Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing (epiphany) of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;  Titus 2:13

109

RUTHERFORDISM IN THE

SOCIETY.

could introduce any feature of work that he desired.

(4) He claimed and sought to obtain for the Editorial Committee, which he dominated, more power in the teaching office than that Servant received from the Lord, or ever used; i.e., power to exclude from the Church any teaching not sanctioned by "The Tower" Editorial Committee.

(5) By forbidding the teaching of things unsanctioned by the Editorial Committee (dominated by himself), he arrogated to himself more power than that Servant received from the Lord, or ever used.

(6) He attempted to withhold, and succeeded in withholding, the service of faithful Pilgrims from the Church, as far as he was able.

 

VII. J.F.R. sought, in several "business" matters, to prevent carrying out the decision of the Board's majority, to the disruption of the old Board.

 

RUTHERFORDISM IN THE

COMMITTEE.

general work, which means that they could introduce any feature of the work that they desired.

(4) They claimed and sought to obtain for the Editorial Committee more power in the teaching office than that Servant received from the Lord, or ever used; i.e., the power to exclude from the Church any teaching not sanctioned by "The Bible Standard" Editorial Committee.

(5) By forbidding the teaching of things unsanctioned by the Committee, they arrogated to themselves more power than that Servant received from God, or ever used.

(6) They attempted to withhold, and succeeded in withholding, the service of faithful Pilgrims from the Church, as far as they were able.

 

VII. I.F. Hoskins and I.L. Margeson, supported by H.C. Rockwell, sought in several "business" matters, to prevent carrying out the decision of the Committee's majority

 

110

RUTHERFORDISM IN THE

SOCIETY.

(1) With the assistance of W. E. Van Amburgh and A. H. MacMillan, he sought to prevent the publication of the first reply of the Board's majority, wherein they defended themselves against their ousting and J.F.R.'s circular letter of July 19, 1917, to the Class Secretaries.

(2) With the assistance of these two he sought to prevent the distribution of this same reply, July 26, 1917.

(3) With the assistance of the same two, he sought to disparage the Board's majority relative to the publication and distribution of the reply, as well as to disparage the reply itself.

 

VIII. Through misrepresentation and violation of confidence faithful and prominent brethren,

 

RUTHERFORDISM IN THE

COMMITTEE.

to the disruption of the old Committee.

(1) These three sought to prevent the publication of The Bible Standard before the Asbury Park Convention, despite the votes of four members of the Committee, who voted that the paper be published in time to announce the Asbury Park Convention.

(2) The same three sought to prevent the distribution of The Bible Standard at the time that the majority of the large Committee and of the Convention Committee decided that it be distributed, July 26, 1918.

(3) These three, through I.F. Hoskins, their leader, sought publicly to disparage the course of the Committee's majority relative to the publication and distribution of The Bible Standard, as well as to disparage the paper itself.

 

VIII. Through misrepresentation and violation of confidence faithful and prominent brethren, refusing

 

111

RUTHERFORDISM IN THE

SOCIETY.

refusing to countenance wrong principles and acts, were, by J.F.R. and his supporters, privately and publicly discredited in the Church, to the disruption of the Society's old Board.

(1) One of these was publicly and privately represented as an insane and fanciful speculator on types, symbols and prophecy, and as insanely aspiring to leadership.

(2) Certain Directors were falsely represented as dominated by him.

(3) These and he were falsely accused of obstructing the work of the Church.

(4) These and he were falsely accused of dividing the Church.

(5) These and he were falsely accused of advocating radical Scriptural teaching.

(6) Without foundation in fact one of them was habitually accused of seeking to lord it over God's heritage.

(7) Things that one of

 

RUTHERFORDISM IN THE

COMMITTEE.

to countenance wrong principles and acts, have, by some of the group and some of their supporters, been publicly and privately discredited in the Church, to the disruption of the old Committee.

(1) One of these was privately and publicly represented as an insane and fanciful speculator on types, symbols and prophecy, and as insanely aspiring to leadership.

(2) Certain Committee members were falsely represented as dominated by him.

(3) These and he were falsely accused of obstructing the work of the Church.

