Tuesday, December 27, 2016

The Miracle Wheat Story - Part 3

Addendum – False or Unsubstantiated Statements Being Made Concerning Charles Taze Russell and Miracle Wheat

By Ronald R. Day, Sr.

Below are quotes from various sites and forums that contain unverified or false statements that are not necessarily dealt with above. Since I first wrote this, many of these quotes have evidently been removed; at least I cannot find many of them anymore on the internet.

Unsubstantiated Statement #1:
Russell owned 990 of the 1,000 shares of Watchtower Society stock. By this figure, 99% of every “contribution” for “Miracle Wheat” was in effect a contribution to Russell himself.
Our Comments

The above has been repeated often on many sites and in many forums. The truth is that no one has ever owned any capital stock in the Watch Tower Society, not even Russell.  The Charter of the Society, Article V, clearly stated: "The Corporation has no capital stock. Each donation of ten dollars to the funds of said corporation shall entitle the contributor, or his assigns, to one non-forfeitable, non-assessable, and non-divided bearing share, and to one vote for every such share in said corporation. Certificates of membership so acquired shall be issued by the Secretary, countersigned by the President, to the persons entitled thereto." Thus, there has never been one single share of capital stock issued by the Watch Tower Society. However, in Russell's day, each contribution of $10.00 any contributor was entitled to one voting share. These "voting shares", however, were not the same as capital stock.

In 1907, in his last Will and Testament, Brother Russell stated: "I have already donated to the WATCH TOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY all my voting shares therein, putting the same in the hands of five Trustees, as follows: Sr. E. Louise Hamilton, Sr. Almeta M. Nation Robison, Sr. J. G. Herr, Sr. C. Tomlins, Sr. Alice G. James." Thus, Russell no longer held any voting shares in the Watch Tower, but his shares were put in the trust of several sisters, evidently with the thought that they would use them wisely after his death. (After Russell died, Rutherford claimed that those shares died with Russell and were not valid). Nevertheless, in 1915 Rutherford reported in his booklet, A Great Battle in The Ecclesiastical Heavens, the following: "While there are nearly two hundred thousand shares, and it would be an easy matter to elect some other man as president, there never has been cast a vote against Pastor Russell."

Nevertheless, the false statement that Russell allegedly owned 990 of 1000 shares of stock in the Watch Tower Society appears to be based on Russell’s use of a company called “United States Investment Company”. This company was formed by Russell around 1896 in Pennsylvania in which Russell evidently put up the money for and capital was recorded in his name and two others. This may be where all these rumors of Russell owning 90% or 99% of the Watch Tower Society have come from, although this company was not the Watch Tower Society. Russell and some of his associates evidently formed this company because some had objected to the Watch Tower Society’s receiving and selling real estate and other items, so this “company” had been formed for that purpose, to take care of such transactions in a business manner totally separate from the Watch Tower Society. 

Of course, this made it appear at least on paper that Russell had 90% ownership in any property and assets owned by this company, so his opponents evidently saw in this an excuse to distort the fact so as to promote all kinds of false accusations, which evidently became twisted to what is stated in the quote above. 

In truth, any profits that came from business activities of this company eventually went to the Watch Tower Society and was used in spreading the glad tidings of great joy. No one was receiving any secret profit from this company. 

The United States Investment Company, however, had nothing at all to do with the sale of “Miracle Wheat”. 

In Joseph Rutherford's Battle in the Ecclesiastical Heavens (1915), we find some information about that company. Rutherford stated that this company was never "a corporation in the strict sense of the word." Rutherford reports that the company was started with $1,000 and Russell himself furnished that $1,000. We have reproduced Rutherfor's statements concerning the United States Investment Company at:
https://reslight.boards.net/post/2083/thread

Unsubstantiated Statement #2:
While the motives of Russell can only be judged by God Himself, few would argue that such “Miracle Wheat” claims today would be more at home in the National Enquirer than in the Watchtower – a magazine claiming to be produced by God’s only true organization on the earth.
Our comments

In a sense, the above is proven false because of the relatively new “Miracle Wheat” produced by Norman Borlaug. This new "Miracle Wheat" has been written about in many Scientific and Agricultural journals. (See links presented below.) Borlaug himself received the Nobel prize for creating such wheat. Should one also think that the claims made for the Borlaug's "miracle wheat" to unworthy of credence?

Nevertheless, while the motives of the editors of the Eagle can only be judged by God Himself, the perversions, distortions and misrepresentation of facts that the Eagle presented would be more at home in tabloids that are not too concerned with the facts rather than in a newspaper that should be actually concerned with the facts. 

Russell, however, did not publish his magazine The Watch Tower as "produced by God's only true organization on earth." Russell did not believe in an organization such as the Jehovah's Witnesses.  Thus, the last part is irrelevant to the Watch Tower in Russell’s day, as there was no claim at all by Mr. Russell that the Watch Tower was “a magazine claiming to be produced by God’s only true organization on the earth.” There was no "organization" dogma attached to the Watch Tower Society of Russell's day. Indeed, Russell preached against the kind of "organization" claims made by the JW leadership.

Unsubstantiated Statement #3:
Before he got his religious career well underway, Russell promoted what he called “miracle wheat,” which he sold at sixty dollars per bushel.
Our comments

This makes it appear that Russell is the one who gave this wheat the name, "Miracle Wheat." Russell himself did not name the wheat “Miracle Wheat”, nor did he himself originate any of the claims concerning “Miracle Wheat”. 

Additionally, Brother Russell’s so-called "religious career" was well underway long before he had ever heard of Stoner or his “Miracle Wheat.” Russell's "religious career" could be said to have begun long before he became a teenager. Russell, however, first heard of Stoner and his "Miracle Wheat" in the year 1908. Russell, however, started his Biblical studies apart from man's creeds around 1870. If one counts 1870 as the date when he started his "religious career," that would mean that he had been in that "career" for about 38 years before he ever heard of Stoner's "Miracle Wheat." Indeed, he started publishing his "Watch Tower" magazine in 1879; that was about 29 years before he ever heard of Stoner's Miracle Wheat.

Unsubstantiated Statement #4:
You may know of the court case in which Charles Taze Russell, founder of the Watch Tower Society, was on trial for mail fraud (he had claimed that his "miracle wheat" would produce ten times as much as regular wheat).
Our comments

The above statement is evidently no longer on the WEB. At least I have not been able to find it. Nevertheless, it is often stated that Brother Russell was sued because of  his selling "Miracle Wheat". It should be apparent from all the information above that Mr. Russell was never on trial for “mail fraud”, nor was Russell ever sued by anyone concerning "Miracle Wheat"; thus, those making these claims are mistaken.

While Russell did repeat what others had said concerning the yield, he did not originate the claims concerning Miracle Wheat. As to its producing “ten times” as much as regular wheat, we have not found anyone who made such a claim. However, the original government report that Mr. Russell quoted (see above) would seem to indicate that, given proper soil and circumstance, this wheat might have been able to produce up to ten times more, but, as we stated, we have not verified where anyone ever made the claim that it would produce ten times more. The point is, however, that it was others that said this; Mr. Russell only reported what was said in the newspapers and what had been reported to him.

Unsubstantiated Statement #5:
Some farmers also commenced proceedings against him on the grounds of fraud and swindling because he sold to them wheat which he called, `miracle wheat’ at a very high price, claiming that it was from the holy land and that it was many times more abundant than the normal harvest. {Of course non of this was true, the wheat was normal American wheat. --  The Heresy of Jehovah's Witnesses, by H.H. Pope Shenouda III, page 8.
Our comments:

None of the above is true. There were never any farmers who brought proceedings against Russell. Indeed, in the court case in which Russell sued The Brookly Daily Eagle, there were many who were willing to testify on behalf of Russell, and 11 did testify of the results they had with Stoner's Miracle Wheat, which verified the veracity of the claims for the wheat. In court, the vast majority of the testimony proved that the wheat did yield much more than what is normal. Only one person testified that it was inferior, and this person evidently was not a farmer. On the other hand, however, Russell did send out letters to all who had purchased any of the wheat in which he offered to return money if any were not satisfied. Not one person asked for any money back, as shown in the information already given in this report.

