From: sornson@illusn.enet.dec.com (Mark Sornson)
Subject: Court testimony of C.T. Russell (was JW divorce-court booklet thread)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: 16 APR 92 08:06:27    


        Sorry about the long include, folks, but it all seems relevant (to
    keep the context of the discussion) ...

In article <1992Apr15.175434@IASTATE.EDU>, kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes...
>In article <1992Apr15.132046.22853@cs.joensuu.fi>, asiivo@cs.joensuu.fi (Antti
>Siivonen) writes:
>> kv07@IASTATE.EDU (Warren Vonroeschlaub) writes:
>> >  If you want a good example consider Russel, the founder of JWs.  H ewas
>caught
>> >lying under oath.  Does that invalidate the entire religion?  No more than
>if
>> 
>> 	No he wasn't. In fact the discussion went like this: 
>> 
>> 		- Do you know Greek alphabets ?
>> 
>> 		R: Yes. 
>> 
>> 		- Do you know Greek ?
>> 
>> 		R: No, I don't. 
>> 
>> 	The enemies of the truth claimed that Russel first admitted that he
>> 	was able to speak Greek, then he denied it. 
>> -- 
>> 
>> 		Andreas - Siperian Sirri   Siberian Stint
>  Bad timing: I had just gotten the book for a response to E-Mail from Sonson,
>so I had it right here.  The entire discussion went as follows:
> 
>  Q: Do you know the greek alphabet?
>  A: (Russel) "Oh, yes."
>  Q: Can you tell me the correct letters if you see them?
>  A: (Russel) "Some of them, I might make a mistake on some of them."
>  Q: Would you tell me the names of thos on the top of page 447 I have got
>here?
>  A: "Well, I don't know that I would be able to."
>  Q: You can't tell what those letters are, lookat them and see if you know?
>  A: "My way . . ."
>  Q: Do you know the greek language?
>  A: "No."
> 
>  The "Do you know the greek language" question was asked after it had become
>clear he did not know the alphabet.

        As I look at this fragment of testimony, I see no lie.  What I DO
    see is 1) some ambiguity in the question, and 2) Russell was not given
    a chance to explain his answer (for, as the transcript shows, he was
    cut off:  "My way ...").

        Having read about this in another work, what Russell meant when he
    said that he 'knew' the Greek alphabet was that he was familiar with
    it, at a very elementary level, to the point that he could recognize
    the phonetic meaning of the letters and figure out their equivalents in
    English.  This level of ability is what many lay-Bible students
    acquire, which enables them to use things like Greek Bible concordances
    and dictionaries.  Being able to do this without having memorized the
    names of all the Greek characters is probably quite common, even today.
    Now yes, such ability isn't exactly the height of scholarly ability;
    but then, I don't believe Russell ever claimed to have been a Greek
    scholar [in the orthodox sense; though that didn't mean that he didn't
    study the meanings of Greek words and phrases to the best of his
    ability, with the help of scholarly works].

        Perhaps, when asked if he knew the Greek alphabet, Russell SHOULD
    have said, "somewhat," or "to some small degree of familiarity," or
    something to that effect, to have more immediately qualified his
    answer; but he didn't.   Still, his answer of "yes" wasn't a lie (and
    thus, perjury).  When Russell was asked, "You can't tell what those
    letters are, look at them and see if you know?," you'll notice that he
    didn't say "No," thus contradicting himself; instead, he started to
    answer, but was denied the chance to finish.  Russell was about to
    explain what his abilities were.  In any case, there's quite a gap
    between mere familiarity with a language's alphabet and intimate
    familiarity with the language itself.

        The transcript fragment proves no lie.  What it DOES do is make a
    mountain out of a molehill.  By asserting that it contains a lie, that
    assertion introduces a prejudice to the mind of the reader who will, of
    course, look for the lie as though one could really be found [this is
    what I call the 'advantage of first strike']; and perhaps, thinking a
    lie is really present, readers predisposed to think ill of Russell (or
    Witnesses in general) might imagine they have found the lie alleged to
    be there.  But *I* see no lie in the testimony.  Instead, I see a lie
    in the claim that such a lie exists [which I don't blame Kurt for ...
    he is merely passing along a very common distortion of the truth].  In
    this case, I believe Andreas is entirely correct in what he says.

        Since we corresponded by e-mail about this testimony, I'd like to
    thank Kurt for supplying it.  Tell me, Kurt:  where, in all of the 5
    lines of Russell's testimony, do you find evidence [which speaks for
    itself, beyond all reasonable doubt] that he lied in court?

        							-mark.