100 Years Ago: June 1915 – “Meat in Due Season” Gets SPICY


June 1915 was the first full month wherein Watchtower readers could obtain and read a new publication that had just become available out of Brooklyn in the previous month. Here’s how it was announced in the May 1, 1915 Watchtower, known then as, Zion’s Watch Tower, emphasis ours:



Brother Rutherford, grieved by the various untruthful, slanderous attacks upon the Editor, has prepared a pamphlet in my defense. A copy of it has just been handed me. I have not yet read it, though, of course, I knew of its preparation and in a general way of its contents. I preferred not to have anything to do with its publication. It explains Brother Rutherford’s views as a lawyer, as a brother, and as a man who most fully understands the entire situation. It contains some interesting illustrations and is priced at ten cents per copy, or eight dollars per hundred copies, postpaid. It is not unreasonable to expect that nearly all of our readers will be very glad to have this pamphlet, as it will furnish them with evidence on every point thus far brought forward by my maligners.

Orders for the pamphlets should be addressed to Judge Rutherford, New York City, P.O. Box 51. However, we will have a supply at THE WATCH TOWER Office, and, if one is ordering other things, this pamphlet can be supplied also. It is entitled, “A GREAT BATTLE IN THE ECCLESIASTICAL HEAVENS.”


If you’d like to read this booklet, it is available online in a few places. (See below for one of them.) You might enjoy it. But you might also see why Russell wanted nothing to do with this particular publication. Legal experts have also surmised why, perhaps, he would state that he had not personally read the publication. The booklet is packed with information which would require a full book’s worth of commentary to do it justice.


great battle


2 thoughts on “100 Years Ago: June 1915 – “Meat in Due Season” Gets SPICY”

  1. By May 1, 1915,the magazine was no longer known as “Zion’s Watch Tower”. It is presumptuous to believe Russell did not agree with the intent of Rutherford’s publication, and his statements suggests otherwise. Hence I see his statement that he had not been involved in the publication shows that he was genuinely disinterested in its content. (I hope you know the true meaning of “disinterested”, as he was very interested in promoting and distributing it.) Doug

    1. Thanks, I’ll make a correction. Thanks for pointing it out. I’m putting up another post that takes this idea a little further. I agree that he was very interested in promoting it and distributing it, but precisely because he must have known what it was all about, and had probably seen portions. I would like to get across the point that he only *SAID* he was disinterested. But I also think he may have had some reasons to distance himself from the specifics of the content because he already knew, in my opinion, that Rutherford had misused some “facts” in previous defenses of Russell. In case this ever became widely known, it would look like Russell was also himself condoning the same claims that Rutherford had made, with full knowledge that these “facts” were being misused.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s