Unsubstantiated Statement #6:
[[Charles Taze Russell]] was certainly an expert at making money, whether in the drapery business until he sold it, or by investments in mines and real estate, or by the selling of his books, and of “miracle wheat.” Unfortunately he was legally compelled to restore to the purchasers the money he had obtained for his miracle wheat, on the score that it had been dishonestly extracted from them.

Russell certainly sought find ways to raise money to support the work of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. I cannot say that he was "an expert" as this, since not all of his ventures proved very successful. Russell was never in the drapery business, so this statement is in error. Possibly the author confused Russell's haberdashery business as being a "drapery" business. 


Unsubstantiated Statement #7
The Society was prosecuted for selling Miracle Wheat at sixty times the going rate for wheat, and which was found to be inferior to ordinary wheat.
The statement has evidently been removed, as I can no longer find it on the internet. The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, however, was never prosecuted for selling Miracle Wheat. Indeed, the Watch Tower itself did not sell the wheat. Many farmers, however, did testify in court of the superiority of Stoner's Miracle Wheat.

Unsubstantiated Statement #8
Charles Russell was convicted of fraud for advertising “miracle wheat” in an early watchtower.... Charles Russell, a former 7th day Adventist constantly changed tact when his predictions for the end of the world didn’t happen.
Russell, of course, was never convicted of fraud. The form "Watchtower", however, was not used to designate Russell's magazine. It was spelled "Watch Tower". Russell, however, was never a member of the 7th Day Adventists. Additionally, he never gave any predictions for the "end of the world." Since we discussed Russell and 'the end of the world' elsewhere, we will not get into this here.

See links to my research regarding:

Russell and the End of the World

Regarding the claim the Russell was a former 7th Day Adventist:

Russell and the Seventh-Day Adventists

Unsubstantiated Statement #9
He [Russell] claimed it would grow five times as well as regular wheat. In fact, it grew slightly less well than regular wheat, as was established in court when Russell was sued.
Our comments

Mr. Russell himself made no claims for the wheat; he did report claims made by others. In court, the superiority of Stoner's wheat was well established by the testimony of many farmers. One person appeared who supposedly presented the testimony of some "government experts" who tested the wheat and claimed that their tests showed the wheat to be inferior.

Russell, however, was not sued, but rather Russell was the one who brought the suit against the Eagle.

Final Thought:

While Stoner's“Miracle Wheat” faded away over the years, probably partly from the adverse publicity which may have led farmers to disregard Stoner's instructions related to that wheat, a new high-yielding strain has been produced since then, which is also called “Miracle Wheat”:



Billions Served – agronomist Norman Borlaug – Interview
https://reason.com/2000/04/01/billions-served-norman-borlaug/

Taking the Mexican "Miracle Wheat" to the Farmers
https://borlaug.cfans.umn.edu/borlaug/1961-1969

Tribute to Dr. Norman Borlaug
http://www.isaaa.org/kc/cropbiotechupdate/article/default.asp?ID=3925

Some other information online concerning Brother Russell and Miracle Wheat; we do not necessarily agree with all statements made by authors.

Pastor Russell in Reply to Critics — C. T. Russell’s Reply to the accusations of E. L. Benedict (Mason M. E. Church) as appeared in the Tacoma Tribune regarding money matters, 1914, miracle wheat, Union Ban





Return to Part 1 * Part 2









The Miracle Wheat Story - Part 2

Continued from Part 1

The next is a letter which appeared in:

The Watch Tower, March 3, 1915, page 79


This letter certainly seems to affirm that the wheat was not "inferior to standard wheat" as some have claimed. Brother Russell certainly had no reason to disbelieve what Brother Jarrett reported. Please note, however, that again it is not Brother Russell who was making the claims for the wheat. He only reported what others said.

The final article appeared in:

The Watch Tower, July 15, 1915, page 218


In this article, Brother Russell only briefly mentioned "Miracle Wheat," in reference to the notice that had been put in the Watch Tower concerning the offer to sell that wheat. He stated, "We believe we did right in putting that notice in." 

We will say that if the claims for this wheat were false as many have claimed, then Brother Russell himself was deceived by those who made such claims. Did Stoner make false claims for this wheat? I don't think so. But if he did, then it was Stoner, not Russell, who made such claims. Did Bohnet report false information to Russell about his experience in growing this wheat? We have no reason to think so. Nevertheless, if Bohnet lied, Brother Russell's fault was that he trusted Bohnet. If Bohnet misrepresented the wheat, then Russell himself was deceived by such deception and he was not the source of such deception. Were all the others who reported extraordinary yields from this wheat lying? Again, we have no reason to think so. Nevertheless, IF they were lying, then Brother Russell had no reason to think that they were not telling the truth. Russell was NOT the originator of the claims; he was simply conveyed what others had claimed.

We will now be presenting some excerpts from a booklet entitled: A Great Battle in the Ecclesiastical Heavens, by Joseph Franklin Rutherford. Rutherford published this in 1915, about a year before Brother Russell died. It was not an official publication of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, but a notice appeared in the Watch Tower, May 1, 1915, entitled "Judge Rutherford's Spicy Defense." Brother Russell stated: "Brother Rutherford, grieved by the various untruthful, slanderous attacks upon the Editor, has prepared a pamphlet in my defense. A copy of it has just been handed me. I have not yet read it, though, of course, I knew of its preparation and in a general way of its contents. I prefer not to have anything to do with its publication." Brother Russell then goes on to present the price of this booklet and the address to purchase a copy.

One may find Rutherford's booklet online at:
https://archive.org/details/AGreatBattleInTheEcclesiasticalHeavens

This booklet presents a lot of details related to "miracle wheat" and what happened in court when Russell sued the Eagle for libel.

We will now respond to some false or distorted claims being made about Brother Russell and Stoner's "Miracle Wheat.' There were then and still are those who refer to this wheat as "Russell's Miracle Wheat," which makes it appear that Brother Russell invented this wheat. One claims that Brother Russell "had, in 1908, discovered a particular strain of wheat, which he called 'Miracle Wheat.'" There are two misleading thoughts presented by this statement: (1) It leaves readers with the impression that Russell himself claimed to have discovered this wheat, and (2) that Russell himself gave it the name of "Miracle Wheat." Rutherford stated in his booklet: "Pastor Russell did not discover the wheat, nor did he name it, nor did he receive any personal benefit therefrom. Nor was the Society of which he is president guilty of the slightest misconduct. Had this same transaction occurred with some Catholic or Protestant church no one would ever have thought of making any fuss about it. But the Preachers’ Union seized upon it as another means of persecuting Pastor Russell." This simply confirms what we have already found. Rutherford claimed that Brooklyn Daily Eagle was being used as a tool of what he called, "the Preachers' Unholy Alliance." Rutherford mentions that the attack began on March 22, 1911, and reference is given (fol. 936), evidently referring to the court record archives. We have not found this article online anywhere. If anyone knows anything about this article, please let us know in the comments below.

Rutherford then states, regarding The Brooklyn Daily Eagle:

On September 23, 1911, it published an article announcing that the United States Government was about to take up the matter of Miracle Wheat, intimating that the Government Inspector would ask to be furnished with a sample of Miracle Wheat sold at Pastor Russell’s Tabernacle, to be tested, “that the faithful and a waiting world may learn more fully of the astonishing merits of this precious grain” (fol. 981).

