J.D. Rutherford was a con-man.

Con concedes that this shall be a debate regarding the morality and legality of J.F. Rutherford's actions. It is noted that this provision should have been stated prior to initiating the debate.1) Forgery: Con concedes that The Finished Mystery, published by Rutherford after Russel's death, was written by G.H. Fisher and C.J. Woodworth [1] but based in part on Russel's writings [2]. A fine example of pseudepigrapha but not clear-cut forgery. 2) Violation of Last Will and Testament: Con concedes that Rutherford acted contrary to Russel's last will and testament in both instances.3) Anti-Semitism: Godwin! Rutherford's behavior may speak to fascism and hypocrisy but those aren't the issue at hand. Rutherford made no attempt to keep his opinions a secret so it's hard to see this as evidence of fraudulent behaviour. The cited remark is bereft of context or even date making it difficult to evaluate. Con concedes that Pro has demonstrated that some of Rutherford's actions were immoral and possibly illegal. This is not the same as demonstrating that Rutherford was a "con man" or "swindler". Pro's definition is ambiguous and somewhat circular.A more thorough definition, to which I hope Pro will not object, is found in the OED definition of confidence trick: An act of cheating or tricking someone by gaining their trust and persuading them to believe something that is not true [3]. This, and any meaningful definition of "con man" or "swindler", requires the explicit use of deceit.Pro may have demonstrated Rutherford's immorality and illegality but has not demonstrated deceit.A quick read of the history of the Jehova's Witnesses reveals a religion in upheaval, as is common of young religions. There has been infighting, struggles for power and formation of a wide variety of schisms from it's origins as Russel's Bible Study movement to the present day [4]. Rutherford's behavior as described by Pro is entirely in line with a religious leader faced with such difficulties. Rutherford's character is described as " blunt and moody with an explosive temper, with a streak of self-righteousness which caused him to regard anyone who opposed him as of the Devil" [5] and "a dogmatic and insensitive person, obsessed with his own self-importance." [6] The board members that Rutherford dismissed in 1917 described him as "autocratic" [7].Conclusion: J.F. Rutherford was head of a young religion during a time of internal unrest. His action may have been immoral and illegal but they lack the deceit necessary to deem him a swindler. His advocates and detractors, both contemporary and modern, describe a personality far too blunt, abbrasive and tempermental to have made for even a marginally effective swindler. Rutherford may have ben a horrible person but con man was not one of his many transgressions.References:[1] Crompton, R (1996) Counting the Days to Armageddon: Jehovah's Witnesses and the Second Presence of Christ (pp 84-85). ISBN-13: 978-0227679395[2] Wills, T (2006) A People for His Name: A History of Jehovah's Witnesses and an Evaluation (p 97). ISBN: 978-1430301004[3]http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...[4] Beckford, JA. (1975) The Trumpet of Prophecy: A Sociological Study of Jehovah's Witnesses (pp 98-100). ISBN 0631163107[5] Penton, JM (1997) Apocalypse Delayed: The Story of Jehovah's Witnesses (pp 47-48). ISBN 0802079733[6] Rogerson, A (1969) Millions Now Living Will Never Die (p 35). ISBN 0-09-455940-6[7] Pierson AN, et al. (1917) Light After Darkness (p 4)