(4) These and he were falsely accused of dividing the Church.

(5) These and he were falsely accused of advo-cating radical Scriptural teaching.

(6) Without foundation in fact one of the three was habitually accused of seeking to lord it over God's heritage.

(7) Things that one of

 

112

RUTHERFORDISM IN THE

SOCIETY.

the five had told in sacred confidence were scattered broadcast.

 

IX. J.F.R. and his supporters, July 27, 1917, tried to force through the People's Pulpit Association and the Bethel Family several matters without proper discussion, to the disruption of the old Board.

(1) He accepted the program of a spurious first smiting of Jordan from a brother whose key and many other views of Revelation, etc., are vagarious and contrary to those of that Servant; and he insisted that all swallow his program and labor in harmony with it.

(2) From the false viewpoint that that Servant clearly taught a future first smiting of Jordan, he sought, July 27, 1917, with almost no discussion to commit to this program the People's Pulpit Association under the new Board, which he was really organizing as the directorate of a new Society with what was in effect an altered

 

RUTHERFORDISM IN THE

COMMITTEE.

the three had told in sacred confidence were scattered broadcast.

 

IX. The Group and their supporters, July 27, 1918, sought to force through the Asbury Park Convention several matters with-out proper discussion, to the disruption of the old Committee.

(1) They accepted a program for a spurious first smiting of Jordan from a brother whose key and many other views of Revelation, etc., are vagarious and contrary to those of that Servant; and they insisted that all swallow their program and labor in harmony with it.

(2) From the false viewpoint that that Servant clearly taught a future first smiting of Jordan they sought, July 27, 1918, to commit with almost no discussion the Convention to the policy of forming a Society with an altered Charter as indispensable to a future first smiting of Jordan.

 

113

RUTHERFORDISM IN THE

SOCIETY.

Charter as indispensable for a future first smiting of Jordan.

(3) He resorted, July 27, 1917, to parliamentary evasions and other questionable things to prevent discussing questions fundamental to his whole plan.

(4) He also resorted, July 27, 1917, to cloture methods to prevent in the People's Pulpit Association and before the Bethel family sufficient discussion of his program.

 

X. Privately and publicly J.F.R. advocated what was in fact setting aside some of, and adding others to, the clauses of that Servant's charter for his new society, unto the disruption of the old Board.

(1) His advocacy of the principle contained in the letter of Brother Dabney that all the Church ought to have a vote in the election of the Directors proves that he preferred not to have shareholders.

(2) His holding the "straw vote" proves that

 

RUTHERFORDISM IN THE

COMMITTEE.

(3) They resorted, July 27, 1918, to parliamentary evasions and other questionable things to prevent discussion of questions fundamental to their whole plan.

(4) They also resorted, July 27, 1918, to cloture methods to prevent, in the Convention, sufficient discussion of their program.

 

X. Privately and publicly the Group advocated setting aside some of, and adding others to, the clauses of that Servant's charter in the charter of their proposed society, unto the disruption of the old Committee.

(1) They asked that there be no shareholders in the proposed new Society.

(2) They advocated that the Directors be elected by

 

114

RUTHERFORDISM IN THE

SOCIETY.

he wanted the Directors elected by The Tower subscribers in the Truth.

(3) By campaigning for and manipulating proxies he proved that he wanted the officers elected by the Directors of the Society.

(4) He wanted the directors to be elected annually, contrary to that Servant's arrangement.

(5) In his oration, written early in Nov., 1916, and published in the Memorial Tower, he professed the highest regard for that Servant's charter.

(6) He was repeatedly entreated not to advocate these changes, as disloyal to that Servant's charter.

(7) He was forewarned that for such advocacy thoughtful persons would be given good reason to fear that his published praise of the Charter would be open to the charge of insincerity and self-seeking.

 

XI. J.F.R. arranged for and conducted, in the interests of his plan for three days, Jan. 3-5,

 

RUTHERFORDISM IN THE

COMMITTEE.

the subscribers of The Bible Standard.

(3) They advocated that the officers be elected by the Directors.

(4) They wanted the Directors to be elected annually, contrary to that Servant's arrangement.