This article may be found online at:
https://bklyn.newspapers.com/clip/15943202/skeptical-uncle-sam-seeks-to-know-more/

Concerning this article Rutherford stated:

As a matter of fact, the Government had been experimenting with Miracle Wheat for more than three years at that time, which shows that The Eagle was trying to mislead its readers and prejudice them against Pastor Russell by inferentially charging that he was selling a fraudulent wheat.

This was in the same issue that the Daily Eagle presented the cartoon we reproduced earlier.

Rutherford then goes into what happened in court, and he states:

The facts given here are taken from the record of the trial of that case in the Supreme Court of Kings County, New York. Figures appearing in parentheses, thus (fol. 774, etc.), refer to folios of the printed record of the case now on file in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York.

Because of this, we have no reason to question what Rutherford presents about what happened in court. A point to note here is that if one is focusing on what the Daily Eagle presented about what happened in court, one is not getting the full picture. The Daily Eagle left out much, and focuses on whatever could be slanted against Brother Russell. 

Rutherford reported that much of the trial focused on whether this wheat was actually superior to other wheat. Rutherford reports that "Eleven witnesses testified to its superior quality over other wheat." He then lists the names these witnesses. For those who might think that these "witnesses" were all friends of Brother Russell and thus that they falsified testimony to support their friend, one should note that Rutherford reported: "The eight first named never heard of Pastor Russell or his religious teachings prior to the trial of this case, but had been experimenting with Miracle Wheat and found it far superior to any other wheat."  Rutherford further reported: "The testimony showed that in the year 1904 Mr. K. B. Stoner noticed growing in his garden in Fincastle, Virginia, an unusual plant, which at first he mistook for a kind of grass known as parlor grass, but which, upon further observation, proved to be wheat. The plant had one hundred and forty-two stalks, each stalk bearing a head of fully matured wheat."  We have no reason to think that these witnesses bore false testimony about their results in miracle wheat. Usually, however, this testimony is ignored by those who seek to promote some kind of wrong-doing on the part of Russell regarding this wheat. Most focus on the testimony of the "government expert" who claimed that the quality of "miracle wheat" was "low." 

Rutherford reported: "The first plant found by Stoner had over 4,000 grains to the stool. In the Fall of 1904 he planted 1,800 grains, and each gram yielded an average of 250 grains. The average return from ordinary wheat in this section was about ten grains for each grain of seed (fols. 75- 78). Mr. Stoner found that a peck to the acre, that is 15 pounds of Miracle Wheat, produced over forty bushels (fol. 88). He has raised as high as 80 bushels of Miracle Wheat to the acre (fol. 92). Thus it is seen that Miracle Wheat produced twenty-five times as much as ordinary wheat in proportion to the amount sown. Mr. Stoner had experimented with Red Wonder, Fuldz and Old Mediterranean wheats. The productiveness of Miracle Wheat was found to be due to its large stooling qualities (fol. 95). For these stooling qualities it needs more room than the average wheat, requiring 16 inches between the rows, and about four times the space of ordinary wheat. If sown like ordinary wheat Miracle Wheat was a failure, for room was essential (fols. 97-99, 104). A four by four-inch space, such as the Government allows, is too small to allow for the normal stooling of Miracle Wheat (fol. 104)."

Rutherford also reported of how the Eagle's attorney "severely ridiculed the religious teachings of Pastor Russell." Rutherford notes that jury was largely composed of men with strong religious prejudices, with a least one atheist. Evidently, Rutherford was endeavoring to show how the Eagle was using Brother Russell's teachings in such a way as to sway the jury against Russell. At any rate, Rutherford stated that the jury "disregarded the testimony of the 11 practical farmers and wheat raisers, and the several exhibits of Miracle Wheat actually produced and shown to them, and decided the case in favor of the Brooklyn Eagle, upon the unsupported testimony of one Government official who never raised a grain of wheat in his.life."

At times, it sounds as though Russell was put on trial for what he believed, and this was used to turn attention away from the real issues and gave an emotional slant to rule against Russell.


Nevertheless, it appears quite probable much of the enormous amount of unfavorable publicity being spread about Brother Russell related to "miracle wheat" may have led farmers to not follow Stoner's instructions related to how this wheat was to be planted, which resulted in its gradual disappearance.

Continued in Part 3 

Return to Part 1



The Miracle Wheat Story - Part 1

Miracle Wheat
in
The Watch Towers
from 1908 to 1916

By Ronald R. Day, Sr
This study is not connected with nor sponsored by the “Jehovah’s Witnesses

Many false claims are being made about Charles Taze Russell regarding “Miracle Wheat”. Often, many use words like conman, charlatan, quack, etc., in reference to Miracle Wheat and Brother Russell. Usually, Brother Russell is misquoted and/or misrepresented in these attacks on his reputation and character. Read for yourself the following articles and see what Brother Russell actually wrote.

One claims concerning Brother Russell: "He had, in 1908, discovered a particular strain of wheat, which he called 'Miracle Wheat.'" Similar claims often pop up, especially on internet forums and social groups.

Another claims that Brother Russell "was found guilty of selling phony 'Miracle Wheat' through his publication Zion’s Watch Tower and Herald’s of Christ’s Presence.."

Did Russell "discover" this wheat? Was Russell the one who named this wheat "Miracle Wheat"? Did any court ever find  Russell guilty of selling phony wheat? 

The first article appeared in The Watch Tower, March 15, 1908, page 86. This can be found online at:
There are several things we note from this article as related to claims often made about Brother Russell and "miracle wheat." The claim is often made that Brother Russell created this miracle wheat, and thus it is referred to as being Russell's "miracle wheat" and that it also often claimed that Brother Russell created many false claims about the wheat. On one site we find an author who speaks of 'Russell's Miracle Wheat' while actually reprinting the above article, but evidently without any thought that the article contradicts the idea that this wheat was Russell's wheat.  

It should be easy to see from the above that Russell was not the one who discovered this wheat, nor was he the one who originated the claims for this wheat, nor was he the one who gave this wheat the name, “Miracle Wheat”. The man who discovered this wheat is identified as Mr. Stoner (Kenneth Stoner), who was not associated with the work of Brother Russell. It was Mr. Stoner who made the original claims concerning the wheat. Please note the above newspaper report also quotes a report from the U.S. government which gives confirmation of those claims.

Additionally, many make it appear that it was Russell who named this wheat "miracle wheat." Russell reported that this name was appearing in the public press in the introduction of the article cited. While we cannot be certain who actually first called this wheat "miracle wheat," it appears that it may have originated from one of the newspaper reporters. Oddly, the wheat developed by Norman Borlaug in the 1960s is also referred to as "miracle wheat."

Much of the article Brother Russell presented quotes a report written by one identified as "Assistant Agriculturalist H. A. Miller." Mr. Miller evidently was with a branch of the United States government. One can find written works presented by H. A. Miller, so this was not just a made-up person. One can also find various newspaper articles relating to Miller's visit to Stoner's farm in Virginia.

It was later claimed that Stoner changed the wording of Miller's report. According the claim, Miller originally stated that Stoner's wheat yielded from 3 to 5 bushels more than other varieties. The report that appeared in the newspapers reads "two to three times more than other varieties." If this was actually changed from the original report, we cannot say for a certainty, however, if this change was actually made by Stoner himself, or if it might have been changed by someone at the news agencies. Of course, if the government report as given in the newspapers had been changed, Brother Russell had no knowledge of such, and he had no reason to question the report as given in the newspapers. 

