Your input wanted.

UPDATED

I'm reluctant to point my readers to poorly researched, often opposition, web sites. Yet, the most pointed complaint form academics was that I failed to footnote comments about defective web pages. So there is this, but I'm conflicted. I may not keep any of this, or I may keep it as is. What do you think?

3 Albert Delmont Jones and William Conley

 

 

            Albert Royal Delmont Jones played a significant though until now unexplored role in Watch Tower history. One finds brief mentions of him in the relevant books and articles, usually never giving us more that a reiteration of Russell’s 1890 biographical article. With the exception of two blogs devoted to Watch Tower history in the Russell era, no one has returned to the original documents. A Catholic web site devoted to apologetics has a more extensive article devoted to Jones and J. H. Paton. It is built primarily from secondary sources and contains errors of fact. It is meant to portray Russell in as poor light was possible. It is neither consistently factual nor balanced.[1]

            Worse is a web site devoted to anti-Watchtower and anti-Russell polemics. Its anonymous author is given to speculation, especially when he is unable to find a factual basis for criticism. Billed as “The Internet’s Best Financial Biography of Charles Taze Russell,” its writer suggests that Russell’s financial history is purposely hidden by the modern Watch Tower Society. His intention is to suggest that there is a hidden scandal. In fact, the Watch Tower is simply disinterested. Their interest is in their doctrinal and spiritual antecedents.

            Apparently reluctant to disclose his name or contact information, the writer presents what he saw as his best effort to disclose A. D. Jones’ history.[2] Without doubt Jones is, as one writer described him, “the bad boy” of Watch Tower history. But this writer’s attempt to connect Jones’ thefts to Russell falls into wild speculation. Speculation may lead to a research trail, but presenting it as probable is unethical. While considering the events connected with a failed investor’s suicide, he writes:

 

How do we know that russell had not given those worthless notes to Jones for whatever reason, or how do we know that russell had not directed Jones to use those three worthless notes to pay debts accrued while Jones acted as russell’s agent? Or better yet, considering Creighton’s known “insolvency”, russell could have directed Jones to attempt to pawn off the known worthless notes to whatever local NYC sucker would accept them (who would take or buy them in Pittsburgh?), so as to recoup some or all of russell’s already obvious losses. Interestingly, one of the two Plaintiffs was a large Paper Distributor. Another thought, if A. D. Jones had also defrauded russell  out of $10,500.00 ($350,000.00 in 2016 dollars – HALFHILL), then why did russell not later pursue criminal charges, or even a civil lawsuit, against Jones?

 

We may never know!!! The full facts of this case were never developed because Creighton was found dead of assumed suicide – a drug overdose – the day before the three court opinions were filed. But-for that suicide, the following trial would have publicly exposed the specifics of the ongoing business relationship between A. D. Jones and Charles Taze Russell to Russell’s religious constituency. As it was, Creighton’s death, and apparent insolvency, ended the matter.[3]

 

            All of this is unfounded, and it is based on haphazard research. The details he claims are lacking are easily found, and we consider them later in this chapter. This anonymous web site stands for many similar which are plagued by logic and research flaws. He raises questions that lack concrete evidence or reasoning to support his implied claims. Phrases such as how do we know and we may never know suggest that the author recognizes that his arguments are speculative. He shifts blame without justification, a polemicist’s argument of choice but unprincipled. He leaves the connection between Russell, Creighton and Jones undefined. The claim that Creighton’s suicide prevented the exposure of Russell’s business relationship with Jones is speculative and dramatic; it ignores more probable reasons why Russell failed to sue Jones. The assumptions made regarding the relationship between Jones, Russell, and the legal system are overly generalized and oversimplified. Bolded capitals and misuse of explanation marks do not prove anything. Finally, some claims are factually incorrect. His argument has no foundation. Now, let’s replace disreputable polemic with solid fact.

---

[1]               https://www.apologetyka.info/swiadkowie-jehowy/a-d-jones-i-j-h-paton-poczatkowi-wspopracownicy-c-t-russella-i-pierwsi-porzucajacy-go,1634.htm

[2]               My research assistant used the web site’s contact form to ask the author’s name. There was no response.

[3]               http://jwdivorces.bravehost.com/russell.html

I've revised this (as rough draft) to read as follows. Input still wanted.

Albert Royal Delmont Jones played a significant though until now unexplored role in Watch Tower history. One finds brief mentions of him in the relevant books and articles, usually never giving us more that a reiteration of Russell’s 1890 biographical article. With the exception of two blogs devoted to Watch Tower history in the Russell era, no one has returned to the original documents.[1] A Catholic web site devoted to apologetics has a more extensive article devoted to Jones and J. H. Paton. It is built primarily from secondary sources and contains errors of fact. It is meant to portray Russell in as poor light was possible. It is neither consistently factual nor balanced.[2]

            Worse is a web site devoted to anti-Watchtower and anti-Russell polemics. Its anonymous author is given to speculation, especially when he is unable to find a factual basis for criticism.[3]  Billed as the best among many internet web pages, its writer suggests that Russell’s financial history is purposely hidden by the modern Watch Tower Society. His intention is to suggest that there is a hidden financial scandal. In fact, the Watch Tower is simply disinterested. Their interest is in their doctrinal and spiritual antecedents.

            Without doubt Jones is, as one writer described him, “the bad boy” of Watch Tower history. But this writer’s attempt to connect Jones’ thefts to Russell falls into wild speculation based on haphazard research or imagination. He raises questions that lack concrete evidence or reasoning to support his implied claims, using phrases such as how do we know and we may never know which suggest that the author knows that his arguments are speculative. He shifts blame without justification, a polemicist’s argument of choice but unprincipled. He leaves the connection between Russell and others. The claim that a suicide prevented the exposure of Russell’s business relationship with Jones is speculative and dramatic; it ignores more the more probable. The assumptions made are overly generalized and oversimplified. He uses bolded, capitalized words and misuses explanation marks as if that alone proves a point. Now, let’s replace disreputable, unethical polemic with solid fact.

---

[1]               The blogs seeking in-depth, accurate articles are truthhistory.blogspot.com and jeromehistory.blogspot.com/.  I’m owner of the truthhistory blog. So, I’m ‘patting myself on the back’. Take that as you will.

[2]               https://www.apologetyka.info/swiadkowie-jehowy/a-d-jones-i-j-h-paton-poczatkowi-wspopracownicy-c-t-russella-i-pierwsi-porzucajacy-go,1634.htm

[3]               Using the web page’s contact form, my research assistant contacted him seeking his name. She received no reply.