The last name is also spelled McCormack. All we have are his initials. We know he moved to Chicago [with his wife] in 1882. We need full name and as much biography as we can find. We need your help with this. We're swamped with other things, and Rachael is too sick to undertake this.
We're not making real progress with this. But if one presumes that the McCormacks moved from Pittsburgh to Chicago, city directories point to George L. McCormack and his wife Charlotte.
Monday, June 4, 2018
Tabernacle Teachings
Tabernacle Teachings was an early work of CTR first
published as a special supplement to ZWT for February 1882. It was later expanded
into the more well-known work Tabernacle Shadows.
It followed on quite soon after the publication of
Food for Thinking Christians which was issued as a special issue of ZWT for
September 1881.
There was certain logic in the two small books being
presented together, and in fact, the second from last page of the original
Tabernacle Teachings presented them as companions.
It is not surprising that there are reports of the
two being actually bound together into one volume. However, the one copy that
has been seen shows the two publications being printed separately and just
being bound together without any additional title page. So the second title
page comes after the end of the first book. There were just extra end sheets
added to the combined item. On the inside end sheet of the one example that is
known is an inscription to the effect: “J C Sunderlin to G L McCormick.” So it
may be that Sunderlin had this particular example hard bound or it may be that
there are other examples out there still to be found.
The very end page of Tabernacle Teachings advertises
Zion’s Watch Tower magazine.
There is no mention of price on Tabernacle
Teachings, the booklet was free. The only mention of cost was in the
advertisement for ZWT on the final page. The subscription price for ZWT was 50
cents per year in the United States and sixty-five cents in Britain. The Lord’s
Poor could have it free on request.
Wednesday, May 30, 2018
Temporary Post
As usual, do not expect this post to remain up more than two or three days. You may copy it for your own use. Do not share it off the blog. I am posting this for comments. We post material from volume 2 as rough drafts. Do not rely on anything. The final version may change. Without comments, posts like this one have no rational for existence. We read your comments, and though we may not reply we do note them. And sometimes they change our approach.
Evangelical Voice
Russell
era evangelism is the foundation upon which the descendant religions –
Jehovah’s Witnesses and Bible Student congregations – are built. Yet, its
origins are left unexplored. Watchtower writers focus on a few key events: An
article in the April 1881 Watch Tower, Rutherford’s Advertise the
Kingdom speech; the circulation of Food for Thinking Christians. These
events are related with minimal or no connection to their context. Secular and
opposition writers do no better, drawing almost everything they say from
Watchtower Society commentary. The exception, though a regrettable one, is
found in A. T. Rogerson’s D.Phil. thesis. He discusses Russell era evangelism
with the same carelessness that he demonstrated in his previously published
book:
From Zion’s Watch Tower alone there is no
evidence that the Bible students participated in evangelisation regularly or in
an organised way prior to 1881. The emphasis in the magazine articles was
firmly on the doctrinal and devotional aspect of Bible student life. It appears
that Paton and Jones and other contributors to Zion’s Watch Tower
preferred this emphasis, and their articles showed more of an inward-looking
concern with the group itself. Paton’s book was designed for an Adventist
audience and there is little indication of a strong desire on his part (or on
Babour’s before him) to propagate their message, or evangelise for converts –
the initiative for their preaching tours appears to have come from Russell.
This ‘inactivity’ was consistent with their deterministic world-view and their
elitist conception of the ‘little flock’. Russell did tentatively suggest that
his readers might distribute tracts, but it was only in 1881 that Russell’s
emphasis on selling came to the fore. [His British spelling and punctuation
retained, as is his grammar fault.][1]
As is
most of what Rogerson wrote either in his book or his D.Phil thesis, this is
tainted with misstatements, wrong conclusions and simple error. He suggests
here that neither Barbour nor Paton were evangelizers. He based this on what he
did not find in Zion’s Watch Tower. We can, to a small degree, excuse
him for missing key statements in ZWT because he was dependent on the
1920 reprints which omit many of the earliest readers’ letters, but any excuse
for his ignorance is moderated by clear statements of evangelical intent found
in the reprinted volumes.[2]
Some of this we previously described.
Paton
evangelized near his Michigan home, preaching in nearby churches to whoever
would have him. He never gave up his self-identity as a clergyman, collecting
fees for his ministry. This limited his ministry to congregations willing to
host him and pay for the privilege, but he did evangelize. Day Dawn is
an edited collection of his sermons. That this is so demonstrates a regular,
evangelical ministry. We should observe too – as we did in the Introductory
Essay – that Rogerson misidentifies Adventism. We doubt that Rogerson read Day
Dawn; if he did he was totally unaware of American Literalism and how it
differed from Millerite Adventism. Paton’s book addressed some Adventist
issues, but in a critical way. The book’s content is Literalist. [Readers may
want to refresh their memories by reviewing appropriate sections of volume
one.] It is noteworthy that Paton’s magazine and theology are discussed in the
Age-to-Come/Literalist paper The Restitution but not, as far as
we could discover, in the Adventist press.[3]
We
addressed Barbour, Russell and Paton’s evangelism in volume one and in chapter
two of this volume. There is no need to revisit that, except to say Rogerson
got it wrong. But he also tells us that: “It appears that Paton and Jones and
other contributors to Zion’s Watch Tower ... more of an inward-looking
concern with the group itself.” This ignores half the evidence found in The
Watch Tower. Until his defection, Jones regularly evangelized. He was part
of a group of speakers willing to respond to requests for preaching, and he
arranged his own venues as well. [See chapter 2, this volume.] Enough of this can
be found in The Watch Tower reprints that Rogerson’s folly is
inexcusable. Before we pass on to what stimulated evangelism among Watch Tower
adherent groups, we should note that Rogerson’s claim that, “it was only in
1881 that Russell’s emphasis on selling came to the fore.” is wrong, which at
this point should surprise no-one. None of the Bible Students Tracts and
certainly not the two small books Tabernacle Teachings and Food for
Thinking Christians were sold to anyone. They were freely given, Russell bearing
the expense. Only over a decade later was Tabernacle Teachings retitled
as Tabernacle Shadows sold at a nominal price.
