Bruce

 Bruce passed out at work last night. He was helped by a couple of strangers who saw him. He will be away from serious blog posting for some time. -A. d'I. Stewart

Issues

I've stated this before, but it's time for a refresher. I am not interested in having this blog or my books translated into other languages. If I ever find that attractive, I will hire a professional translator. Please don't ask.

If you contact me, use your real name. Fake names are easy to spot. Picking the name of a dead comedian is a dead give away. 

I have limited control over how material on this blog is used. I can insure accuracy. Even then, understanding changes as research develops. If you use older posts without using the search function to find newer content - or contacting Jerome or me - you may not be using the best research. Many of the questions I receive can be answered by reading my books. Look there first. I will insist that you take down material copied from this blog without permission. This blog is copyright protected under US and International Copyright law.

What you believe is between you and God. In this setting, I will not argue theology with you. I've heard it all. I've been a Witness since 1952, and it is unlikely that you have an argument I haven't heard dozens of times - thousands of times. Also, our blog editors are not stupid. We're at least as educated as any of our readers, and we're old guys who are difficult to deceive. Don't even try.

You disagree with some element of our research? Fine, that happens in academic circles all the time. Write a blog post, footnoted to original sources.  Prove your point. If it's well-written, accurate, and derived from original sources, I'll publish it. Otherwise? Make your own blog and post your nonsense there. 

You want to help with our work? Good. Fine. Dandy. I post research requests. Tackle one of those. You find something interesting and pursue it? Write up the result and send it on. You want to send a photo? Make it the best quality you can. If it's poor quality, I probably cannot use it.

I'm not your personal encyclopedia. Do your own research before asking me questions.

 

The Swedish Work

 

Two images sent by a friend of this blog,

An article by E. L. Eaton

 Eaton wrote an article entitled "Between the Lines in the Book of Acts," which was published in the Methodist Review of July 1923. It's reproduced on books.google.com.

https://books.google.com/books?id=XoTTAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA6&dq=ephraim+eaton+methodist&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjP-KWt_Yf2AhWVJ0QIHUv2DpQQ6AF6BAgzEAI#v=onepage&q=eaton&f=false

You would be of immense help if you would read it and post your thoughts to this blog post.

I was there. Were you?

 

Lawyer's Viewpoint

 I need a scan of the original of Rutherford's Salvation booklet. Anyone?

New to my Research Collection: Bell on the Resurrection

 

For another project

 Can you translate this for me, please?

More Cedar Point Ohio 1922 - Then and Thereafter

 

Guest post by Leroy

Note: you may need to click on some of the photographs to see them to full advantage

Where, exactly, was the ‘Advertise, advertise, advertise’ call given?

In the 1922 IBSA Convention at Cedar Point, Joseph F. Rutherford gave the famous talk in which he made the important declaration “Advertise, advertise, advertise the King and Kingdom!” Even though photographs of the event do exist, few know the exact spot where this talk was given. Next, we can see two historic photos taken during the discourse. The first one is looking towards the stage, and the second one is from the stage towards the audience:

Many collectors and history enthusiasts have tried to locate the place where the above photos were taken. Today, we can discover it by analyzing a few old as well as recent photographs of the buildings that were present at Cedar Point in 1922.

The building in the next photo is identified in old postcards as the “Convention Hall”:

This building was originally known as the Grand Pavilion and it’s the first big structure erected in Cedar Point which is still standing today. The Grand Pavilion was opened during the 1888 season and had a capacity of 4000 people seated (Francis, Cedar Point - the Queen of American Watering Places (AP Books, 1995), 41). However, this was not the place where the iconic speech took place.

A photograph exists of the interior of the Grand Pavilion, in which we can notice that, even though they are similar, it is not the same place as the one we see in the photos taken during Rutherford’s talk.

The Grand Pavilion is an open hall with a very high vaulted ceiling; it has a second floor with an interior balcony, and doesn’t have columns among the audience, contrary to the building we see in the convention pictures. Also, in the photos from the IBSA Convention we see arch-shaped windows, different from the ones in the Grand Pavilion, which are squared. The Grand Pavilion was lit by 24 chandeliers (Francis,26), as opposed to the 1922 Convention auditorium, in which we can see only bare lightbulbs as a means of illumination.Also, the attendance at the 1922 convention was more than 10,000. A bigger place was required to accommodate such an audience during JFR´s talk, so we can conclude the Grand Pavilion was not the place where the talk was given.

Was there another structure capable of holding such a large amount of people? Yes, there was. Soon after the opening of the Breakers hotel in 1905, a new massive structure was erected; this new building would have two floors, the upper being an enormous dance hall, with capacity for 10,000 people. This structure is known as The Coliseum and is also still standing today.

Unfortunately, I have been unable to locate a photograph taken inside the Coliseum before 1939, the year in which the interior was remodeled into art deco style. However, written accounts of the appearance of the interior of the Coliseum tell us that it did not have a great amount of decoration. The pillars and the ceiling structure didn’t have any cover, and the means of illumination were bare lightbulbs (Francis,106). Despite the remodeling, a few fundamental aspects were preserved and they help us identify the Coliseum as the hall where the famous 1922 speech was given.

