, I was quite interested in finding a reference to the Hyksos in Russell's thought, since I'd been following the Hyksos article on Wikipedia. I like those kinds of cross-topical connections :) Flammifer 15:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Russell's baptism

It was very interesting to read in the article that Russell and his father got rebaptized in 1884. Is there any written source that mentions this action? Is there any Watch Tower article that refers to this incident?

--Vassilis78 20:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The entire Russell family (which was composed of Joseph, Charles, and Margaret Mae) decided to be re-baptized in 1874, not 1884. That detail was pointed out by Margaret in a Testimony Meeting at the Chicago Convention of 1907. You can read it by going to http://www.pastor-russell.com/legacy/crs1907.pdf. Pastorrussell 22:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

   Thanks a lot--Vassilis78 18:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)== 

[edit] Split with Barbour

I'm not sure that citing the AH Macmillan works can be reliable, since 'theocratic warfare strategy' may had been used during the writing of it. There appears to be strong motive for the use of TWS and subsequent quoting of this particular passage in an attempt to play down a very large expectation of prophetic date by many thousands of followers as taught throughout congregations in USA and rest of the world.

Incidently, the JW faith is crumbling at a gathering pace since we have entered the 21st century. The Macmillan book is officially-recommended title during 'sheperding' activities for persons weak in their faith to read, together with '2 Babylons' by Hislop which strongly denounces Catholisism.

Inoticethings 00:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

POV is not based on imagination or speculation. Actually, putting POV the way you did is POV by itself. Hence, If you have sources, they are wellcome. If not, things stay as they are.--Vassilis78 07:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations?

There are no citations for anything under the Criticisms section? Sjoden 16:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Schism

The beginning of the article states that "A widespread schism in 1918 resulted in the formation of two groups, one known as Bible Students and the other as Jehovah's Witnesses both of whom trace their history back to his ministry" but JW didn't start calling themselves Jehova's Witnesses until 1931. Popperipopp (talk) 10:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)