Also, we reject Rogerson’s
description of Watch Tower theology as deterministic. Determinism suggests that
events unfold beyond human control. Watch Tower belief was that each was
responsible for the decisions they made. Russell and his associates rejected
Presbyterian fatalism. Rogerson’s description of Watch Tower belief as elitist
is meant to be inflammatory. Watch Tower belief was that God would ultimately
save and bring to heavenly or earthly paradise nearly every human who ever
lived. To us, this is not elitism.
Watch
Tower Evangelism
The
Barbourite movement was narrowly focused, drawing almost entirely from
non-Seventh-day Adventists, Age-to-Come believers and other Millenarians.
Barbour saw those without millennialist belief as worldly and lost. He saw
himself as God’s appointed voice for the Last Days. Paton believed he was
divinely chosen, and he saw “advances” in spiritual insight as God’s special
revelation to him. Both published tracts, Paton many more than Barbour who
relied on the Herald of the Morning to further his ideology. Their focus
was narrow.
Russell’s
view was more expansive. He believed God’s people were scattered in all of
Christendom, and some were as yet unfound in non-Christian religions.
Connecting good-hearted Christians with ‘truth’ was urgent because they were in
the time of final judgment, the harvest time of Jesus’ parables. To explain Zion’s
Watch Tower’s mission, he quoted from the Millerite hymn Alarm:
"We are living, we are dwelling
In a grand and awful time;
In an age on ages telling
To be living is sublime."
The rest of this post has been deleted.
The rest of this post has been deleted.
Wednesday, May 23, 2018
Extract #3
From a much later chapter, our work in progress. POSTED FOR COMMENTS. And a reminder: Do not link to this blog through FACEBOOK. Ever.
From Zion’s Watch Tower alone there is no
evidence that the Bible students participated in evangelisation regularly or in
an organised way prior to 1881. The emphasis in the magazine articles was
firmly on the doctrinal and devotional aspect of Bible student life. It appears
that Paton and Jones and other contributors to Zion’s Watch Tower
preferred this emphasis, and their articles showed more of an inward-looking
concern with the group itself. Paton’s book was designed for an Adventist
audience and there is little indication of a strong desire on his part (or on
Babour’s before him) to propagate their message, or evangelise for converts –
the initiative for their preaching tours appears to have come from Russell.
This ‘inactivity’ was consistent with their deterministic world-view and their
elitist conception of the ‘little flock’. Russell did tentatively suggest that
his readers might distribute tracts, but it was only in 1881 that Russell’s
emphasis on selling came to the fore. [His British spelling and punctuation
retained.][1]
As is
most of what Rogerson wrote either in his book or his D.Phil thesis, this is
tainted with misstatements, wrong conclusions and simple error. He suggests
here that neither Barbour nor Paton were evangelizers. He based this on what he
did not find in Zion’s Watch Tower. We can, to a small degree, excuse
him for missing key statements in ZWT because he was dependent on the
1920 reprints which omit many of the earliest readers’ letters, but any excuse
for his ignorance is moderated by clear statements of evangelical intent found
in the reprinted volumes.[2]
Some of this we previously described.
Paton
evangelized near his Michigan home, preaching in nearby churches to whoever
would have him. He never gave up his self-identity as a clergyman, collecting
fees for his ministry. This limited his ministry to congregations willing to
host him and pay for the privilege, but he did evangelize. Day Dawn is
an edited collection of his sermons. That this is so demonstrates a regular,
evangelical ministry. We should observe too – as we did in the Introductory
Essay – that Rogerson misidentifies Adventism. We doubt that Rogerson read Day
Dawn; if he did he was totally unaware of American Literalism and how it
differed from Millerite Adventism. Paton’s book addressed some Adventist
issues, but in a critical way. The book’s content is Literalist. [Readers may
want to refresh their memories by reviewing appropriate sections of volume
one.]
There
are grammar issues in this paragraph and in the remainder of Rogeron’s thesis. [Note
the misplaced modifier.] Typically, students who struggle with grammar have
reading comprehension problems. But we have no certain way of knowing why
Rogerson’s work is defective. Perhaps we owe some of its problems to his
reliance on R. Rawe who provided him with documentation he did not have when he
wrote his book.[3] We don’t know.
We
addressed Barbour, Russell and Paton’s evangelism in volume one and in chapter
two of this volume. There is no need to revisit that, except to say Rogerson
got it wrong. But he also tells us that: “It appears that Paton and Jones and
other contributors to Zion’s Watch Tower preferred this emphasis, and
their articles showed more of an inward-looking concern with the group itself.”
This ignores half the evidence found in The Watch Tower. Until his
defection, Jones regularly evangelized. He was part of a group of speakers
willing to respond to requests for preaching, and he arranged his own venues as
well. [See chapter 2, this volume.] Enough of this can be found in The Watch
Tower reprints that Rogerson’s folly is inexcusable. Before we pass on to
what stimulated evangelism among Watch Tower adherent groups, we should note
that Rogerson’s claim that “it was only in 1881 that Russell’s emphasis on
selling came to the fore.” is wrong, which at this point should surprise
no-one. None of the Bible Students Tracts and certainly not the two small books
Tabernacle Teachings and Food for Thinking Christians were sold
to anyone. They were freely given, Russell bearing the expense. Only over a
decade later was Tabernacle Teachings retitled as Tabernacle Shadows
sold at a nominal price.
Also, we reject Rogerson’s
description of Watch Tower theology as deterministic. Determinism suggests that
events unfold beyond human control Watch Tower belief was that each was
responsible for the decisions they made. Russell and his associates rejected
Presbyterian fatalism. Rogerson’s description of Watch Tower belief as elitist
is meant to be inflammatory. Watch Tower belief was that God would ultimately
save and bring to heavenly or earthly paradise nearly every human who ever
lived. To us, this is not elitism.
Watch
Tower Evangelism
[1] A. T. Rogerson: A Sociological Analysis of the
Origin and Development of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and their Schismatic Groups,
D.Phil. thesis, Oxford University, 1972, page 51.