Let’s see a photo of the interior of The Coliseum in the beginning of the 1940s:

We can see at the back, the windows with a staggered design, with smaller squares in the upper levels. These same windows are visible in the 1922 photo. Here is a side by side comparison of both photographs:

In the 1922 photo we can see that behind Rutherford, as well as at the back of the audience, there are three arch-shaped windows at the center, followed by two narrower arch-shaped windows, and then the staggered windows. Although this is not seen in the 1940 photograph because the arch-shaped windows are covered by a stage, in other photographs taken from outside the building both styles of windows can clearly be seen.

In the above postcard we can see the arched windows at the center, and if you look closely to the window at the farthest right, you can see the staggered design at the upper part of the window.

This one shows clearly the staggered windows in the wall to the right, and in the wall facing the left of the postcard, we can also see the arched ones.

Finally, in a current photograph of the Coliseum, we can see that the Arch-shaped windows are still there, but the staggered windows have been changed for a different style of new ones.

Now, let’s see a photo side by side comparing the central windows of today’s building with the ones in the 1922 Convention.

As we can see, even today these central windows preserve the same style they had in 1922.

All of this makes clear without a doubt that the building where this famous talk was given is the Coliseum, a building that can still be visited today if one wants to revive those exciting moments in theocratic history.

Note

 

I cannot leave the Russell-Eaton notes up for very many days. If you wish to comment or add to my research, now is the time.

Clergy Crimes in the Russell Era

 One of the things that attracted new adherents to Watch Tower belief was its insistence on Holy Conduct. Though there were those who fell short, on the whole Watch Tower adherents took righteous conduct seriously. This was in stark contrast to clergy behavior in the period. The following is from a table of reported clergy misconduct from 1877 to about 1910. 

Abduction 22; Abortion and attempts to procure 19; Abusive language 22; Adultery 676; Alienation of affections 17; Arson 62; Assault with intent to murder 61; Assault with intent to rape 50; Assault with intent to do great harm 26; Assault and battery 66; Attempted suicide 15; Bastardy 77; Bigamy, attempted and accomplished 144; Breach of promise to marry 27; Burglary 17; Cheating, swindling, grafting, malversation, misappropriation, etc.   288; “Conduct unbecoming a minister of the gospel” 44; Conspiracy 11; Contempt of court 13; Counterfeiting 16; Cruelty to wife or children 130/35; Debauchery 52; Desertion or non-support of wife or children 207; Disorderly conduct 44; Divorced or sued 56; Drunkenness 202; Elopement, attempted or accomplished 163; Embezzlement, fraud, defalcation, etc 162; Enticing women and young girls 15; False impersonation 13; Fighting 51; Forgery 123; “Fornication” 14; Gambling 19; Grave robbery 1; Gross immorality 40; Horse stealing 19; Illicit distilling 12; Illicit liquor selling 15; Immoralities with women and girls, miscellaneous and variously described 223; Larceny 181; Libel 50; Lying and deceit 138; Malicious destruction of property and malicious mischief 22; Manslaughter 14; Murder generally 119; Murder of child 12; Murder of wife 27; Obscene language 16; Obscene print, circulation of 14; Obtaining money or property under false pretenses 65; Perjury or subornation of 12; Plagiarism or literary piracy 14; Praying for death of neighbor, who died 1; Profanity 11; Quarreling 19; Rape in general 43; Rape of girls under age of consent or puberty 76; Seduction in general 273; Seduction of girls under fifteen 28; Slander 109; Sodomy or unnatural crime 67; Stealing religious funds or property 23; Suicide  117; Threatening life 16; Violation of postal laws 17; White slavery and pandering 15; Wife or woman beating 57. 

By incident of reported bad behavior Methodists led the list with 728 reported. Baptists followed with 492 incidents; Catholics with 325 incidents of clerical misconduct; then Presbyterians with 187, and Episcopalians with 164. In the same period only two Millennial Dawn believers were reported.

Russell-Eaton

 As I noted in a previous post, these are notes for a history journal article. They are far from complete. But here they are for comment, and, if you wish, your contributions. Corrections welcome. This post must be temporary.

These notes have been deleted.

E. L. Eaton Again

 Can you clean up this rough newspaper photo from 1912? Click on image to see it entire. 

John P. Brushingham

 I need help with this. J. P. Brushingham, B.D. was a Methodist Episcopal clergyman serving in various Illinois cities. In 1888 he was tried in a Chicago criminal court for seduction and fathering a bastard child. The first trial resulted in a hung jury because two jury members were Methodists and unwilling to see one of their own blameworthy. 

I need the results of the second trial. I cannot find them, and with an impending surgery do not have the time or energy to follow this further.

Also,

He was tried in a Methodist Ecclesiastical Court the same year. Indications are that he was found not guilty, but I cannot find a record of the proceedings. Can you?

Never presume I have something you've found.

The relevance to my history research lies in this: Brushingham and E. L. Eaton were best friends. Each had a seriously flawed character. Their flaws are relevant to the Eaton-Russell debate of 1903, which I am researching for a journal article. Eaton misrepresented his credentials on many occasions before and after the debate. Later he described himself as a scientist only on the grounds of his amateur astronomy and creation science lectures. In fact he had no relevant education. He called himself a well known scientist and lecturer, Dr. E. L. Eaton without noting what his degree was and that it was only honorary.  Eaton supported Brushingham despite the evidence that he was in fact guilty of seduction. 

So, can you help? Any? Even a little?

Personal Update

 I have surgery on Friday. There will be a period of recovery. If you have something for this blog, please send it.