Posted by J.H. [JH] on April 07, 1999 at 14:24:04 {HTWDI6pmYgHSG.vl05doHR5JhS9/hc}:
In Reply to: Was the Pastor a Pansy? posted by Tallyman on April 07, 1999 at 12:34:25:
Since religious leaders have so much power over their followers, and especially so in matters of sexuality, I can hardly accept that a serious discussion of this topic can be off-limits just because of people's sensitivities to S-E-X.
Here are some facts and arguments I posted to H2O the last time this was up:
"I am like a jellyfish; I float around here and there. I touch this one and that one, and if she respinds I take her to me, and if not I float on to others"
Both these statements were attributed to C. T. Russell by his (ex)wife Maria Frances, and are to be found in the court transcipts of the Superior Court of Pennsylviania and the Court of Common Pleas, Pittsburgh, respectively.
Is there any truth in the allegations that Russell was a pedophile? There is no solid basis for such a conclusion. If Russell had been alive, such speculation would be libellious. But he is long dead, and historians must be allowed to ask that question.
It is a fact that he did acts to the young (underage) woman who lived in the house, Rose Ball, that were deemed grossly inappropriate by his wife. He had her sitting in his lap at an age where this would be far from natural, and that he fondled her, which he himself admitted in court. He told in court that the kisses in one specific incident that Mrs Russell used as proof of "improprieties", only was to administer "spiritual tonic."
It is also a fact, admitted by both parties, that C. T. Russell never had sex with his wife. This no doubt was a great problem to her. The fact that the pastor had an enourmous attraction on young women did little to improve it. In one case he had to call in the police to stop a 16-year-old girl named Sophie Hassan from pestering him. Russell later seemed to hint that this was some satanic plot to tempt him.
Much more important, however, is the fact that Russell was divorced for cruelty towards his wife, and that of the worst kind. One can only imagine what would cause a male-dominated court in the USA around the turn of the century to state:
"His court of conduct toward his wife evidenced such insistent egotism and extravagant self-praise that it would be manifest to the jury that this conduct toward her was one of continual arrogant domination that would necessarily render the life of any sensitive Christians woman a burden and make her conditions intolerable." (Justice Orlady in the sentence)
For more in-depth comments and substantial quotations from the court record and
background material, see Barbara Harrison: Visions of Glory, NY 1978.