[2] The Watchtower of December 15, 1990, page 28,
pointed to the Reprints indices are “To this day ... the principal means of
finding material presented in early issues of the Watch Tower magazine.”
That is, of course, no longer true.
[3] Rogerson does not mention Rawe’s assistance, but he
cites material which in 1972 was available only to Rawe and one of our authors.
We did not provide it to Rogerson.
Wednesday, May 16, 2018
An extract #2
New material for my introductory essay. Comments please.
I
promised earlier a more detailed commentary on Alan Rogerson’s Millions Now
Living Will Never Die: A Study of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It saw print in 1969
and is another book written by someone with academic credentials. He is still
seen as authoritative enough to quote. Constable, his publisher, described his
book as a “fascinating and unbiased study [that] presents a full account of the
history and beliefs of the movement. He has consulted the original records
dating back to its founding in 1871, and brought to light numerous intriguing
and previously unknown facts.”[1] However,
Rogerson, a former adherent, was anything but unbiased. Much of his material
was derived from secondary sources, often factually incorrect and sometimes
pure fable. If he carefully read the early issues of Zion’s Watch Tower
and the volumes of Studies in the Scriptures his work shows severe
reading comprehension problems, or at least inattention to detail. Anyone even
moderately familiar with the material he was supposed to have consulted would
note this book’s fatal flaws.
Before
we dissect Rogerson’s work in some detail, we should note that there are
insightful, well thought out observations in it. Quoting them and maintaining
one’s intellectual honesty is perilous. A sociologist or historian may find
something in Rogerson that represents their beliefs. Quoting him without a
qualifying warning is the same as an endorsement. And, because the book is
seriously flawed, even dishonest, using any of Rogerson’s claims without first
independently researching the material is poor work. Would you accept that from
a student you’re advising? Why should your readers accept it from you?
Defects
permeate his book, but I will focus only on those touching the Russell era. The
material Rogerson claimed to have consulted was easily available to him; he had
a treasure of early material at his disposal. But we find him relying on
secondary, and often enough on opposition sources. Contemporary opposition
material is a valid resource, but not if contrary evidence is ignored. Rogerson
ignored contrary evidence because it invalidated his anti-Witness stance. His
approach is spotty, and we find him occasionally rebuking anti-cult nonsense. Echoing
his publisher’s claims, Rogerson wrote:
I have consulted all the original records available –
especially the books and Watchtowers printed since 1874 onwards ... and
when possible I have cited and quoted my sources of information. I have tried
to make my viewpoint unbiased as I have no strong personal feelings for or
against the Witness movement. My aim throughout has been to present a complete
account of the Witnesses incorporating all the significant incidents and facts;
where I have discussed certain events or ideas the factual basis for the
discussion is also presented so that readers are free to draw their own
conclusions.[2]
It is
impolite, I suppose, to call Rogerson a liar, but bluntness is sometimes called
for, and this is one of those times. Let’s start with his claim to have read in
their entirety the Watchtower adherent books published from 1874 onward. He
obviously did not. The implication is that he read Object and Manner of Our
Lord’s Return, which was generally supposed to have been printed that year.
It was not impossible to find in 1969. Several researchers including myself
obtained a photocopy from an American university. If he read it, he failed to
note the 1877 printing date. If he read Studies in the Scriptures as he
claimed, then he would have found Russell noting the 1877 printing date. If he
read The Watch Tower as carefully as he suggests, he would have found
that date verified there as well. He didn’t read it. He lied. Never lie to your
readers. Eventually someone will follow your trail, only to find it a false
one. His claim to neutrality is also false. His anti-Witness feelings shine
through. They are as easily detectable as his misrepresentation of his research
skill and thoroughness. More on that shortly.
We
can forgive inexperienced students for accepting Rogerson’s work. He is
supposed to know his subject matter. An experienced historian, unless her
intellect is clouded by prejudice or by a quest for a preferred result, would
look at the unfootnoted assertions found within his book with an adult
skepticism. Accepting something because ‘everyone knows it’s true,’ is a major
logic flaw. A writer with depth of research into Watch Tower history behind her
should be able to recognize typical research flaws. If one has coached students
through thesis and dissertation writing, one knows the shortcuts some students
take. An example in Rogerson’s case is presenting a lengthy quotation from Zion’s
Watch Tower and footnoting it to the original issue. This quotation is
found on page eleven:
Furthermore, not only do we find that people cannot
see the divine plan in studying the Bible by itself, but we see also that if
anyone lays the 'Scripture Studies' aside, even after he has used them, after
he has become familiar with them, after he has read them for ten years – if he
lays them aside and ignores them and goes to the Bible alone, though he has
understood his Bible for ten years, our experience shows that within two years
he goes into darkness. On the other hand, if he had merely read the 'Scripture
Studies' and had not read n page of the Bible as such, he would be in the light
at the end of two years, because he would have the light of the Scriptures.
Rogerson
did not consult the Watch Tower article where one finds the original. He
lifted this entire and without alteration from opposition literature. Judging
by his bibliography he found this in Martin and Kahn’s Jehovah of the Watch
Tower. He leads us through his footnote not to the secondary source from
which he drew this but to a specific page in Zion’s Watch Tower. Even
his footnote is uncharacteristic, citing a specific page when he otherwise
cited a date of publication without noting a page number. Even his footnote is
‘borrowed.’
Ethically,
he should have consulted the original article. Instead, he chose to pretend
that he had. In context, the original says something different. Russell’s full
message was that to have confidence in Studies of the Scriptures on must
test it against scripture:
The six volumes of Scripture Studies are not intended
to supplant the Bible. There are various methods to be pursued in the study of
the Bible and these aids to Bible study are in such form that they, of
themselves, contain the important elements of the Bible as well as the comments
or elucidations of those that our Lord and the Apostles quoted from the Old Testament
... .
Our thought, therefore, is that these Scripture
Studies are a great assistance, a very valuable help, in the understanding of
God’s Word. If these books are to be of any value to us it must be because we
see in them loyalty to the Word of God, and as far as our judgment goes,
see them to be in full harmony with the Word and not antagonistic to it.
