Jose objected to Jerome's article on Conley suggesting that Conley was always a millionaire. As a reminder, comments should be factual. Jose's comment is not, but since others may view matters as he does, I'm posting an extract from Separate Identity volume one:
William
Henry Conley
Other than the Russells, the only name we can positively associate with the Allegheny Study Group in this period is William H. Conley. Russell described him as “a member of the early Allegheny Bible Class.”12 Since they were closely associated in religious work, his wife would have been a member too.
Conley was born June 11, 1840, in Pittsburgh to George Washington Conley and Matilda Balsley. His father died about 1852, when Conley was twelve years old, and Conley went to work in a woolen mill in Allegheny.13 In 1855 he was apprenticed to an uncle, a printer in Blairsville, Ohio. In 1857, he moved with his uncle to Plymouth, Ohio, where he met Sara Shaffer (also spelled Shafer), two years his junior and a transplanted Pennsylvanian. They married in 1860.
Significantly, Conley associated with the Lutheran Church in Plymouth, Ohio. There is little documentation for Conley’s life there, but it is into this time that one can fit his first acquaintance with George Nathaniel Henry Peters, later the author of the massive three volume work, Theocratic Kingdom. Peter’s obituary as found in The Lutheran Observer of October 22, 1909, notes his service to the Plymouth, Ohio, church. Another source shows him serving as pastor in Plymouth during the years of Conley’s residence.
While it is possible that Russell met Peters through another, it is likely that he met him through Conley. It is also extremely likely that Conley’s interest in the Lord’s return and last-times events derived from his association with Peters. Though somewhat sympathetic toward Adventism, Peters was pre-millennialist Lutheran and would not have led Conley into Adventism.He was already committed to his great study of Christ’s return and rule, having started the research about 1854. His preaching at Plymouth must have been colored by his study. ....
There are three William Conleys listed among Civil War soldiers from Ohio, but none of the biographical notices of William H. Conley list Civil War service. At or toward the end of the war the Conleys moved back to Pittsburgh where he joined a commission house, a wholesale firm. Later he became a bookkeeper for James M. Riter, whose company, established in 1861, worked in sheet metal and copper. The business seems to have been prosperous though not large. Riter supplied major portions of the iron work for the Escanaba furnace in 1872.
James Riter died in 1873, and Conley “took a half-interest in the business with Thomas B. Riter, the firm name being changed to Riter & Conley; he attended to the financial and office work while Mr. Riter attended to the outside and mechanical part.” Eventually Riter & Conley “became the most extensive of its kind in the world.” That Conley focused on a major business venture that year is a strong indicator that he did not take the predictions of Jonas Wendell, Nelson Barbour and others seriously. Others who were swayed, though not enough to form a positive conviction, also engaged in business, and his partnership with T. B. Riter is not proof that he didn’t find the movement interesting or even somewhat persuasive.
5 comments:
Jose,
Cutting and pasting from other websites serves no purpose. Did you consult the originals of the references you've cited? I think not. Cutting and pasting from other's work without verification is amateurish. If that's all you can contribute here, you need to stop.
I find Jose's comment above both presumptuous and rude. Like all the rest of us, he is a GUEST on this forum, and the least he could do as a guest is to treat the forum's host with a modicum of respect.
I've not been following this from the beginning, but based on the message above, it seems that his goal is to disparage Russell.
And addressing the host as "bad millet" - a seeming reference to the tares in Jesus' parable - is both judgmental and unconscionable.
Please leave, Jose. Now.
Andrew Martin
I normally hesitate to comment in situations like these, but I just want to go on the record as being a grateful guest on this blog for many years. I have interacted with Bruce in many ways, and in each interaction, he has been kind, gracious and straightforward. His example of thorough, polished and well documented research has been a needed example to me as I write my own articles and books.
Once or twice Bruce has pointed out to me a way to improve in my comments as well as my research skills, and always has done so in a way that is professional and courteous.
Pointing the way for others to improve is not presumptuous. It is the way the Master would want it.
Andrew Grzadzielewski
Jose: You seem to not only have an anti-Russell agenda, but now also one against the host. We are all here to benefit from shared accurate information. This does not seem to be the forum you are looking for.
You are obsessing on the issue of whether you have received proper "respect". Personal self-justification is not the purpose of this forum.
"Stand not upon the order of your going,
But go at once."
Andrew Martin+
Jose,
I will accept no further comments from you. You are banned from this blog. I will delete any comments you make.
I did not call you a fool. If you are one, your comments will reveal it to everyone. This blog has rules. They're easily found. I've repeated them often over the past years. You violate them.
Worse, you post irrelevant, sometimes nonsensical comments. Your comments reveal a lack of in depth, rational research. When one of us must take the time to correct your nonsense, you draw us away from more important things.
I cannot stop you from reading this blog, but either Jerome or I will delete any further comments from you. Go away.
Post a Comment