At least one newspaper, The Perry County Democrat, claimed that Stoner had prayed for this wheat, stating of Mr. Stoner: "In answer to the prayers of many years, he [Stoner] says he has been rewarded with wealth -- nothing less remarkable than a mysterious kind of wheat which grows in poor ground and yields many times as much grain as the ordinary variety." In 1913, however, Stoner in court denied that he had prayed for this, or that he had called this wheat "miracle wheat." He stated he did not know who named the wheat "Miracle Wheat."

Some, however, have treated the words that Brother Russell quoted from this newspaper article as though these were the words of Russell himself, and also that the claims reported regarding Stoner's wheat originated from Russell himself. If one reads the article closely, one should see that this is not the case.

The final part, however, is no longer quoting the newspaper report, and is Russell's own thoughts regarding how this wheat may be utilized in the age to come. Many make much ado about Russell's statement, as though he were setting forth some dogma. In reality, it should be apparent that Brother Russell was simply presenting this as a suggestion. He certainly wasn't presenting his thoughts as being dogma that all Bible Students had to accept.

The next article we will consider is from The Watch Tower, July 15, 1908, page 214. This article may be found online at: https://www.htdbv8.com/1908/r4203b.htm.

This article is not often quoted by those who misrepresent Brother Russell regarding Miracle wheat. Nevertheless, what is presented  is clearly identified as being reprinted from the Beloit Free Press. This appears to not be the same variety of wheat that Stoner discovered. It is referred to as "Alaska" wheat, and reported to have been discovered by Allen Adams of Minnesota. Later, however, it was reported that the claims made for this wheat had been repudiated by government "experts." (See below)

Nevertheless, we should again note that Russell himself is not the one making these claims; Russell simply quoted a newspaper article wherein these claims are made by others. Brother Russell, however, evidently -- at that time -- believed the claims regarding this wheat were true. 

Next, we look at the article that appeared in The Watch Tower, October 1, 1908, page 291. One can find this online at: https://www.htdbv8.com/1908/r4250.htm

Here we find a report of even another person, W. W. Ward, who had claimed to discover a "new" wheat.  The final part was evidently added by Brother Russell, stating the "Alaska" wheat, referred in the article quoted in July 15, 1908 issue of the Watch Tower, had been repudiated by Government experts. 

Again, it should be noted that it was not Russell who was making any of these claims, but rather Russell was simply quoting newspaper articles where others are making claims concerning these varieties of wheat.

The next article is found in The Watch Tower, June 15, 1910, page 203. It may be found online at: https://www.htdbv8.com/1910/r4634.htm.

In this article, Brother Russell only mentioned “miracle wheat” briefly, noting that “The new ‘miracle wheat’ sometimes produces more than two hundred grains from one.” This is stated as an illustration of good fruit bearing much fruit, as spoken of in the Bible. In what Russell stated regarding "miracle wheat," he was not making any new claim concerning this wheat that had not already been stated by others, as reported in the news media.

The next article is from The Watch Tower, July 15, 1909, which may be found online at: https://www.htdbv8.com/1909/r4431.htm

Again, although the above is not a direct quote from someone else, Russell simply related what others had reported. This article tells of experiments in wheat cultivation in Russia that had brought forth good results.

The only part that actually originates from him is the application of the blessings of restitution that is yet to come upon the world of mankind. 

This next is an excerpt from:
The Watch Tower
September 1, 1910, page 279
THE GREAT AND ETERNAL EDEN
“Referring to the ‘times of restitution’ of Messiah’s reign the Prophet declares, 'The earth shall yield her increase.' (Ezekiel 34:27) Behold preparations for the fulfillment of this promise: About three years ago a Virginia farmer found one abnormal bunch of 120 stalks of wheat from one root–the offspring of one grain of wheat. Under the name of ‘miracle wheat’ it is now being developed slowly in various parts–the average yield appears to be about 1,200 grains from one kernel. And this very year the same peculiarity in oats has been found–a bunch growing wild by the roadside.
Here Brother Russell is using the "miracle wheat" as an illustration of the Biblical promise that the earth is to yield her increase. Again, however, he is simply repeating what had been reported by others regarding that "miracle wheat." The claims stated did not originate from Russell himself. The entire article may be found at: https://www.htdbv8.com/1910/r4672.htm

We next consider an article that appeared in The Watch Tower, October 1, 1920, page 307, which may be found online at: https://www.htdbv8.com/1910/r4688.htm

Again, although Russell repeats the claims of others concerning miracle wheat, and he presents reports from two fellow Bible Students who gave their personal remarks regarding miracle wheat, Russell does not present any claims apart from reporting what others have claimed.

According to the reports, however, the "miracle wheat" did indeed produce much greater quantities than regular wheat. The report from Bohnet does show the superior yield from miracle wheat as compared to the regular wheat. 

One, however, may ask: Doesn't this article have Russell's own admission that he received money from the sale of this wheat? The idea that Russell personally kept the $100 mentioned has to be presumed. Most of the regular readers of the Watch Tower would know that Brother Russell referred to himself as receiving this money as editor of the Watch Tower on behalf of the Watch Tower Society.

Nevertheless, if the matter had ended with the above, The Brooklyn Daily Eagle would not have had any basis for their later slander of Russell regarding "miracle wheat." Of course, if the Eagle was intent on denigrating Brother Russell, it is possible that the Eagle could have found some other way to do so. Nevertheless, the events that follow did provide the Eagle with ammunition that could be easily distorted so as to attack Brother Russell.

A small notice appeared in The Watch Tower of June 15, 1911, page 178, which can be found online at: http://mostholyfaith.com/Beta/bible/Reprints/r.asp?file=audio1106.txt#Z178:12.

In this short notice is the offer that is alleged by many to be Russell’s fraudulent sale of bogus "miracle wheat," by which it is alleged that Russell made himself rich by defrauding “his flock” with a deception, allegedly giving a name “Miracle Wheat” to ordinary wheat, allegedly making false claims for that wheat and selling that wheat at an exorbitant price. In reality, the claims of the Miracle Wheat had been long been presented in the news media, and there was no reason for Russell to have any doubts regarding those claims. Although many cite this notice and claim that Brother Russell called this when "mracle wheat", in reality, it was not Russell who named the wheat “Miracle Wheat”. As to the claims made for the wheat, Brother Bohnet had reported that from the two grains of wheat he had produced 1,312 grains of wheat, which is much more that Brother Russell spoke of.

Nevertheless, it was not Russell who offered the wheat for sale. In reality, it was not Russell who set the price for the wheat. It should also be noted that Brother Bohnet offered the wheat seeds for sale at a price lower than he had purchased such wheat from Mr. Stoner. Nevertheless, in the notice given in the Watch Tower, it was expressly stated that the proceeds from the sale of the wheat was to be donated, not to Russell himself, but rather to the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society. There was definitely no intent on Brother Russell's part to defraud anyone or to deceive anyone. Nor do we have any reason to believe that Bohnet sought to deceive anyone. We have no reason to think that he falsified the yields he reported. 



Here is the next announcement from:
The Watch Tower
August 1, 1911, page 226
MIRACLE WHEAT IN DEMAND
The notice in THE WATCH TOWER of June 15 that Brother Bohnet has “miracle wheat” in abundance now, and that he will sell it at $1 per pound and donate the entire proceeds to our Tract Fund, has brought in many orders. These will be filled between August 15 and September 1. No limit as to supply has been noted. Sent by Express, prepaid, the price will be twenty-two pounds for $20; fifty-five pounds for $50; larger quantities at the latter rate. The merits of this wheat over the common variety have been mentioned in previous issues of THE WATCH TOWER.

This announcement may be found online at; https://www.htdbv8.com/ZWT/zwt0267.htm

The above is a follow-up of the announcement made in the June 15 issue, letting those who placed orders for the wheat know when the orders may be filled. Again, it shows that it was Brother Bohnet, not Russell, who was selling the wheat. Again, it is noted that the proceeds were to be donated, not to Brother Russell, but to the Watch Tower Tract Fund. 