(5) They professed in Facts for Shareholders, written early in Nov., 1917, the highest regard for that Servant's charter as divinely given.

(6) They were repeatedly entreated not to advocate these changes, as disloyal to that Servant's charter.

(7) They were fore-warned that for such advocacy thoughtful persons would be given good reason to fear that their published praise of the Charter as Divinely given would be open to the charge of insincerity and self-seeking.

 

XI. The Group arranged for and conducted, in the interests of their plan for three days, July 26-28,

 

115

RUTHERFORDISM IN THE

SOCIETY.

1918, a thoroughly "bossed" convention.

(1) He announced his plan beforehand.

(2) He carried out much of his plan; and was prevented from carrying it out entirely, e.g., a unanimous re-election, by some, previously unenlightened, becoming enlightened as to his purposes and methods.

(3) One of the avowed purposes of the Convention was to unseat the four Directors who sought to hold in check his unscriptural and dangerous plans.

(4) A widespread "political" campaign was waged creating much and general sentiment, particularly against Bro. Johnson, and generally against the Board members, inuring to their unseating.

(5) He engineered a movement to use for his advantage an absent brother, A. N. Pierson, and used his opinions before the Convention to the discredit of the ousted Directors.

(6) He had at least one

 

RUTHERFORDISM IN THE

COMMITTEE.

1918, a thoroughly "bossed" convention.

(1) They announced their plan beforehand.

(2) They carried out much of their plan; and were prevented from carrying it out entirely by some, previously unenlightened, becoming enlightened as to their purposes and methods.

(3) One of the avowed purposes of the Convention was to unseat the three Committee brothers who held in check their unscriptural and dangerous plans.

(4) A widespread "political" campaign was waged creating much and general sentiment, particularly against Bro. Johnson, and generally against all three of the Committee members marked for defeat, inuring to their unseating.

(5) They engineered a movement to use for their advantage an absent brother, Menta Sturgeon, and used his opinions before the Convention to the discredit of the three rejected Committee members.

(6) At least one brother

 

116

RUTHERFORDISM IN THE

SOCIETY.

special mouthpiece to present motions with suitable and sometimes untrue remarks to carry out his previously arranged plan.

(7) In discourses and addresses he and some of his supporters sought to undermine, in the estimation of the conventioners, the brothers who were objectionable to him.

(8) A special meeting of leaders (unannounced on the program) was called to oil the machinery to be set in motion in the Shareholders' meeting.

(9) To the advantage of his plan the false statement was made that he had legally filled four vacancies with Directors with valid powers, until the next election, when all the Directors were to surrender their

 

RUTHERFORDISM IN THE

COMMITTEE.

acted as their special mouthpiece in presenting motions with suitable and sometimes untrue remarks to carry out their previously arranged plan.

(7) In discourses and addresses some of them and some of their supporters sought to undermine, in the estimation of the conventioners, the brothers who were objectionable to them.

(8) A special meeting of elders and deacons (unannounced on the program) was called before the announced Convention business meeting. Judging from the atmosphere, speeches and motions, the evident object of this special meeting was to work up the elders and deacons to support the plan of the Group for the business session following.

(9) To the advantage of their plan the false statement was made that the Committee had been instructed at the Fort Pitt Convention to act until the next Convention, to which they should go and give up

 

117

RUTHERFORDISM IN THE SOCIETY.

powers and stewardship.

(10) Bro. Johnson pro-tested formally and solemnly against the proposed action of the Shareholders to elect directors without there being vacancies on the Board, according to

the Charter.

(11) To the advantage of his plan the false statement was circulated that the seven Directors had come to the Shareholders' meeting believing their places vacant.

(12) So unfavorable to the four Directors had the atmosphere of the Share-holders' meeting become, through the "political" campaign, that they had very great difficulties put in the way of their proving that that Servant, having arranged their places on the Board, J.F.R. could not oust them, nor of right ask them to resign, nor take over the control of the stewardship that they had acquired under that Servant's arrangements.

 

RUTHERFORDISM IN THE

COMMITTEE.

their powers and stewardship.

(10) Bro. Johnson formally and solemnly pro-tested against the proposed action of the conventioners, unauthorized by the Fort Pitt Convention, to elect Committee members in a body appointed by another and independent convention.

(11) To the advantage of their plan the false statement was repeatedly made that the seven Committee members had come to the Convention to resign.

(12) So unfavorable to the three marked Committee members had the atmosphere of the Convention become through the "political" campaign, that they had very great difficulties put in the way of their proving that the Fort Pitt Convention, having appointed and empowered the Committee, and not having made them subject to another Convention, the Asbury Park Convention, could neither depose them, nor of right ask their resignation,

 

118

RUTHERFORDISM IN THE

SOCIETY.

(13) By arbitrary insistence in matters in which at most the Shareholders should have gone no further than to suggest, they would not permit an Arbitration Board sitting as a separate body to deliberate on the facts as to whether the Directors of the Society should surrender the rights of that Servant in his Will and Charter to a J.F.R.-controlled-meeting.

(14) The demand was made by a majority vote that the Directors surrender the powers that that Servant gave them in his Will and Charter to a J.F.R.-controlled-meeting.

(15) This demand, it was insisted upon, must be granted in that meeting without permitting appropriate discussion.

(16) This demand was enforced by the J.F.R.-

 

RUTHERFORDISM IN THE

COMMITTEE.

nor take over the property that they had acquired under commission of the Fort Pitt Convention.

(13) By arbitrary insistence in matters in which the conventioners should have gone no further than to suggest, they would not permit the eighteen members of the Fort Pitt Convention present to withdraw in a body to deliberate on the question of surrendering the rights of the Fort Pitt Convention to a convention bossed by the Group.

(14) The demand was made by a majority vote that these eighteen brethren vote the powers of the Fort Pitt Convention over the Committee to the Asbury Park Convention.

(15) This demand, it was insisted upon, must be granted in the Convention's presence without permitting appropriate discussion or the withdrawal of the eighteen brethren for private deliberation.

(16) This demand was enforced by a Convention

 

119

RUTHERFORDISM IN THE

SOCIETY.

bossed Convention without discussion on the part of the Directors and others.

(17) This demand, so favorable to his plan, having been granted, they were, by a resolution, impliedly asked to accede to an election of their successors, i.e., they were in effect asked to resign.

(18) They knew that the Shareholders would have voted them out of office, if they did not accept the situation demanded by him and his supporters; and therefore, under this stress, they ceased to object to the election proceeding; i.e., they in effect resigned.

(19) The four Directors knew that they were marked for slaughter.

(20) The surrender of the powers of the four Directors, conferred by that Servant's Charter, not only put the entire directorate into the hands of the J.F.R.-controlled Convention, but also the Society's other assets.

(21) To say that the above-described course of this Shareholders' meeting

 

RUTHERFORDISM IN THE

COMMITTEE.

"bossed" by the Group without discussion on the part of the three and others.

(17) This demand, so favorable to the plan of the Group, having been granted, the Committee was asked to resign.

(18) They knew that the misinformed Convention would have ousted them, if they did not accept the situation demanded by the Group and their supporters; and therefore, under this stress, the three resigned.

(19) The three knew that they were marked for slaughter.

(20) The surrender of the powers of the Fort Pitt Convention to the Asbury Park Convention, not only put the Committee into the hands of a bossed Convention, but also the Committee's assets.

(21) To say that the above-described course of the Convention's business

 

120

RUTHERFORDISM IN THE

SOCIETY.

was coercive is putting matters mildly.

(22) When brethren of spiritual discernment saw that in the course of his supporters the Lord's spirit was plainly lacking; and when they sought to have the proceedings stopped, just before the election of Directors was taken up; they were uncharitably accused of seeking to obstruct matters.

(23) F.H. McGee, the proposer of the motion to delay matters for investigation, was treated with contempt and silenced by "a point of order."

(24) Up to the time of balloting for new Directors, repeated efforts were made to change the purpose of the supporters of J.F.R's. plans.

(25) All such efforts were in vain, because his "political" campaign had misled the majority of the shareholders, who seemed

 

RUTHERFORDISM IN THE

COMMITTEE.

meetings on Saturday, July 27, 1918, was coercive is putting the matter mildly.

