How were Rutherford's Cadillacs purchased?

I mentioned Rutherford's Cadillacs to my study conductor, and he said maybe Rutherford was able to purchase them because he was independently wealthy.  Were they purchased from his own personal wealth or with the WT funds?

A Cadillac is nothing, the real question is where did they get the dough to make beth sarim and shan.

There seems to be proof that the houses were donated to him from a rich friend. Maybe the same was true about the cars.

If I remember correctly the Caddies (2 8 or 16-cylinder fancy jobs) were donations but can't find the article

see http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/180518/1/Judge-Rutherford-Cadillac

as to the houses - a small piece of land was donated. 100 acres around that land was bought presumably by the WTS and that 100 acres included land across the canyon where Beth Shan was later built

When I was about 12 years old, I was told by my "congregation servant" that the cars were gifts from a "Brother Parkhurst" who was a real estate agent or car dealer in New Jersey. Since then, I've heard that another wealthy JW in Washington DC provided Rutherford and Knorr with cars.His name was Anton Koerber. He was rewarded with an appointment as a circuit overseer. Later, I believe, he had an unpleasant run-in with Knorr that led to his being stripped of "privileges." I remember thinking that his speaking voice was extremely annoying. His life story is in the May 15, 1968 issue of the Watchtower.

It is best not to bring up any subject that will see as nit picking.

They believe that they were selected by God to do a job, so if Rutherford had a Caddy, it makes no difference where the money came from, God, in effect, supplied it, just as he provides the meal on the table they thank him for.  Never mind that God didn't do anything to grow, harvest, transport, or cook, the food.

I long ago read somewhere that Judge Rutherford had an air conditioner in his Brooklyn office that was received as a gift.

Everyone else at the Brooklyn office had to put up with the heat.

How did Rutherford feel about enjoying the comforts of air conditioning while others nearby had to endure?

Probably didn't bother him at all.

Judge Rutherfod liked to receive and enjoy expensive gifts from others!

Let make a list!

1) Two Cadillacs

2) Air Conditioning for his office

3) Beth Sarim, a large house on 100 acres of property.

And there are probably many others that we don't know about!

I count at least three different Cadillacs in the period literature betwee 1928 and 1931  These vehicles cost 10 to 12 times what the average vehicle at the time cost.

Black Sheep

It isn't nit-picking to discover the truth. People have a right to know if the people they are (or were) following were practicing what they preach. Rutherford constantly degraded the Catholic Church for its excesses. People have a right to know how their hard earned money is being used.

Saying the house and cars were for the use of Abraham and David when they came back was beyond absurd. And even if he beleived they were coming back then the house and cars should have not been used by him as his personal vacation home. His hypocrasy speaks volumes.

Ands things really haven't changed in the WTS a whole lot since then.

My guess is that most of the money for luxuries donated to JFR came from the bank account of William P. Heath, Jr.  If I recall correctly, Bill's name is on the deed to Beth Shan.  Bonnie (nee Boyd) and Bill Heath were JFR's traveling companions on a number of his trips abroad.  Again, my guess is that they picked up the tab for these trips.

F.

@Lady Lee:

If the question posed by @Black Sheep in this thread isn't "nit-picking," then to you it isn't nit-picking, and I can accept that. No one today has the right to live, and yet many people are alive today, are they not? You believe people have a right to know things to which knowledge they were not privy since they were either not born yet or weren't in the room or in the building of in the proverbial loop when such knowledge was first made known.

Thankfully, we have reason to know things that are important to our well-being now and to our well-being in the future, and although many here have rejected such knowledge as being unimportant to our well-being now and in the future, that is a choice that I'm willing to respect.

What about you, @Lady Lee? Nothing has changed in the WTS except you, for reasons of your own, are no longer associated with it, which was your choice to make, but if @Black Sheep was curious about the excesses of a dead man that had devoted his life to sharing the word of God with others, even if he wasn't 100% correct in everything he preached, the man is still dead.

@djeggnog

Hey Lady Lee - Thank you for all your help BTW.  Black Sheep has been giving me advice on how to deal with the skewed perceptions that some fiercely loyal JW's have.  I understood his comment to mean the JW will -perceive- it as nit-picking and put up a wall.  I agree with you that the Cadillacs are another example of hypocrisy and important to be aware of.  At the same time, as an outsider, I have found that my JW conductor is quick to put up a wall when I mention the shortcomings of the WT leaders.  He threatened to end the study a while back when I kept bringing up the various problems.  He called me a "debater."  I could walk away, but I am choosing to continue the study to try to get the picture of the culture my JW friend is wrapped up in.  Along the way, if I can put my conductor in a position where he has to be honest with himself about things like 1914, I'm willing to forego telling him about the other miscellaneous problems that I keep discovering.  Maybe he'll wake up and the floodgates can be opened.