Therefore, in reading them the first time, and perhaps the second time, and
before we would accept anything as being our own personal faith and conviction,
we should say, “I will not take it because these studies say so; I wish to see
what the Bible says.” And so we would
... prove every point or disprove it, as the case may be. We would be
satisfied with nothing less than a thorough investigation of the Bible from
this standpoint.
Rogerson
despite his claim to have done so did not read the original article, and if he
did he misrepresented its content. He accused the modern Watchtower Society of
conscious misrepresentation of Russell and his claims using this out of context
quotation to do so.
This
is not the only bit of faked research found in Rogerson’s book. When writing
about the J. J. Ross’ ‘trial,’ Rogerson is fairly accurate, the sole
misrepresentation resting in the claim that Russell was “forced to admit” that
he did not know Greek. Russell never claimed competence in Biblical languages. But
the exchange between Lynch-Staunton, Ross’ attorney, and Russell is largely
accurate. It’s the accompanying footnote that is questionable. There Rogerson
wrote: “In Jehovah’s Witnesses – The New World Society Marley Cole
misinterprets the facts by quoting only part of the court record and manages to
conclude that Russell came well out of the trial.” [p. 195, ft nt 47] This
suggests that Rogerson had seen the transcript. The only original copy is in
the hands of the Watchtower Society, which periodically misfiles it and then
launches a usually frustrated search to recapture it. Rogerson never saw it. He
had no proof, other than wishful thinking, that Cole misrepresented anything.
The intellectual dishonesty behind this footnote is astounding. Any researcher
using Rogerson who had even moderate knowledge of Russell era Watch Tower
history would see this for the fakery it is.
There
are less egregious issues in Rogerson’s work, but they mark him as a very amateurish
scholar, one willing to foist on his readers unverified and un-footnoted claims.
He was heavily dependent on Stroup, borrowing from him without fact checking.
[Fact checking is the life blood of well written history.] He repeated Stroup’s
Time Clock fable, without making a meaningful attempt to trace it to its
original source. We dispensed with that earlier. He repeated the fable that
Russell was drawn into Wendell’s Quincy Hall meeting by hearing hymn singing. Familiarity
with the most basic of Russell material would have told him otherwise. Russell
went in response to a report about the meetings.
In a
footnote [Ch 1; note 3] he wrote: “The title ‘Pastor’ was purely honorary as
far as Russell was concerned, he never graduated from any theological school.”
[Comma fault is his.] This is a commonly made claim, and indeed Russell was not
educated in any theological school. In the United States it was common for
ordination to be by congregation election. Many ‘Pastors’ especially among
Methodists and Baptists were marginally educated, called to preach by licensure
and election rather than by graduation from a religious college, some of which
met no real academic standard. While this was changing, especially among
Methodists, this practice persisted into the 20th Century.
Distinguishing between Russell’s election as pastor by Bible Student
congregations and a country Baptist’s ordination by the same means is stupid.
Rogerson
characterized Russell’s spiritual quest prior to 1876 as a “spiritual hobby.”
He enclosed the phrase in quotation marks, apparently to shift responsibility
for the phrase onto someone else. Who that might have been he does not say. It’s
very much like a dog owner telling an irate home owner, “My dog didn’t do
that.”
There
is no indication that Rogerson knew anything about what Russell and his
associates did, what subjects they studied or how they proceeded. He had no
basis for calling their work a hobby. Yet, and immense amount can be known from
material available to Rogerson, and we considered it at length in volume one. When
you read that chapter, did either the subject matter or depth of research
impress you as being hobby-like?
Rogerson
misrepresents the degree of Russell’s contacts with Adventist, discounting
easily available contrary evidence to do so. There is too much of
misrepresentation, faked scholarship, bad, misleading or no footnoting to
discuss it all, even if we limit it to the Russell era. His book is so badly
flawed as to make it worthless. The exceptions are found in a few paragraphs;
but why would you wish to quote a book so seriously flawed that even new
students moderately aware of basic resources can spot the flaws? Apparently
some find it convenient to do so, even though it makes readers, me for
instance, squint at what ever author’s work I’m perusing and view it with
skepticism.
A Reminder
Addressing a question or comment to Rachael via this blog does you no good. She does not currently participate in this blog. See my earlier comment on her health and on contact.
Also, she asked me to say that she has some unanswered emails. Do not feel bad if you do not hear back from her soon. She will return your mail as she can.
Also, she asked me to say that she has some unanswered emails. Do not feel bad if you do not hear back from her soon. She will return your mail as she can.
Wherefore Art Thou Thomas? - Revisited
I recently produced an article which attempted to
unravel the three possible dates for the birth of CTR’s older brother, Thomas.
One date was provided by the Allegheny burial site map, which had an entry to
the effect that Thomas died on August 12, 1855, aged 5 years and 3 months. However,
this entry on the document dates from decades after the event, and was
therefore suspect.
I am extremely grateful to J who has gone back to
Allegheny cemetery and photographed the complete burial record for Thomas from
1855. So now we have a contemporary document to consider, although it doesn’t
solve the discrepancy at all.
So let’s have a look at the original entry from
1855.
Going in close for the entry for Thomas we read that
he died of whooping cough, aged 5 years and 3 months, and was buried on August
17, 1855.
This means that whoever compiled the plan of the
graves in the Russell plot copied out the entry accurately when they added
Thomas’ details.
So where does this leave us?
First, we must remember that none of the information
actually comes in Joseph or Ann’s handwriting. It is at least second hand –
they provided information for others, and it is others who have recorded it.
We can certain do away with the incorrect March 1850
birth that turns up in various places. This is simply a misreading of the family’s
1850 census return which may look like 3/12 but turns out to be 5/12 when
magnified.
So let us for the sake of argument assume that the
burial register is correct. Thomas died in the middle of August aged 5 years
and 3 months. On that basis he was born in the middle of May. But if that were
true, we have a census enumerator recording events as they were on June 1,
1850, who describes a two week old baby as a child of five months.