In the Watch Tower, July 1, 1912, an article appeared in the Watch Tower entitled, "The Christian Church and Her Mission." In that article, it was stated "A few years ago a Virginia farmer found an abnormal stool of wheat — one hundred and forty-two stalks, each bearing a well-developed head — the offspring of a single grain of wheat! Under the name of “Miracle Wheat” it is now being developed slowly in various parts of the country." This statement does not offer anything new about Stoner's "miracle wheat," but simply repeats what Stoner claimed for the wheat. 

The entire article may be found online at: https://www.htdbv8.com/1912/r5057.htm

At this point, we should note that on September 23, 1911, The Brooklyn Daily Eagle published a cartoon of Brother Russell and the sale of miracle wheat, as:


As a result of this cartoon, Brother Russell filed suit against the Eagle for libel. Some have wrongly reported that he filed for slander; this is incorrect. He filed suit for libel. Some have incorrectly claimed that Russell was sued, which is, of course, false.

The next article, entitled "As Deceivers and Yet True", is found in The Watch Tower, February 15, 1913, page 62.  One may find the entire article online at: https://www.htdbv8.com/1913/r5189.htm

In this article, Brother Russell summarizes the results of his suit against the Eagle. Brother Russell first explains briefly why he became interested in Stoner's "miracle wheat. He then summarizes the court case explaining why he felt that the verdict given was "unjust." Brother Russell spoke of Jesus' appeal to the Law when he had been smitten (John 18:23), and he wrote about how the apostle Paul appealed to law for justice. (Acts 25:10) Like them, Brother Russell stated, he had "been refused the Law's protection." But Brother Russell reports that it is divine will "throughout this Gospel Age to allow his faithful servants to suffer reproaches and losses," and quotes or cites 1 Peter 2:23; John 18:11; Luke 22:42; 1 John 4:17; 2 Corinthians 6:8-10; Galatians 6:17; 2 Timothy 3:12; John 15:18,19.

Brother Russell stated: "Everything that was said respecting the wheat was fully proven at this trial by expert witnesses, interested and disinterested, and their testimony was not shaken." Of course, most people know nothing about those who testified regarding the veracity of the claims made for the wheat. Many do make much ado about the testimony of government experts who had done some "tests" on the wheat and found it to be inferior.  We will present more related to this later.

Brother Russell reported:

The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society was held up to scorn because it did not have any hospital work nor draw any revenue from taxation, and because the female members of the Society do not visit the workshops of the land weekly or monthly on pay-day, and exact donations to its work. Our society was held up to scorn also because we do not send a wagon around the city collecting groceries and provisions for the up-keep of our work; because we do not take up collections even on Sunday; because we have never solicited a penny or a dollar from anybody; and because we never have fairs, grab-bags, “chances” or “raffles.” Our Society was held up to scorn and ridicule because it offers its literature free to the poor, while other similar Societies charge both rich and poor for their tracts and other publications. The Eagle was pictured by its attorney as a dove, a bird of Paradise. For defending it the Protestants on the Jury were led to hope for escape from eternal torment through “the pearly gates” of heaven, welcomed with the words, “Well done!” for giving The Eagle the verdict. Neither I nor my attorneys could offer such inducements conscientiously. 


Continued in Part 2 * Part 3

See also:
Updated 3/27/2009; 5/17/2014; 09/2021





Friday, December 16, 2016

Can Restitution Change the Ethiopian's Skin?

In the October 1, 1900 (page 296), issue of The Watch Tower, Charles Taze Russell presented an article: “Can Restitution Change the Ethiopian’s Skin?” The title is based on the scripture:
Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? -- Jeremiah 13:23, World English.

A portion of this article has been quoted in an effort to “prove” that Russell was a racist belittling the black people. The word “racist” can mean different things to different people. One dictionary defines ”racist” as:
a person who believes in racism, the doctrine that a certain human race is superior to any or all others.
Racism is defined as:
1.
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2.
a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3.
hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
Russell was certainly not a racist as defined by the first definition. Russell did not believe that "inherent differences among human races determine cultural or individual achievement." He certainly did not believe in any policy, system of government, based on fostering such a doctrine, and he definitely did not have a hatred or intolerance of any race or other races. With this in mind, we present the entire article below:
CAN RESTITUTION CHANGE THE ETHIOPIAN'S SKIN?
The following, from the New York World, is the third we have seen reported. These suggest and illustrate the process of restitution soon due. The item reads,--

 "FROM BLACK TO WHITE HE SLOWLY TURNED."

"PARKERSBURG, W. VA., Sept. 8.--It has fallen to the lot of the Rev. Wm. H. Draper, pastor of the Logan Memorial Church, of Washington Conference, A.M.E. Church, of this town, to give a living affirmative answer to the famous Biblical question, "Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots?" Though once as black as charcoal, the Rev. Mr. Draper is now white. His people say that his color was changed in answer to prayer. Many years ago Draper was employed by a fair-skinned man, and he was often heard to remark that if he could only be white like his employer he would be happy. While in the white man's service Draper 'experienced' religion.
"From that day forward he prayed constantly and fervently that he might become white. Thirty years ago his prayer began to be answered. He first experienced a prickling sensation on his face, and upon close investigation found a number of small white spots scarcely larger than the point of a pin. He became alarmed, thinking he had some peculiar disease, but he did not suffer, and aside from the prickling sensation felt nothing unusual. Gradually the white spots became larger and extended themselves, until now, after the change has been in progress for over thirty years, Draper has not a single dark spot on his body.
"Many years ago, before this strange metamorphosis took place, Mr. Draper was in charge of the same church he has now. He was popular with his flock and his departure was a source of great regret. When he recently returned to Parkersburg there was great rejoicing among the churchmen because their favorite pastor was coming back. When, however, Draper appeared in the pulpit the first Sunday, not one of the congregation recognized him. In fact, it was all he could do to convince them that he, a white man, was the same old black preacher they had years before."
Many quote this, or quote portions of this, as being the words of Russell. Actually, the only words in this entire article that could be attributed to Russell is the title: “Can Restitution Change the Ethiopian’s Skin?”, and the introduction, which reads: “The following, from the New York World, is the third we have seen reported. These suggest and illustrate the process of restitution soon due. The item reads,--”. The rest of the article was written by someone at the New York World newspaper. However, there are many sites that seem to deliberately try to make it appear that the words quoted from the New York World are the words of Russell himself.

Indeed, we deem it rather odd that no one criticizes The New York World for printing the article, and no one criticizes that pastor of the Logan Memorial Church, for what he is reported as saying and doing. Instead they go after Brother Russell, whose only interest was that this article possibly suggested an illustration of the coming restitution, and he was not dogmatic about that.

One site, under the tag of “racism”, presents the entire article, but leaves out the reference to the New York World, thus leaving the impression that the article represents the words of Russell himself. This site has the introduction as reading: “The following, from the is the third we have seen reported. These suggest and illustrate the process of restitution soon due. The item reads,–”. This is not actually how it reads in the original, but more importantly, notice how New York World  is left out. Is this an oversight? Could be. But it could also be possible that this was deliberately done in order to deceive the reader into thinking that the words were those of Russell.

Another site, which evidently no longer exists, had among a long list of quotes designed to misrepresent Russell, as though Russell was speaking as the head of the Jehovah’s Witnesses organization, in effect, misrepresents Russell as saying “that the white race is superior”. The article referred to is "The Negro Not a Beast," (Watch Tower, July 15, 1902) in which Russell was actually defending the Negro (meaning black) people against many of the false teachings that were being spread among the churches. Russell never made such a statement, although some take a phrase that he wrote in that article out of context to make it appear that this is what Russell taught. Indeed, in the same paragraph from which the quote is taken out of context, Russell went on to present the white race as being the same as the way the Bible described the people of Israel, that is, "stiff-necked," and he thus described the white race in general as "the most quarrelsome, aggressive, selfish and dominating of humanity."