(22) When brethren of spiritual discernment saw that in the course of the supporters of the Group the Lord's spirit was plainly lacking; and when they sought, just before the election of a new Committee was taken up, to adjourn the meeting, they were uncharitably accused of seeking to obstruct matters.

(23) Bro. Johnson, the proposer of the motion to delay matters, until more deliberation and prayer could be given matters, was treated with contemptuous catcalls of "shame" and silenced on "a point of order."

(24) Up to the time of voting for the new Committee repeated efforts were made to change the purpose of the supporters of the Group's plans.

(25) All such efforts were in vain, because the Group's "political" campaign, by July 27, 1918, had misled the majority of

 

121

RUTHERFORDISM IN THE

SOCIETY.

impatient with the efforts to enlighten them on the real merits of the case.

(26) The shareholders, responding to motions favorable to his plans, elected six to membership on the new Board who were advocated for such membership before the election by him and his supporters.

(27) The other new member of the Board was nominated by supporters of his plans.

(28) The five Directors who had opposed his usurpations were not elected.

(29) Before the election he made special efforts to separate A. N. Pierson from the four "opponent" Directors.

(30) Without an election thereto, he assumed the chairmanship of the shareholders' meeting.

 

RUTHERFORDISM IN THE

COMMITTEE.

the conventioners, who seemed impatient with the efforts to enlighten them on the real merits of the case.

(26) The Conventioners, responding to motions favorable to the plans of the Group, elected six to membership on the new Committee who, with one possible exception, were advocated for such membership before the election by the Group and their supporters.

(27) The other new member of the Committee was nominated by supporters of the Group's plans.

(28) The three brothers who had opposed the questionable efforts of the other members of the Committee were not elected.

(29) Before the election the Group of four made special efforts to separate

R.H. Hirsh from R.G. Jolly and P.S.L. Johnson.

(30) The Group, without an election thereto, assumed in the person of their convention chairman, the chairmanship of the business sessions.

 

122

RUTHERFORDISM IN THE

SOCIETY.

(31) Throughout the Shareholders' meeting he, as chairman, ruled in favor of his plans, to the dis-advantage of the four ousted Directors.

(32) At one point he signaled A. H. MacMillan to have a motion made advantageous to his plans.

(33) Attacks were made on the four Directors and on several of their supporters, their names even being disparagingly mentioned.

(34) These attacks were made preparatory to the business centering in the election.

(35) The activity of certain interested sisters, before and during the Convention, helped to create the unhealthy atmosphere of the first business sessions of the Shareholders' meeting.

(36) The Shareholders' meeting, controlled by J.F.R., permitted no discussion of certain vital issues.

 

RUTHERFORDISM IN THE

COMMITTEE.

(31) Throughout the business meetings the chairman of the Group ruled in favor of their plans, to the disadvantage of the three marked committee men.

(32) At one point he signaled to Bro. Robbins to make a motion advantageous to the plans of the Group.

(33) Attacks were made on the three committeemen, their names even being disparagingly mentioned.

(34) These attacks were made preparatory to the business centering in the election.

(35) The activity of certain interested sisters, before and during the Convention, helped to create the unhealthy atmosphere of the first business sessions of the Convention.

(36) The business meetings of Saturday, July 27, 1918, controlled by the Group and their supporters permitted no discussion of certain vital issues.

 

123

RUTHERFORDISM IN THE

SOCIETY.

(37) To the last he sought to "boss" the Shareholders' meeting.

(38) His tactics turned what should have been a feast into one of the few bad Conventions held among Truth people.

(39) His general course made a division in the Church.

(40) His general course greatly distressed the Church.

(41) His general course undermined the Faithful's confidence in him.

(42) His general course wrecked the Society's real work.

(43) His general course called for the Faithful to question his leadership.

(44) His general course called for an unbossed Convention for consultation and action relative to his acts and aims and the conditions in the Church.

(45) Fearing an investigation, he refused to call an extra meeting of the

 

RUTHERFORDISM IN THE

COMMITTEE.

(37) To the last the Group sought to "boss" the business meetings of the Convention.

(38) Their tactics turned what should have been a feast into one of the few bad Conventions held Truth people.

(39) Their general course made a division in the Church.

(40) Their general course greatly distressed the Church.

(41) Their general course undermined the Faithful's confidence in them.

(42) Their general course wrecked the Committee's real work.

(43) Their general course called for the Faithful to question their leadership.

(44) Their general course called for an unbossed Convention for consultation and action relative to their acts and aims and the condition of the Church.

(45) Fearing an investigation they refused to call an early Convention, which

 

124

RUTHERFORDISM IN THE

SOCIETY.

shareholders, which he was asked to do.

(46) He wrote to the Philadelphia Church that he had too much to do to arrange for a special meeting of the Society's shareholders; and that an extra meeting of the shareholders would be too inconvenient for them, and therefore he unanimously decided not to call them together.

 

RUTHERFORDISM IN THE

COMMITTEE.

they were asked to do.

(46) The new Committee wrote to the Philadelphia Church that it has too much work to arrange for a general Convention (a Convention that might uncover matters?) and that the location of Philadelphia makes it too inconvenient for a convention to assemble there; therefore, it unanimously decided to disfavor the request of the Philadelphia Church for a general Convention.

 

XII. A most impressive feature brought to light by a comparison of the wrong acts of J.F.R. and his supporters on the one hand, and of the Group and their supporters on the other hand, is the fact that in the main particulars both Groups committed the same kind of wrongs exactly to the day, one year apart. Many of the Faithful, scripturally regard the Spirit-begotten supporters of J.F.R. as of that class of antitypical Merarite Levites (Great Company, Vol. VI, page 129), typed by the Mahlite (Num. 3: 20, 33), descendants of Merari. Some of these Faithful are beginning to have grave fears that the Group and their supporters may be of the antitypical Gershonite Levites (Great Company), typed by the Shimite descendants of Gershon. Does it not seem probable that the Lord allowed an exact year to elapse between the revelation (by actions) of the antitypical Mahlite and the antitypical Shimite Levites?

 

125

RUTHERFORDISM IN THE

SOCIETY.

(1) J.F.R. was voted into power, Jan. 6, 1917, by the passing of his bylaws, recommended by I.L. Margeson and two others.

(2) A little later the Board was organized by the election of the Society's officers, Jan. 6, 1917.

(3) J.F.R. defined his powers after his by-laws were spread on the Board's minutes, Jan. 20, 1917.

(4) Bro. Johnson's statement, drawn up at London, Feb. 17, 1917, setting forth the wrongs of H. J. Shearn and W. Crawford, was reported to J.F.R. as injurious, Feb. 19, 1918.

(5) His cable to the London Managers and to Bro. Johnson declared some of the latter's work to be "absolutely without

 

RUTHERFORDISM IN THE

COMMITTEE.

(1) The Committee was voted into power, Jan. 6, 1918, by I.L. Margeson's resolution, over which he seemed to consult two others (he succeeding a resigned member, helped largely to form the Group as separate from the other three brothers).

(2) A little later the Committee was organized by the election of its officers, Jan. 6, 1918.

(3) The Committee defined its powers after discussing its minutes and spreading upon them the powers conferred on them at the Convention, Jan. 20, 1918.

(4) Bro. Johnson's statements on the "evil servant," Feb. 17, 1918, at Philadelphia, setting forth the wrongs of J.F.R. were reported to I.F. Hoskins as injurious, Feb. 19, 1918.

(5) The Group's resolution of Feb. 23 (passed at night, therefore Feb. 24, God's time), discountenancing any teachings not

 

126

RUTHERFORDISM IN THE

SOCIETY.

authority," Feb. 24, 1917.

(6) J. Hemery, in the interests of J.F.R.'s "absolutely-without-authority" cable, suspiciously watches Bro. Johnson as "unsafe," preparatory to and during the sessions of the Investigating Commission, March 2-5, 1917.

(7) As the agent of J.F.R., J. Hemery tells members of the Investigating Commission of the "absolutely-without-authority" and "insanity" cables, with comments, March 3, 1917.

(8) J. Hemery, as J.F.R.'s representative, at a special meeting, continues to slander Bro. Johnson, March 11, 1917.

(9) J. Hemery, as J.F.R.'s representative, at another special meeting, still continues to slander Bro. Johnson, March 13, 1917.

 

RUTHERFORDISM IN THE

COMMITTEE.

approved by the Committee (which, of course, means the Group) declared Bro. Johnson's work on that evil servant, Elijah and Elisha, etc., "absolutely without authority," Feb. 24, 1918.

(6) I.L. Margeson, in the interests of the Group's "absolutely-without-authority" preaching resolution, at Boston suspiciously watches Bro. Johnson as "unsafe," March 2-5, 1918.

(7) Seemingly acting as the agent of M. Sturgeon (whose working program the Group has adopted), Hattie O. Henderson distributes her slanderous paper against Bro. Johnson, with comments, March 3, 1918.

(8) Hattie O. Henderson, seemingly as M. Sturgeon's representative, at a special meeting continues to slander Bro. Johnson, March 11, 1918.

(9) Hattie O. Henderson, seemingly as M. Sturgeon's representative, at another special meeting continues to slander Bro. Johnson, March 13, 1918.

 

127

RUTHERFORDISM IN THE

SOCIETY.

(10) At a Board meeting Bro. Johnson is reproved by J.F.R. and several of his supporters for having supposedly acted "absolutely without authority" in the English affairs, April 13, 1917.

(11) At this Board meeting Bro. Johnson protests against his English activity being treated as "absolutely without authority," April 13, 1917.

(12) Just after reading his paper on conscientious objection to the Bethel family, J.F.R. said to Bro. Johnson that it was necessary for the safeguarding of the brethren from military service to claim that the Society and the Church were one; i.e., it was attempted to organize the Church otherwise than the Lord organized it, May 11, 1917.

(13) Bro. Johnson's Scriptural objection to this plan is treated lightly by J.F.R., May 11, 1917.

 

RUTHERFORDISM IN THE

COMMITTEE.

(10) At a Committee meeting Bro. Johnson is reproved by the Group as having acted "absolutely without authority" in the Elijah and Elisha discourse delivered at Jersey City and Newark, where he spoke on this subject by request of the Classes, April 13, 1918.

(11) At this Committee meeting Bro. Johnson protests against his preaching timely Truth being treated as "absolutely without authority," April 13, 1918.

(12) A representative of the Group proposed the formation of a Society as necessary for the work; i.e., it was an attempt to organize the Church otherwise than the Lord organized it, May 11, 1918.

(13) Bro. Johnson's Scriptural objection to this plan is treated lightly by the Group, May 11, 1918.

 

128

RUTHERFORDISM IN THE

SOCIETY.

(14) Through the Board's compromising resolution on Bro. Johnson's English activity, J.F.R. succeeded in throwing a cloud over his English work, June 20, 1917.

(15) J.F.R. and A. H. MacMillan, June 21, 1917, try to get rid of Bro. Johnson by attempting to send him on a transient Pilgrim trip, landing him at his home.

(16) Bro. Johnson's refusal to go on a Pilgrim trip and his appeal to the Board against J.F.R.'s order for him to leave Bethel, blocked, temporarily, the effort to put him out of the Society's work, June 22, 1917.

(17) By making affidavit to four vacancies in the Board, and by appointing four new directors; J.F.R. blocked efforts to

 

RUTHERFORDISM IN THE

COMMITTEE.

(14) Through the compromising course of some of the Committee members and their supporters relative to Bro. Johnson's course toward the Society's leaders on trial, his Elijah and Elisha teaching is placed under a cloud, June 20, 1918.

(15) I.F. Hoskins' and H.C. Rockwell's plan (made at the conviction of the Society leaders) to form a reunion with the Society, based as it was on a denial that the division of last year was the separation of Elijah and Elisha, was logically an attempt to get rid of Bro. Johnson, June 21, 1918.

(16) Bro. Johnson's objection to, and the majority of the Committee disapproving of, the projected reunion with the Society temporarily blocks what in reality was an effort to put him out of the Committee's work, June 22, 1918.

(17) By finally preventing a meeting for July 13, 1918, several of the Group blocked efforts to interfere with their plans, July 12,