If a mistake is going to be made somewhere – as is
obviously the case from the discrepancy – I personally would expect it to be
made at the other end of young Thomas’ life, at the time he died. In the
register page reproduced above, the same hand made all the entries – names,
where from, cause of death and age at death. So the appointed scribe received
the information from elsewhere, either verbally or more likely written down and
passed on. Would Joseph and Ann provide incorrect information? Here my theory in
the original article about the numbers 3 and 8 being misread could still hold
true – pushing Thomas’ age back to the January, which would tally with the 1850
census return.
Does it matter? Well, I concede there are far more
important things to consider. But the date of Thomas’ birth will provide the
approximate date of his conception, which will help us in establishing when
Joseph Lytle Russell and Ann Eliza Birney were married. We know Ann Eliza was
sent a letter under her maiden name in March 1849 – however you analyse or
theorise, the marriage would seem to have taken place in the earlier part of
1849.
Maybe one day extra documents will come to light.
One thing is clear, Joseph and Ann didn’t arrive from Ireland to America as a
married couple in 1845 as suggested in the commentary of a history video.
Joseph arrived before that, if his statement about five years’ residency in his
naturalization declaration in 1848 is truthful, and Ann Eliza was single at
that time. They both came from Ireland but they met and married in America,
probably through their association in Pittsburgh Presbyterian Churches.
In the meantime, if any reader can propose a better
explanation, then please do so.
Monday, May 14, 2018
A little respect. ... Please
You will remove some unnecessary stress from Rachael, and
secondarily from myself, if you make some changes in how you phrase your posts
and in some other areas.
1. Say what you mean. Do not phrase your objection as a
question. You object to something we’ve written? Say so and do it plainly. It
may not be the custom in your culture to write that way. It is American
practice. The majority of Americans are Germanic in ancestry and thought. We
are plain-spoken people. We do not share British culture in the same way that
most Canadians do. We expect you to say what you mean.
2. Do some research before you post. We shouldn’t have to
teach you your own history.
3. If you believe we’ve gotten something wrong, say so –
plainly, and present documentary evidence from primary sources to back up your
claim. Secondary sources are not evidence.
4. Some of you have pet theories. Unless you can present a
well-written and clearly documented article supporting your point of view, we
do not want to hear from you. Present us with a clear and convincing article
and we’ll post it on the blog even if it contradicts something we’ve written.
5. Other than from Roberto, Jerome, German Girl, or Bernard,
Rachael does not want your emails at this time. I don’t think our blog readers
realize just how ill she is. Her family is happy that she is still breathing.
Your intrusion into her life is not welcome right now. I’ll tell you if that
changes. The uninsured portion of her prescriptions runs to about five hundred
dollars a month. That should tell you something about her health issues.
6. Finding our work [this blog is covered by US copyright
law] on your blog or in your book or dissertation without credit upsets both of
us. All we ask is credit in a footnote and proper use of quotation marks if
necessary.
7. Neither Rachael nor myself are your personal encyclopedia.
We expect that our blog users are big boys and girls, capable of doing their
own research. We have little time to answer questions or to research for you.
Clarification
From the comment trail it appears that we need to clarify
who some of the players in this drama are. In American colonial history the
Plymouth Colony settlers were a mixture of Church of England and Separatist
adherents. Today many British writers call Separatists ‘Independents,’ euphemistically
meant to soften the persecution they experienced at the hands of the
established church. Separatists are an English phenomenon. Many of them settled
in Leiden. They believed that the established church was so corrupted with
Catholic dogma and practice that it was irreformable. The only way to sound, uncorrupted
worship was through separation. The crown and church saw this as treason and
persecuted them mercilessly.
While Lutherans, Calvinists, Anabaptists and others
separated from the Catholic Church and were – like Separatists – Protestants,
the term Separatist applies ONLY to the English phenomenon. Other than English
exiles living in the Netherlands, there were no European Separatists.
Puritans were also a uniquely English growth. While there
were those in Europe who sought pure doctrine and practice, Puritanism refers
to those who wished to reform the English Church. Unlike their Separatist
brethren, they believed the English church was reformable. They sought reform through political power;
the result was the English Civil War and abuses as sever as any under the king
and church.
These are basics of American history because much of this
story is the founding narrative for colonial era history. But surely at least
some of this is taught in UK schools. Perhaps not. Each country’s textbooks
foster myth. Myth is as surely created by omission as by falsehood.
Tuesday, May 8, 2018
Just an extract ...
The following paragraphs are from my introductory essay, revised to accommodate new research. All credit for the new material goes to Rachael. Please refrain from asking me to cajole her into returning to the blog. She's a big girl, except in physical size. [She's 4 feet ten inches tall and weighs under 90 lbs., as some of you know.] Neither you nor I have any business imposing our wishes on her. You can make both of us happy by posting a comment on this revision:
In
this volume of Separate Identity you will find much that is unfamiliar
to you. Some of what we present changes the narrative – call it the story line
– usually presented by those who write about the Russell years. But more often
we simply elaborate where others have abbreviated. A more complete narrative
gifts readers with a better understanding of Russell era history. This
occasionally makes us myth-busters. Occasionally a reviewer criticized our
impatience with the poor work of some who’ve written on similar topics. Perhaps
we should have lowered the sound level when we expressed our distaste. But
ultimately, we have no apology for having noted partisan, misleading, and false
statements. Writers owe readers their best efforts. Not lies or sloppy
research.
Criticisms
have been few. Some continue to believe that Russell was a Mason, part of a
conspiracy seeking world domination. If he was, he was very ineffective. Though
this conspiracy theory is dying a slow death on Internet boards, we readdress
this in appendix one. Despite irrefutable evidence to the contrary, some
continue to assert that Russell was an Adventist. We think the evidence
presented in volume one is plain. Watch Tower adherents and other Literalist
believers rejected that identity. If it was wrong to identify them as Adventist
then, it remains so today. Those who identify Rusellites as Adventists should
do so on the basis of some evidence other than speculation about what ‘might
have been.’