One has presented a video on YouTube, entitled "Charles Taze Russell and racism part 1", in which the entire article presented above is orally presented correctly, and it includes the reference to the New York World newspaper, but the video presents a animated photo of Russell by which it presents the entire article as though Russell himself were saying the words, and thus most viewers would probably not realize that the words were not that of Russell, but the words of someone from the New York World.

At any rate, was the intention of that article, “Can Restitution Change the Ethiopian’s Skin?”, to belittle the black people? No, not at all. Should one believe that Russell was “racist” because, based on Jeremiah 13:23, he assumes that the restitution (restoration) blessings will mean that all will be restored to the one race that Adam was in the Garden of Eden? God did not make many different Adams, one for each color of skin. He only made one. The Bible shows that all descended from only one blood lineage. God “made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the surface of the earth, having determined appointed seasons, and the bounds of their habitation.” (Acts 17:26) And thus, we read: “The sons of Noah who went forth from the ark were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Ham is the father of Canaan. These three were the sons of Noah, and from these, the whole earth was populated.” (Genesis 9:18,19) Thus, all the races of the earth are descendants of Noah’s sons. Was God being racist in having only one race to be source of all races of the earth?

Was Jeremiah being racist when he asked the question, “Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots?” (Jeremiah 13:23) The world -- not understanding God’s purposes for all mankind -- considers the Bible to be a racist book. If one thinks only along the mindset of man, one could indeed conclude that the Bible, and God, are racist. The spiritual-minded, that is, those who would bring their minds in harmony with the revealings of God’s spirit, can see beyond the carnal to a comprehension of God’s purposes.

However, if a Bible-believing Christian should think that Russell was being racist, then, to be consistent, that person must also think the Bible is a racist book. To Russell, Jeremiah 13:23 would seem to say that the black race was not the original race, else why would the inspired prophet think of the black man as changing the color of his skin? And, consistent with that logic, if, as he believed, man was to be restored to what God intended in the Garden of Eden, it would be also reasonable to assume that they will be restored to the one color of skin that Adam had. Does this mean that there is some kind inherent superiority of one color of skin over another? Does it mean that there is hatred for people who are not white? Does the article claim that there is some kind of inherent difference in the black race that, due to the color of skin, inherently made him what he is culturally? Actually, elsewhere, Russell wrote against such an idea. Did Russell make any claim that the while race was superior, and therefore the white race had a right to rule over other races? No, in fact, again, in other articles Russell wrote against such ideas. Was Russell claiming that in the Kingdom, only white people were good enough to rule and judge? Definitely not! Indeed, anyone who is truly familiar with Russell’s works know that Russell did not hold such “racism”. Most, however, who misrepresent Russell as being “racist” do not actually know what Russell taught; their only interest in his works seem to be to find whatever quote they can twist to suit their aims. Also, most of the Jehovah’s Witnesses as well as the public at large do not know what Russell taught, and thus, unless they have a mind to seek beyond what the misrepresentations concerning Russell that is being spread like wildfire, it is easy for such to accept the misrepresentations without further investigation.

Was Russell dogmatic about the man originally being white? Absolutely not! In fact, concerning mankind as they were originally, Russell later stated:
We may suppose that they were neither as white as some of us, nor as black as the negro, but of a swarthy, tawny color. If this be true, the extreme whiteness of some peoples is not to be considered the original standard, but a deflection on the one side, as the negro and others are deflections on the other side. -- Watch Tower. July 15, 1902
Some claim that Russell should have known that what Mr. “Rev” Draper had is a disease, called “Vitiligo”. In this regard, again we note that it is Brother Russell that is attacked, not the author of the article, nor the pastor of the Logan Memorial Church. Of course, at the time that Russell presented that article, evidently neither he nor the author of the article that appeared in the New York World knew of such a disease. Indeed, we are not sure that this reported incident of the change of the color of skin had even been given this name in the days of Russell, nor can we be sure that the incident under discussion was actually a case of Vitiligo. Nevertheless, those who make a big deal over Russell's ignorance of such a disease would seem to think that Russell was claiming to have all knowledge on every subject and/or claiming to be infallible in every word, which he did not claim, and which he, in fact disclaimed. Others seek to use Russell’s writings as representing the words of the leadership of the Jehovah’s Witnesses; Russell, however, was never a member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses organization, and never spoke as an authoritarian leader of such an organization. He made no demands that all associated with the Bible Students had to agree with his conclusions.

We do not know that the person spoken of actually had the condition now called Vitiligo; nevertheless, whether this "condition" is actually a “disease” or whether it is a “blessing” may depend on the way a person looks at it. Mr. Draper evidently believed it to be a blessing. (Again, note that it is not Mr. Draper that people criticize, but Russell.) Classifying it as a disease does not take away the fact that it illustrates that a person’s skin color can be changed, and that was the point Russell made in reproducing the article from the New York World  newspaper.

Russell was not being dogmatic concerning his conclusions regarding this; he was definitely not speaking as the head of an authoritarian organization such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Russell did not believe in such an organization, and believed that Christians should seek to free themselves from such sectarian organizations. Nevertheless, the JW leadership would retroactively have Russell to be a member of their organization, and as part of their governing body at that time. Nevertheless, contrary to what Russell taught and believed, the JW leadership makes bold claims that they are the sole channel of communication between God and man, and that the consequences of not recognizing their authority could mean that they (those who do not obey the JW leadership) and their children may be eternally destroyed in Armageddon. The claim is that such are disobeying the “Good News” because they are still blinded by Satan, and 2 Thessalonians 1:8,9 is misused to promote that idea. Russell never taught such a God-dishonoring doctrine. None of the prophets of old made such bold claims, and they were inspired of God (of course, the JW leadership may claim that the prophets of old did make such claims). At any rate, with the prospect of obeying the self-proclaimed "governing body" members versus eternal destruction at Armageddon, one would expect a very high degree of inerrancy in the presentation of claimed “truth” on the part of whoever would make such claims for themselves. 

Nevertheless, in effect, the JW leadership claims for themselves the authority of the apostles and even more, claiming that one’s existence for all eternity depends on accepting what they say as “the truth”. One should expect that, if they have truth as revealed to them from God’s holy spirit, that such truth would be solid and not changing, especially since they claim that to reject their leadership will mean eternal destruction at Armageddon. So, we can agree from the perspective of their claim that Russell of was of their governing body (which, in reality, he was not), that the words of Russell, if in error, would tend to tear down the whole argument that the JW leadership claims for themselves. The point is, however, that Russell, unlike the JW leadership, made no such claim of any kind of special authority over fellow-believers in Christ. Indeed, what the JWs teach now respecting Armageddon and the Second Death is definitely contrary to what Russell taught.

So, according to the JW leadership, in effect, Russell was preaching a false gospel in his central message, the ransom for all, that is, that every, man, woman, child, every Buddhist, every Jew, every Hindu, every Moslem, and so on, who has ever lived, will first be fully enlightened with the truth before being placed on trial to determine whether they will prove themselves to obedient or disobedient to the good news that is revealed to them. Rutherford rejected this central doctrine that Russell taught, and replaced it the “Jehovah’s organization” doctrine, and the claim that anyone that is not in that organization when Armageddon strikes will be eternally destroyed. However, scripturally, we believe that in the end, Jehovah will be praised through His Son!

Addendum

One has stated that Russell said when Jesus "reveals Himself," that all dark skin people would return to a light complexion as god made them, and then describes this as being "a load of junk."

The response actually takes what Brother Russell meant to be a positive suggestion and turns it around as though he were setting forth some evil dogma.

The Bible says:

Acts 17:26 -  And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation.

Was God being racist in whatever the "one blood" -- one race -- that he originally created Adam? Isn't it reasonable that in the restoration of all things back to what Adam lost, it would make all the human race the same color as it was originally? True, the Bible does not reveal conclusively that Adam was white, but in the lineage given back from Abraham to Adam, it suggests that the Hebrews represent the original race. 

Nevertheless, Brother Russell most usually spoke of mankind as being one race, irrespective of color. Furthermore, note his words:

"When God's Elect class has been completed and glorified with the Head, Jesus Christ, then will the Kingdom of Heaven be established; then will the Government be upon Messiah's shoulder; then will be the time of blessing all the families of the earth, according to the promise made to Abraham. Speaking of that glorious reign of Messiah, St. Peter says:" Times of Refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; and He shall send Jesus Christ, who was before preached unto you, whom the heavens must retain until the Times of Restitution of all things which God hath spoken by the mouth of all His holy Prophets since the world began." Acts 3:19-21 Sin has greatly degraded the human race, whites as well as negroes. The greater the ignorance, the farther mankind have wandered from God, the greater their degradation. That they are to have an opportunity of restoration to all that Adam lost is indeed glad tidings of great joy, and every heart shall be filled with joy that hears and obeys such glad tidings. Restoration means that a full opportunity shall be given to all of Adam's offspring, negro and white, to come back into harmony with God and to be restored to that which Adam once possessed, namely, a perfect organism, perfection of mind and heart, and have restored to him the Godlike qualities of justice, wisdom and love." -- "The Negro Question - Is He Man or Beast?", Harvest Gleanings, pages 513,514.
https://rlctr.blogspot.com/2015/01/negro-ques.html

This was the message he was concerned in preaching, which is definitely not racist. Yet those who seek to twist his statements to make the claim that he was racist miss the beautiful message he was proclaiming from the Bible. How this must please Satan! But it is not yet the time when all are to be enlightened; until Satan is abyssed we still have to know that he will continue to deceive people in order that they may not see and understand God's purposes regarding the restoration of all.



















Volunteer Racism?




In the March 1, 1900 (page 66, Reprints page 2585) issue of the Watch Tower, the following announcement was made:
RE-ENLISTED VOLUNTEERS! TO ARMS!
----------
The new lot of "Bible vs. Evolution" ammunition is not yet ready, but by March 15 to April 1 we will have plenty of the new ammunition for use where the Bible vs. Evolution has already been distributed. You will like it, we assure you this in advance. It will consist of "Which is the True Gospel?" and "What Say the Scriptures about Hell?" in the shape of a double number of the WATCH TOWER. Get your several squads together and let us have your orders stating (1) the number of white Protestant churches in the district; (2) the average attendance at service which the church members chiefly attend; (3) the number of Volunteers in your squad; (4) to what address would you prefer to have the ammunition sent.
A follow-up article regarding the above notice appeared in the April 15, 1900 issue of the Watch Tower. Some are quoting this article in order to make it appear that Russell was a racist.  One web page quotes the following:
“Reading matter distributed to a colored congregation would more than half of it be utterly wasted, and a very small percentage indeed likely to yield good results”. - The Watchtower of April 15, 1900 p. 122
Exactly what is considered to be racist in the above statement is not stated; in reality what Russell stated simply presents the fact of the matter as it was when he made the statement. Indeed, very few black people were educated in the days of Russell, so it would not have been wise to waste money and time by giving them something that they could not read.

video on YouTube quotes more of what Russell stated, again with the desire to present Russell as a racist; we present below what is quoted in the video:
There are probably as many as a hundred colored brethren on the Watch Tower lists, some of them very clear in the truth, and very earnest in its service, financially and otherwise. We have received letters from several of these, who had intended engaging in the Volunteer work, expressing surprise that in the call for Volunteers in the March 1st issue we restricted the inquiry to white Protestant churches. They rightly realized that we have not the slightest of race prejudice, and that we love the colored brethren with just the same warmth of heart that we love the white, and they queried therefore why such a distinction should be made in the call. The reason is that so far as we are able to judge, colored people have less education than whites--many of them quite insufficient to permit them to profit by such reading as we have to give forth. Our conclusion therefore is based upon the supposition that reading matter distributed to a colored congregation would more than half of it be utterly wasted, and a very small percentage indeed likely to yield good results.
Again, Russell was simply presenting the true facts as they existed in his day; it was simply a fact that very few of the blacks in his day could read, and thus any reading material given to them would have been of no benefit to them, and would, in effect, have reflected a waste of money and time. Some, however, in effect deny this fact of history, and claim that Brother Russell was simply presenting a false "stereotype" of black people. Such would seem to want their readers to judge Russell by the present situation of black people, and not by what was the actuality that existed in the days of Russell. Nevertheless, Russell was not prohibiting the witnessing to any of the black the people, nor was prohibiting volunteers or colporteurs from distributing literature to any of the black people who could read. What was being discussed was presenting literature at black churches when the majority of the congregation in those churches could not read.

Another states that blacks were not allowed to participate in the "pioneer work". In reality that which is called "pioneer" work by the Jehovah's Witnesses did not exist in the days of Russell. Some claim that the colporteur work was the same as the pioneer work, but, as far we have been able to determine, blacks were not barred from participating in the colporteur work, although it may have been that there were no blacks who had applied for the colporteur work at that time. However, concerning the volunteer work, Brother Russell stated: "The Volunteer service is open to all of the Lord's dear people, brethren and sisters, white and colored." (Watch Tower, April 15, 1900, page 122) We have no reason to think that the same policy was not applied to the Colporteur service. So far we have seen no one present any evidence that blacks were not permitted to be colporteurs. At any rate, it appears that the idea that Russell did not allow black people be colporteurs is a either a misunderstanding or simply assumed to have been a fact, when it is not.

It is being claimed that Russell had a "whites-only policy concerning volunteers." This is not worded in harmony with the facts, and is very misleading, to say the least. Some have evidently thought that this means that Russell had barred any witnessing to the blacks, which is simply not true. In the same article that is being quoted above, Russell stated:
We advise, therefore, that where the Watch Tower literature is introduced to colored people it be not by promiscuous circulation, but only to those who give evidence of some ear for the truth....The Volunteer service is open to all of the Lord's dear people, brethren and sisters, white and colored, who have a desire thus to serve the great Captain of our salvation, and to help deliver their "brethren" from the bondage of Babylon into the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free from sectarianism, superstition and every yoke of bondage. Nor do we desire to place this service as a yoke or burden upon any, but as the word indicates, it is only for "Volunteers." We believe that the Lord would not have any conscriptions or drafts connected with his service. As to whether or not this is a way in which you can serve the Lord's cause is not for us but for you to decide. We merely give you our opinion, that this is one of the best means of serving the truth--preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom--breaking the chains of error that are upon the "brethren"--honoring the name and character of our heavenly Father, and extolling the great redemption accomplished by Jesus our Saviour. It is a "harvest" work, in that it is gathering to the Lord his true people,--gathering them out of the various sects--not into another sect, but into heart-union with the Lord and with all who are at-one with him through oneness of spirit, engendered by love of the truth.
Some, ignorant of what Russell taught on the atonement. Many therefore, think Russell was preaching the same message that the Jehovah's Witnesses present concerning Armageddon. Russell, however, was not presenting a message that says, in effect, "Join us or be eternally destroyed in Armageddon." Many, however, who think that he did would certainly think ill of  Russell for condemning blacks to such eternal destruction because they could not read. The truth is, however, that Russell did not believe in such a message that is now taught by the Jehovah's Witnesses. The main message that Russell preached was almost the opposite of the message now preached by the Jehovah's Witnesses. Therefore, the fact that these blacks, or any others, could not read, or that they were being skipped in receiving tracts in the general the volunteer work, did not then and still does not mean that such will be eternally destroyed in Armageddon. They are still included in Christ's ransom sacrifice and will receive the blessings of  man's new judgment day. They they will -- in the millennial age -- be taught Jehovah's ways, and will be able to understand what they could not understand in this age. 