I read he had 3 Cads in 3 different places..

but can only find where he had two.

Snoozy

@InterestedOne:

Actually, if you wish to find fault with someone, you will easily find many of them, whether they happen to be Jehovah's Witnesses or not. Look at yourself, for example: How many faults do you have? How many of them are you willing to admit to yourself that you have?

You wanted to know about a dead man's wealth; he had none. He had gifts and if someone should give you a $10,000 ring or a $100,000 car, that wouldn't make you wealthy. You would just be the owner of a $10K ring and a $100K car.

I don't know why you were called a "debater," but maybe he doesn't like people that seem to him to be faultfinders, if that is what you are, but he may have called you "a debater" for other reasons. Be that as it may, if you disagree with what Jehovah's Witnesses teach about the significance of the year 1914, I see no reason that you should have to believe what we believe. None whatsoever. Many people like Jehovah's Witnesses for the way our homes look, the way our children behave, the way we treat others, except for the way we shun disfellowshipped Witnesses, which is understandable because they have not yet become "rooted ... in the faith." (Colossians 2:7)

If you have no real interest in the message that Jehovah's Witnesses seek to spread to others, don't listen to it. Don't bother trying to wake us up because, believe it or not, we are already awake. Jesus will judge both the living and the dead (2 Timothy 4:1); maybe you've heard this before and maybe not. If Rutherford or anyone now dead or you or anyone now living should not be found by Jesus to know God or being obedient to the good news, God's vengeance will be upon you as you will indeed "undergo the judicial punishment of everlasting destruction" for everyone will render an account to Jesus. (2 Thessalonians 1:7-9; 1 Peter 4:5)

Tell the man that you are an undercover reporter, since that is what you essentially are, and that you have no real interest in any of this Bible stuff, and leave him alone to do the work of the Lord" as best he can. (1 Corinthians 15:58) He's wasting his time with you, so why not just tell him that? Come to JWN and debate me. I don't mind talking to people that aren't really interested in what Jehovah's Witnesses believe or teach. So if 1914 is your topic of choice, then we'll discuss that, but you pick the topic. Look: I'll be your huckleberry.

@djeggnog

I found this article from 6- 10- 1935:

"By a curious telescoping of events and ideas, Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Biblical prophecies govern all earthly events. They, under Judge Rutherford's leadership, distrust formalized religion, lump clergymen with financiers, politicians, the League of Nations and Lucifer, the last of whom they believe to be actively at large. In their scrutinies of Holy Writ, the Bible Students have concluded that three "cosmos" divide history. Cosmos I began with Adam, ended with the Flood. Cosmos II ended in 1914. The Bible Students once predicted that Cosmos III would end with the Kingdom of God in 2874 but currently they are more concerned with Judge Rutherford's prophecy that a universal war is looming. (And the slain of the Lord shall be at that day from one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth: they shall not be lamented, neither gathered, nor buried; they shall be dung upon the ground—Jeremiah, 25:33.) As to when the universal war will occur Judge Rutherford is vague. Few years ago he came a cropper by prophesying such a cataclysm for 1928. Two years later he deeded in perpetuity a ten-room house, two-car garage and a pair of automobiles in San Diego, Calif, to King David, Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, Samuel and other Biblical worthies, declaring he was confident they would shortly reappear on earth (TIME, March 31, 1930)."

Wondering how you deed property to ghosts?

djeggnog - As for debating 1914, I am currently reading "The Gentile Times Reconsidered" by Carl Olof Jonson.  After you have read it, perhaps you can share your comments on it on a separate thread.  This one is about Cadillacs & drifted slightly into nit-picking.

@InterestedOne:

After you have read ["The Gentile Times Reconsidered" by Carl Olof Jonson], perhaps you can share your comments on it on a separate thread. This one is about Cadillacs & drifted slightly into nit-picking.

Seriously??? Did you ask this JW guy to whom you refer in your post to read this book, before you could get on with him in discussing any of yours questions or concerns about 1914? No, I don't think you did that, and I don't need to read anything before debating the topic with you. You aren't the book's author, so I wouldn't expect you to be in a position to stand in for someone else and debate his position, so please feel free to take me up on my offer and debate me on the topic of 1914. Whatever questions you might have regarding our beliefs on the significance of the year 1914, I'll answer those to the best of my ability, and if you benefit in any way from my answers, you will, and if not, you will not do so, and I'd like to do it in this thread since you are really in this one talking about Judge Rutherford's views on 1914; Cadillacs are just an aside as I see it, since you take issue with the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses in connection with 1914.

No excuses need be made for nit-picking since no one's perfect and we are not children. We can have that discussion now in this thread or in some other thread; your choice. If you wish to withdraw from pursuing a discussion of 1914, then you need say nothing; this thread will just die.

@djeggnog