Among
those who continue to present Russell era believers and descendant religions as
Adventist is Zoe Knox. This is disappointing. We expected better from her,
given her history of thoughtful and careful research. Her most recent book, Jehovah’s
Witnesses and the Secular World, continues the myth of Russellite and Watch
Tower Adventism, which she supports with
a quotation from Rogerson: “In 1969, Alan Rogerson observed that most of
Russell’s interpretations were not new and that many or them originated with
various Adventists or his day.”[1]
Rogerson did not support his claim; a critical eye would wonder why he failed
to do so. The reason, of course, is his claim is insupportable. Using
unsupported claims as the basis for your own work – without a minimal amount of
verification – is not best work. Nothing in Rogerson’s claim can be sustained
from contemporary documentation. What can be sustained is that Russell derived
his doctrine from Literalist belief. Much of what we wrote in volume one of
this work proves that.
The
fault is that Rogerson and others define Adventism as belief in the near return
of Christ. That’s not Adventism. Adventism is a belief system derived from the
Millerite movement of the 1830s and 1840s. It has a distinctive doctrinal set.
Belief in the near return of Christ is apostolic belief with a connected
history up to the Millerite nonsense and extending to today. Russell’s doctrine
did not come from Millerism. It came from what was then called Age-to-Come or
Literalism. Literalism’s history in America extends back to the earliest
colonial era. It characterized British believers of most faiths, including that
of the established church.
Defining
Russell’s belief as Adventism and Bible Student and Witness congregations as
descended from Adventism is wildly inexact. It is just wrong. The tendency to
confound belief in the near return of Christ with Adventism is not new. It was
commonly done in the Russell era. An example is found in the August 1, 1881, Kingston,
New York, Daily Freeman where the parents of an Anna Lewis of New Britain
are described as “Second Adventists in belief and members of the Baptist
church.” Somewhat later, in Buffalo, New York, the editor of the Evening
News misrepresented a congregation of about two dozen believers as “akin to
Second Adventists.” This drew a rebuke from one of the group whose beliefs mark
it as very likely the Watch Tower adherent congregation in Buffalo:
Lest the grave charge of numerical insignificance be
inadequate to the complete extinction of a ‘half dozen’ religious worshipers,
they must be brought into the inquisition again to be placed upon the rack and
be thrust through with the deadly charge of being ‘akin to the second
adventists’! We were not aware of any kinship existing between us and the
second adventists, without it could be established upon the isolated truth of
the personal second advent of Jesus to this earth. But mark you, if that
isolated truth can establish a kinship between us it will also prove and
establish a kinship between Rev. Dr. Lorimer [then a prominent Baptist
clergyman] and the second adventists, and, by your curious and extraordinary
method of gauging a man’s standing, it would place him, as well as the ‘six in
the small upper room in the American Block,’ under the ban and the fetters of
social and religious ostracism. For his sermon on ‘the future of Jesus’ is a
scholarly, elaborate and eloquent vindication of the doctrine of the personal,
visible and pre-millennial second advent of Jesus to this earth. [Original
spelling and punctuation retained.][2]
We
acknowledge that Dr. Knox said positive things about our work in her newest
book. She also wrote a largely positive review but added this suggestion: “Schulz
and de Vienne make little attempt to connect their work meaningfully to research
on nineteenth-century American religious history, which they might have done
by, for example, considering what was unique about the emergence of the Bible
Students as compared with other ‘American originals.’”[3] We
think we made the most significant connections in volume one, but her comment
has led us to reflect on the current approach to American religious history.
Frankly, we thought the elements of American religious history so obvious – so
widely known – that we did not need to address them. We were wrong.
We need some research assistance
We need to identify the group meeting in the hall over 410 Main Street, Buffalo, New York, in 1881-1883. I don't have time to pursue this, but knowing would improve current work. Can you assist?
Monday, May 7, 2018
Wherefore Art Thou Thomas?
This is an article
about the problems of doing research, and how sometimes it is necessary to make
a judgment on conflicting information from historical sources. The subject is
the birth date of Thomas Russell, the older brother of CTR, who is pictured with
him in that memorable picture in the Watch Tower but then edited out in the reprint volume.
As to why this matters,
it can help us narrow down when Joseph Lytle Russell and Ann Eliza Birney were
married, since no certificate or register entry has as yet surfaced. We know
that Ann Eliza was still single in March 1849, or at least there is a reference
to a Miss A E Birney in the Pittsburgh Daily Post for Wednesday, April 4, 1849.
Knowing when Thomas was
born, we can make assumptions about when he was conceived, which – assuming he
was conceived within wedlock – would narrow down the date of the marriage quite
specifically.
So when was Thomas
born? We have three conflicting dates, January, March and May in 1850. Let’s
look at the “evidence” for each.
If you examine
information on the Ancestry website, you will find Thomas’ birth date given as
March 1850. But as often happens with such sites, there is no reference given
for the information. Everyone seems to
be copying everyone else on a circular journey with no original source material
provided. I suspect that the March date comes from the 1850 census return for
Pittsburgh. The entry for the Russell family, father, mother and one son, is
reproduced below.
The rules for the 1850
census were that entries should reflect information as it existed on June 1st
that year. So we have Joseph L Russell, aged 32, merchant from Ireland, Ann E
Russell, aged 26, from Ireland, and then T Russell (Thomas) from Pennsylvania, who
might appear on first sight to be 3/12. Reading that as three months old would
have him born around March of that year.
The problem arises with
the crabby handwriting of the era, using scratchy pen and ink. Numerous
enumerators’ hands are found in these census returns, with varying degree of
legibility. So let’s zoom in on that entry for Thomas.
Unless my eyes are
deceiving me, that entry for Thomas is not 3/12 at all, but rather 5/12. There is
no reason why the Russells should give false information, and assuming the
enumerator did not make a mistake, then we now have Thomas’ birth pushed back
to January, or even the very end of December.
But then we have
another source of information, which could be viewed as a potential primary
source that gives us yet another month, this time May 1850. This is the burial
details for the Russell family plot on file at the Allegheny Cemetery.
This has been
reproduced before on this blog in articles about the cemetery and the Russell
interments, but it is shown here again.
You will notice on the
right that it states very clearly that Thomas Russell died on 11 August 1855,
aged 5 years and 3 months – which would give a birth date of May 1850.