For more information:

Studies Related to Armageddon and the Ransom

Russell Says The Jews Are Superior Morally and Intellectually?



By Ronald R. Day, Sr.

The following is from "Bloodlines of the Illuminati," written by Fritz Springmeier.

Russell Says The Jews Are Superior Morally and Intellectually

Russell preached that the Jews are superior to Christians morally and intellectually.

"Judged in this broad, general way, who will dispute that the twelve million Jews are not in advance of the average of Christendom intellectually and morally?" C.T. Russell.

That's quite appropriate for a man who has turned the Messiah basically into a collection of Jews. Russell's hatred for Christianity could serve the interests of any group bent on Christendom's destruction.

The above contains a quote from a sermon of Brother Russell. Below is a link to the entire sermon:

Jews Not to be Converted to Christianity

If one reads what Russell actually said in context, it should become apparent that Russell had just described scripturally the mission of the true church and separateness of the world of the true church that is enrolled in heaven, and showing that the vast majority of those professing to be Christian are only Christian in name only. It is from this standpoint as related to the millions of professing Christians who were not giving in evidence of actually being consecrated to service of Christ that Brother Russell was speaking as being a broad general way of most Christians that Brother Russell compared the Jew to both "intellectually and morally." Russell was not saying that the Jew is inherently superior to those of Christendom, but he was speaking of his observation in which he could see that most Jews were far ahead of most professing Christians both morally and intellectually. 

Earlier in the study being quoted from above, Brother Russell criticizes the Jews:

The Jewish rabbis give practically all of their attention to the reading of prayers in the synagogue, which the people could do as well for themselves, and to the killing of the cattle, which can be done better by our great beef trusts -- which indeed do the most of it and then leave it for the rabbis to mark "kosher." God's Word through the Prophet applies to Jews as well as to Christians --"My people perish for lack of knowledge;" [Hosea 4:6] "There is a famine in the land, not for bread, but for the hearing (understanding) of the Word of the Lord." [Amos 8:11]

In this quote, he classifies both the Jew as well as the Christians as lacking in knowledge. 

Christendom

Christendom, as Brother Russell used it, refers to the alleged "Christian" kingdoms of the earth as supposedly the kingdom of Christ; Brother Russell stated in the study quoted above: 

But Christendom is not the Church of Christ at all. The term is a misnomer. It signifies Christ's Kingdom; whereas Christ's Kingdom, Messiah's Kingdom, is not yet, but is still waited for by the Jews and by the true Church --the saintly "little flock" of the New Testament. Both Jews and saintly Christians still pray, "Thy Kingdom come; Thy will be done;" and both still recognize that Messiah's Kingdom is the need of the world, and the hope of the world--and both are waiting for it.

Being a false "Christ's kingdom," and filled with sectarianism, such must come to an end in order for the peoples of these so-called "Christian" nations to be freed so as to learn how to serve God with one consent in the millennium. -- Isaiah 2:2-4; 26:9; Zephaniah 3:9.

By the same line of reasoning, we should realize that what is now what is often called Judaism is not what is to be approved by God, but rather the true Judaism which is to eventually accept Jesus as their Messiah under the new covenant which Brother Russell believed was yet future (and we believe is still yet future).  However, one could say, however, that true Judaism is in harmony with true Christianity. Thus, Brother Russell stated, evidently speaking of true Judaism: "Jesus and his apostles expounded the harmony between Christianity and Judaism, nevertheless comparatively few Christians today seem to grasp the subject clearly." -- "Christianity and the Law." Watch Tower, April 1, 1912, page 117.

And yet, so must present-day traditional Judaism and its blindness (*** add references) must be taken away, thus freeing the Jewish people so that may be enlightened so as to serve Jehovah with one consent. (Isaiah 2:2-4; Zephaniah 3:9) This cannot be done without their acceptance of Jesus as being their Messiah. Brother Russell stated, ""We understand one of the first things of the new order of things will be pouring upon Israel their share of the blessings and their eyes will be opened to recognize Him whom they rejected more than eighteen hundred years ago." -- What Pastor Russell Said, page 94.

Illuminati Bloodline

Any approval of the idea of there being any such "Illuminati Bloodline," as described by various "conspiracy" theorists, automatically rejects the Bible, and the basis of the ransom for all as revealed in the Bible, since Christ died for all who are dying in Adam. Adam and all of Adam's descendants are condemned in Adam. (Romans 5:12-19; 1 Corinthians 15:21,22) We find nothing in the Bible about any special condemned bloodlines in our time. Russell only believed in one condemned bloodline (although he never used the word "bloodline"), that all races are descended from one blood (Acts 17:26), and that since all are condemned in one man, then only one sinless man is needed to redeem the entire human race. The Bible does not teach, nor did Russell teach, anything about any bloodlines today that are outside the power of the blood of Jesus to redeem.

It is the Bible itself, however, that shows that the Jewish people were alone chosen by God to receive the Law, and to the extent that any Jew would seek to keep that Law,  would, of course, result in better moral standards than all other nations. Was God being racist to do this? From the standpoint of the carnally-minded, it would seem so; it is only as one appreciates God's overall purposes that one can begin to comprehend the details of God's purposes.

Additionally, it is totally false that Russell turned the Messiah "into a collection of Jews." Jesus, of course, was indeed a Jew, but the body of Christ is mostly Gentiles, taken from all tribes and nations of the earth.

Russell's Alleged Hatred for Christanity

Russell had no hatred for Christianity. Only someone who is totally ignorant of what Russell taught or one who has a somewhat willful desire to misrepresent Russell would consider any idea that Brother Russell hated Christianity. In the sermon quoted above, Brother Russell stated:

The world misunderstands Christianity; so do the majority of Christians. The general misconception is, that the Church of Christ is in the world as a reformatory institution--to give the world correct moral ideas and to help keep them out of drunkard graves and from all kinds of licentiousness, brutality, profanity, etc. Indeed, the world measures Christianity by its success in fighting down these evils, and many Christians have the same false views.
This does not sound like Brother Russell was expressing a hatred for Christianity, but rather that he was defending Christianity, although he does point some false concepts of what many think that Christianity is supposed to be doing.

Russell, however, most often spoke of those who belong to Christ as being "Christian." Russell did, at times, refer to "nominal Christianity," noting an adherence to Christianity in name only. While one could say he hated the disobedience of Jesus as shown in actions and beliefs of nominal Christianity, he had no hatred for Christianity itself. In many cases, I would have quote extremely long portions of what Russell wrote in order for the reader to understand how Brother Russell spoke of a false or nominal Christianity as opposed to true Christianity. Here are a couple of short quotes from Russell regarding Christianity that could be easily understood:

Christianity is not selfish, but the reverse. -- Watch Tower, March 15, 1909, page 91.

This certainly doesn't sound like he hated Christianity.

True science has never contradicted the Bible; has never touched it but to confirm. The same God made both the world and the Word, so that there can be no contradiction. It is only false science that has seemed -- or been made to appear -- in conflict with Christianity. -- Watch Tower, September 1, 1904, page 262

If Russell hated Christianity, why would he seek to defend Christianity in relation to what he calls "false science"?

For more related to this see:
https://rlctr.blogspot.com/p/racist.html