The problem is that
this is not actually a primary source at all! The document was put
together to show how many people were buried in this family plot and where the
graves were. This was useful since not all had grave markers and some of those
that existed had been worn by time. The plot was sold for ten graves, but in
the event there were only nine burials.
The plan shows that the
plot was purchased by James Russell, older brother of Joseph Lytle. A little
over a year after James made the purchase, his wife Sarah was buried there, and
James followed not that long after. The record has the burial of Sarah in one
style of handwriting. But then a later hand has added another seven names, not
in order of interment, but rather in order of the rows of graves. This
handwriting includes Joseph Lytle who was buried at the end of 1897. This is
approaching fifty years after Thomas was born. But whoever wrote out these
seven names, omitted Thomas whose grave started the bottom row from the
right. So yet another later hand wrote
in the number 9, but then instead of adding to the existing list, wrote elsewhere
on the document that Thomas died 11 August 1855, aged 5 years and 3 months.
When was this done?
Obviously after 1897. How much longer after 1897? We don’t know, but decades
after Thomas lived and died.
So where did the
information about 5 years and 3 months come from? The writer on this grave plan
copied the information out from somewhere. But why the discrepancy with the
census returns from all those years before? Joseph and Eliza would know when
Thomas was born and how old he was when he died.
I have a theory, and it
goes back to the confusion with the census returns. As the numbers three and
five could look similar on cursory examination, so could a three and an eight
be confused, considering the handwriting of the day and the fact that scratchy entries
made in ink may fade in places over time. On that basis maybe the final hand on
the grave plan document just made a mistake. Maybe Thomas died aged 5 years and
8 months (rather than 3 months). If he did, then he would have been born in
the January, which now would tally perfectly with the 1850 census return.
Of course, I could be
wrong…
Friday, May 4, 2018
I do not ...
I do not see this blog as fulfilling its intended purpose. Given the current state of my health and my disappointments connected to this blog, I do not intend to contribute to it or moderate for it anytime in the near future.
If the other blog editors want it to continue, they'll find something to contribute. If not, it can remain as a sort of archive. When my health improves or when blog readers find that they appreciate our work enough to comment here, I may return. We have always been open to reader articles as long as they're not a polemic, they're well researched, well written and thoroughly footnoted. Up to you, isn't it?
In the mean time, my focus will be on bringing volume 2 of Separate Identity to press.
This post does not require your comments, and I wish you would refrain from making defensive, self-serving or scolding comments. I do not want personal emails over this either. As far as I'm concerned this blog has died a slow death from lack of reader interest. I take that personally. I've put thousands of hours - tens of thousands of hours - into this blog and into our two books, time better spent with my family.
You could have made this blog work. You [you know who you are] showed no real interest, just occasional curiosity. That does not work for me. I wish you well in your personal endeavors.
If the other blog editors want it to continue, they'll find something to contribute. If not, it can remain as a sort of archive. When my health improves or when blog readers find that they appreciate our work enough to comment here, I may return. We have always been open to reader articles as long as they're not a polemic, they're well researched, well written and thoroughly footnoted. Up to you, isn't it?
In the mean time, my focus will be on bringing volume 2 of Separate Identity to press.
This post does not require your comments, and I wish you would refrain from making defensive, self-serving or scolding comments. I do not want personal emails over this either. As far as I'm concerned this blog has died a slow death from lack of reader interest. I take that personally. I've put thousands of hours - tens of thousands of hours - into this blog and into our two books, time better spent with my family.
You could have made this blog work. You [you know who you are] showed no real interest, just occasional curiosity. That does not work for me. I wish you well in your personal endeavors.
To our Russian Spammers
Google, the owner of blogger, has blocked you from commenting. You're wasting your time, except that you're irritating me. Go away!
Thursday, May 3, 2018
Don't Expect
One way to end the problem of few to no comments is to disable comments from everyone but blog editors. B and I are seriously considering this. Now is the time for you to have your say. Readers can still contact us through the email addresses attached to our profiles.
Don't expect anything substantial from me for the indefinite future. Though Jerome may have interesting things to post, I'm very busy with this project and still very ill. I will not take the time to post partial or nearly completed chapters only to have them largely ignored. Mr.Schulz' Introductory Essay saw 98 page views and garnered ONE comment. I appreciate the comment. Where are the rest of you?
Surely reading comprehension is not a lost art. It takes minutes to read his introduction and seconds to form an opinion afterward. Or am I misjudging the average blog reader's mental acuity? There is no point to posting material that is ignored and that receives no comments.
There is no reason not to leave at least a simple 'well done' or 'this is wrong headed and stupid' comment. We allow anonymous posting. Fear of retaliation from your religious authorities should not be a consideration. The worst that can happen to you is that I will delete your comment which I will do if you link to a polemical site or if you post spam or if you advertise another book without asking first.
Another observation: It is not my responsibility to get copy to you, unless you offer to proof read. If you're curious about our content, visit the blog. Otherwise, expect to miss some temporary content. I may forward something to you, but do not count on that.
Don't expect anything substantial from me for the indefinite future. Though Jerome may have interesting things to post, I'm very busy with this project and still very ill. I will not take the time to post partial or nearly completed chapters only to have them largely ignored. Mr.Schulz' Introductory Essay saw 98 page views and garnered ONE comment. I appreciate the comment. Where are the rest of you?
Surely reading comprehension is not a lost art. It takes minutes to read his introduction and seconds to form an opinion afterward. Or am I misjudging the average blog reader's mental acuity? There is no point to posting material that is ignored and that receives no comments.
There is no reason not to leave at least a simple 'well done' or 'this is wrong headed and stupid' comment. We allow anonymous posting. Fear of retaliation from your religious authorities should not be a consideration. The worst that can happen to you is that I will delete your comment which I will do if you link to a polemical site or if you post spam or if you advertise another book without asking first.
Another observation: It is not my responsibility to get copy to you, unless you offer to proof read. If you're curious about our content, visit the blog. Otherwise, expect to miss some temporary content. I may forward something to you, but do not count on that.
Wednesday, May 2, 2018
Temporary Post
You've seen most of this before. Back with some additions and changes and presented for your comments. Comments, even general ones, are helpful. No need for proof reading yet. Bruce is still 'tinkering' with this. [His description of additional research.] Usual rules. You may copy this for your own use. Do not share it off the blog unless you get permission first. Do not rely on this; it is a work in progress. Some of it may change.
I've deleted several comments as soon as they were posted. Do not post links to controversialist sites. A link to an original source is okay. Do not try to advertise though a post. Doing that will get you reported as a spammer. Google takes a dim view of spammers on blogger. Your comments should be in English if possible. Most of our readers are English language literate.
The opportunity to comment on this is closed.
I've deleted several comments as soon as they were posted. Do not post links to controversialist sites. A link to an original source is okay. Do not try to advertise though a post. Doing that will get you reported as a spammer. Google takes a dim view of spammers on blogger. Your comments should be in English if possible. Most of our readers are English language literate.
The opportunity to comment on this is closed.
Introduction by B. W. Schulz
In this volume of Separate
Identity you will find much that is unfamiliar to you. Some of what we
present changes the narrative – call it the story line – usually presented by
those who write about the Russell years. But more often we simply elaborate
where others have abbreviated. A more complete narrative gifts readers with a
better understanding of Russell era history. This occasionally makes us
myth-busters.
The remainder of this post has been deleted.
The remainder of this post has been deleted.
Monday, April 30, 2018
This will ... of course ... change
but in the meantime it's here for comments:
Preface One – By R. M. de Vienne
It’s
taken longer to write this volume of Separate Identity than we
anticipated, but little of our expectations have held up as we’ve written this
and the two previous books. We believed that a second volume would complete our
research. It has not done so. There will be, assuming we live long enough to
complete it, a third and final volume.
This
volume differs in format from its predecessor. The first volume follows a loose
chronological order. Because of its narrow focus primarily on the years 1879 to
1882, this volume is a series of essays each focusing on an aspect of Watch
Tower transition into a separate, identifiable belief system. There is a looser
chronological order here; and the chapters occasionally overlap each other in
subject matter. As before we elected to present this history in as much detail
as we can, hoping thereby to take our readers into the spirit of the times.
Omission seems to us to be misdirection.
Volume
3 will focus on the fragmentation that followed 1881. It is partially written,
but much hard research remains. And as always, we’re hampered by lack of
resources. We have few issues of key magazines. We do not have anything like a
complete run of A. P. Adams’ Spirit of the Word. We miss key years of J.
H. Paton’s The World’s Hope. A paper published in California exists as a
few clippings pasted into a scrapbook. A booklet written by Barbour seems to
have been lost. We do not have any of the first issues of Jones’ Day Star. We
appreciate help locating things like these.
Now,
let me tell you about volume two. This volume examines the continuing
controversy between Russell and Barbour. One writer suggested that it was short
lived. It lasted until Barbour’s death in 1905. We tell you the story up to the
mid 1880s. It is more complex than most writers appreciate, and in its
complexity explains the development of key Watch Tower doctrines, at least one
of which persists until today.
We
tell you about the Watch Tower’s principals struggle to preserve the body of
believers, to transition Barbourite believers into Watch Tower adherents. We
tell you about their earliest missionary journeys, drawing much of this from
sources not referenced by anyone else. We introduce you to people mentioned
only once or twice in Zion’s Watch Tower but who played an important
role in its earliest years. We tell you about the nature of the earliest
congregations and fellowships and how they were formed. Again, we draw on first
hand experiences not found in any
history of the movement. We tell you about the reaffirmation of old doctrines
and the discussions behind that.
The
movement attracted clergy to its ranks. We discuss this in some detail, naming
names, telling the story as we could uncover it of several clergy turned Watch
Tower believers. In 1881 Russell and a few others organized and provided
initial financing for the work. We provide details not found elsewhere, and we
correct a widely-spread error. We tell you about the start of the publishing
ministry and the development of the Priesthood of All Believers doctrine among
Watch Tower adherents. A key event was the printing and circulation of Food
for Thinking Christians. Though the Watchtower Society declined to share a
key document, offering no explanation as to why a document from 1881-1882 might
need to be held in secret, we offer our readers the most complete discussion of
this small book's circulation and its effects on readership. With the
circulation of Food new workers entered the field. The Watchtower
society has ignored these, especially John B. Adamson, in its histories. We do
not know why, but we think the reasons multifarious. Adamson and some others
among the earliest missionaries left the Watch Tower movement. Watchtower
writers tend to ignore the contributions of those who deflected from the
movement. It is probably safe to say that much of this history is unknown to
Watchtower researchers. It’s not their focus, and they’ve left it unexplored.
An
important part of this era’s story is the spread of Watch Tower doctrine to
various ethnic groups within the United States and to other lands. So we tell
you about work among foreign language groups in the United States. The Zechs
and a Norwegian sea captain are part of this story. We tell you about the early
work in Canada, the United Kingdom, China, and other lands. We discuss at
length the history of a man mentioned with favor in Jehovah’s Witnesses:
Proclaimers of God’s Kingdom. His story is far different from what the
author of that book presumed. We tell you about the early work in Liberia.
[This history appeared first as B. W. Schulz: “Watch Tower Faith in Liberia: A
Conflict of Faith and Authority,” Nssuka Journal of History, University
of Nigeria, Volume 4, 2017, page 31ff.] Other lands come into this picture.
Almost none of this has been published anywhere except in the original
documents.
Eighteen eighty-one was a key year in
Watch Tower history. Most of those who mention that year’s events misstate
them. We do our best to correct the misdirection and misstatement common among
recent writers. We think we provide a more complete picture of the Watch
Tower’s earliest years, a more balanced picture than found elsewhere.
Read Mr. Schulz’ Introductory Essay.
It clarifies issues that confuse some writers. It puts Russell and the Watch
Tower movement in a historical perspective often misstated or ignored by recent
writers. A later chapter takes up attempts by historians and sociologists to
place the Watch Tower movement within one of the current theoretical frameworks.
We suggest that they ignore key elements of the Watch Tower belief system so
that their theories are questionable.
We have many to thank for their
assistance: