Friday, June 14, 2013
Thursday, June 13, 2013
Mr. Schulz posted this on another forum ...
We have one chapter and a bunch of edits to go before volume one of our next
book is released. (for those who don't know or have forgotten, the first book in
this series is Nelson Barbour: The Millennium's Forgotten Prophet. It's a
history of Barbour and his associates.) Our next book details Watch Tower
history from Russell's childhood to about 1887. There is overlap on each side of
that date.
To further our research we're seeking Brother Russell's letters. We've located a few. We would like to see more. If you have some to share, please contact me through our blog.
We are also interested in the personal letters (and photos) of early Bible Students.
Some of you may be interested in our new book. If you visit our public history blog you can see some pages in rough draft. I think Miss de Vienne and I tell a compreshensive story, giving more detail than ever published before. We draw on contemporary records and avoid when possible secondary sources. There will be photos you've never seen before. We used personall letters, court documents, county records, wills, contemporary newspaper articles and similar items. If you look at the sample pages, you'll see an illustration taken from church records of the Russells' membership in a presbyterian church in Philadelphia.
We recount in considerable detail the history of Russell's friends and associates, setting the record straight in several areas. We consider Russell's association with One Faith believers, something no one else has done. Though we do not have a firm page count for volume one yet, it will be about 325 pages and have perhaps fifty or more mostly never seen photos.
The chapters are:
1. Developing a Religious Voice. Russell's childhood to young adulthood. His family's history. A huge amount of detail is here. It's about fifty single spaced pages with illustrations.
2. Among the Second Adventists, Millenarians and Age-to-Come Believers: 1869-1874. This chapter contains extensive biographies of J. Wendell and G. Stetson. It explains their belief systems and shows Stetson's shift in association from the AC Church to One Faith (today best represented by Abrahamic Faith congregations). We draw some of this from Stetson's personal letters. We also consider G. D. Clowes, J. T. Ongley and G. Cherry, each of whom played a part in Russell's history. Among the illustrations is a Church Directory taken from an early isse of an Age-to-Come journal that lists the Allegheny Church not as Adventist but as One Faith.
3. Among the Second Adventists, Millenarians and Age-to-Come Believers: 1874-1876. We present an extensive biography of G. Storrs, demonstrating his shift from Adventism to independent Age to Come belief. We tell much of this story from his own words as found in Bible Examiner and Herald of Life. The focus of this chapter is on the interactions between the Russell's and Storrs especially as shown by letters and notices found in Bible Examiner. We detail the Russells' experience with E. L. Owen. We tell what happened to the Church of God group in Allegheny, later Pittsburgh. We tell about Russell's stormy relationship the the Christadelphians in Pittsburgh and near by places. We mention his interatctions with independent millenialists and SDA believers.
4. Separate Identity. This chapter, some thirty pages, considers the independent Bible Class, its known memebers and the development of a clearly stated theology.
5. Meeting the Principals: Russell's Entry into the Barbourite Movement. This considers those who were prominent among Barbour's associates. We present an extensive biography of J. Paton. Among the sources are numerous issues of Paton's magazine, his diary and other similar items. We also present biographies of B. W. Keith, S. H. Withington, Ira and Lizzie Allen, Avis Hamlin. Each of these played a part in the Watch Tower's development. Most of them are unknowns. We solve that problem. There are photos of Paton (from his family) and Hamlin and Keith. We tell exactly what the place of each was in Russell's history.
6. Barbour and Russell: The Early Ministry. Huge amount of detail on their interactions between August 1877 and the Spring of 1878. This is a key period in Russell's personal history. It is taken from original documents, newspaper articles and the writings of both men. About 45 pages of material few have ever seen.
7. Russell and Barbour: The Fruitage. This chapter considers the historiaclly most important of those accepting their message. We consider Caleb Davies, W. I. Mann, J. Tavender, J. C. Sunderlin, A. P. Adams, telling our readers why each of these men was important to Russell. We dran on Sunderlin's personal letters, the records of Adams' trial before the Methodist authorities, and other original records. There are photos of Davies, Tavender, Sunderlin and Adams. We also present details that help one understand issues not fully explained in Zion's Watch Tower.
8. Aftermath of Failure. This considers their expectations for the spring of 1878 and the separation and controversies that followed.
Volume 2 will take up the story, following it to just past the publication of The Plan of the Ages. Everything is footnoted so there are no unsupportable claims and anyone who wishes can follow our reseach path.
So this is nearly our last call for documentation that may help before we publish volume one. Anything you have, no matter how trivial you may think it would be of interest. Can you help?
To further our research we're seeking Brother Russell's letters. We've located a few. We would like to see more. If you have some to share, please contact me through our blog.
We are also interested in the personal letters (and photos) of early Bible Students.
Some of you may be interested in our new book. If you visit our public history blog you can see some pages in rough draft. I think Miss de Vienne and I tell a compreshensive story, giving more detail than ever published before. We draw on contemporary records and avoid when possible secondary sources. There will be photos you've never seen before. We used personall letters, court documents, county records, wills, contemporary newspaper articles and similar items. If you look at the sample pages, you'll see an illustration taken from church records of the Russells' membership in a presbyterian church in Philadelphia.
We recount in considerable detail the history of Russell's friends and associates, setting the record straight in several areas. We consider Russell's association with One Faith believers, something no one else has done. Though we do not have a firm page count for volume one yet, it will be about 325 pages and have perhaps fifty or more mostly never seen photos.
The chapters are:
1. Developing a Religious Voice. Russell's childhood to young adulthood. His family's history. A huge amount of detail is here. It's about fifty single spaced pages with illustrations.
2. Among the Second Adventists, Millenarians and Age-to-Come Believers: 1869-1874. This chapter contains extensive biographies of J. Wendell and G. Stetson. It explains their belief systems and shows Stetson's shift in association from the AC Church to One Faith (today best represented by Abrahamic Faith congregations). We draw some of this from Stetson's personal letters. We also consider G. D. Clowes, J. T. Ongley and G. Cherry, each of whom played a part in Russell's history. Among the illustrations is a Church Directory taken from an early isse of an Age-to-Come journal that lists the Allegheny Church not as Adventist but as One Faith.
3. Among the Second Adventists, Millenarians and Age-to-Come Believers: 1874-1876. We present an extensive biography of G. Storrs, demonstrating his shift from Adventism to independent Age to Come belief. We tell much of this story from his own words as found in Bible Examiner and Herald of Life. The focus of this chapter is on the interactions between the Russell's and Storrs especially as shown by letters and notices found in Bible Examiner. We detail the Russells' experience with E. L. Owen. We tell what happened to the Church of God group in Allegheny, later Pittsburgh. We tell about Russell's stormy relationship the the Christadelphians in Pittsburgh and near by places. We mention his interatctions with independent millenialists and SDA believers.
4. Separate Identity. This chapter, some thirty pages, considers the independent Bible Class, its known memebers and the development of a clearly stated theology.
5. Meeting the Principals: Russell's Entry into the Barbourite Movement. This considers those who were prominent among Barbour's associates. We present an extensive biography of J. Paton. Among the sources are numerous issues of Paton's magazine, his diary and other similar items. We also present biographies of B. W. Keith, S. H. Withington, Ira and Lizzie Allen, Avis Hamlin. Each of these played a part in the Watch Tower's development. Most of them are unknowns. We solve that problem. There are photos of Paton (from his family) and Hamlin and Keith. We tell exactly what the place of each was in Russell's history.
6. Barbour and Russell: The Early Ministry. Huge amount of detail on their interactions between August 1877 and the Spring of 1878. This is a key period in Russell's personal history. It is taken from original documents, newspaper articles and the writings of both men. About 45 pages of material few have ever seen.
7. Russell and Barbour: The Fruitage. This chapter considers the historiaclly most important of those accepting their message. We consider Caleb Davies, W. I. Mann, J. Tavender, J. C. Sunderlin, A. P. Adams, telling our readers why each of these men was important to Russell. We dran on Sunderlin's personal letters, the records of Adams' trial before the Methodist authorities, and other original records. There are photos of Davies, Tavender, Sunderlin and Adams. We also present details that help one understand issues not fully explained in Zion's Watch Tower.
8. Aftermath of Failure. This considers their expectations for the spring of 1878 and the separation and controversies that followed.
Volume 2 will take up the story, following it to just past the publication of The Plan of the Ages. Everything is footnoted so there are no unsupportable claims and anyone who wishes can follow our reseach path.
So this is nearly our last call for documentation that may help before we publish volume one. Anything you have, no matter how trivial you may think it would be of interest. Can you help?
Wednesday, June 12, 2013
Let me tell you about our next book ....
I usually post articles like this on my personal blog, but
this one will go here. I’m smooshing [yes I know that’s not a standard English word]
together my new research and Mr. Schulz’s 1990 research paper. This will be the
last full chapter of volume one of our new book. It tells the tale of the 1878
disappointment, Barbour and Russell’s eventual separation, and the controversy
that followed.
Most people know the basics, I think. The story is told in
two or three paragraphs in most histories of the Watch Tower movement. I can
tell you now that you don’t know the full story. Wickedpedia and other silly
sites reference A. H. Macmillan’s story about some standing on the Sixth Street
Bridge at midnight. It didn’t happen. His claim that Russell saw much work
ahead and didn’t expect translation is also false. I’m not saying he lied; he
just got it wrong.
Russell tells an entirely different story. We’ve found a lot
of that, people making claims that can’t be sustained. We start this chapter
with one of those:
“Little
of this story has been told. As with much else in this era of Watch Tower
history, we find significant purposeful nonsense and just plain bad research.
For example, Graig Burns asserts that “the Bible Students had split off from a
group of Second Adventists under N. H. Barbour, which later became the 7th-Day
Adventist Church.”[1] We’re fairly certain
Seventh-day Adventists would be surprised to know this. We certainly were.”
It’s
fun to be a little bit snippy. So much we read is just silly.
Much
more interesting to me is Russell’s separate doctrinal development. While he
and Barbour were slugging it out over the Atonement doctrine, Russell was perusing
an independent Bible study that lead to new approaches to previous beliefs. This
is all new research for us, but I think we grasp the basics. What were these
new thoughts? Read the book when it’s published.
Not surprisingly,
we find Barbour misstating events. He does that. He thought he was God’s
special mouthpiece, the “leader” of the little flock. He, at all costs, appeared
in the best light possible, even if that meant that he lied about his
associates.
An
obnoxious fabricator claims that Russell stole the Herald of the Morning
subscription list. This is a stupid claim. The Herald had fewer than 1000
subscribers. Russell sent his new magazine to 6000 individuals. More
importantly, Russell was part owner of the Herald, even if Barbour later denied
this. Notices in the semi-monthly issues said so as did periodical listings in
the public press.
Click the illustration to view it all.
Right
now, this remains a complex, tangled mess. That won’t last. Research always
starts that way. This book is nothing like what we imagined. The real story is
so much more interesting – and … well … different.
We
puzzle through why they believed what they believed. I do not mean we don’t
understand their chain of reasoning. They published all that. I mean I want to
know why they believed what was sometimes improbable. Charles Pierce, a
contemporary of Russell’s, wrote that, “The characteristics of belief are
three. First, there is a certain feeling with regard to a proposition. Second,
there is a disposition to be satisfied with the proposition. And third, there
is a clear impulse to act in certain ways, in consequence.” It’s hard to argue
with that proposition. They wanted to believe. So they believed. The limits of
belief were the scriptures as they understood them.
Doubt
also plays a part in this story. Pierce wrote that doubt “may approximate
indefinitely to belief.” That is, as long as there is belief, there will be
doubt. He gave several causes for ‘doubt,’ and I think we see them all at work
in this story. Doubt in this history drove investigation. And investigation is
the life blood of cogent thought. The theologies that descend from Russell,
Barbour and others were driven by investigation and doubt. We, of course, do
not express an opinion on the success of any of the actors in this story; we
only tell you what they did, and if they let us know, why they did it.
We’ve
worked hard to turn names into living personalities. Everyone with even mild
interest in Watch Tower history knows the name B. W. Keith. Benjamin Wallace
Keith had a personality all of his own, built out of experiences and
friendships. His aged father ran off and married someone far his junior. We
tell you that. He married twice. He lost children to disease and bee sting. We
tell you all those small details. And we hope that the story comes alive
through them.
Sunderlin
was adopted. He and Keith were both wounded in the Civil War. Sunderlin
suffered endlessly from a wound that ran down the length of his spine. Best we
can put together is that he was prone, shooting, and a bullet traveled down his
spine. He became an opium addict. Didn’t know that did you? He found relief from
his pain and the addiction in a medication that probably only had a placebo
effect. But it worked for him.
We
have photos of Keith and Sunderlin. They’ll appear in the new book.
L.
A. Allen, one of the original Watch Tower contributors, was a young woman. We
tell you some of her life issues. This is a partially told tale. We simply do
not know enough detail to say more than what we will say. I wish we did. Her
issues lead her to Universal Salvation belief.
Russell,
in a very obscure, hard to find place, tells of looking through a blast furnace
peephole and thinking about the horrors of hell. Knowing that doesn’t add much
to the story, really. But it’s colorful. It gives a flat story something of his
personality.
Bet
you didn’t know about Russell’s furniture store? His stock market investments?
Read the book when it comes out, and you will.
We “take
to task” a number of writers on both sides of the aisle. So much [insert
slightly vulgar word here] has been written … and believed … that we have to
address some of it. Zydeck’s book comes in for a thrashing. It’s not nice to
make things up. Bits of things found in dissertations and thesis are beat with
a hammer. Most of you won’t have read any of those, but some of them rest at
the back of books and pamphlets you would have read if you’ve pursued this at
all. Our goal is to present as accurate a history as we can.
An
example? Here’s a paragraph:
Owen
W. Muelder wrote that Storrs “studied at Princeton, graduated from Andover
Theological Seminary, and was a professor of theology as Western Reserve
College in Ohio. In 1828, he lived in South Carolina where he observed the grim
reality of a slaves’ life.” None of this is true. Records of his ordination and
ministry have him in New Hampshire through all this period.[2]
A brief biography prefacing one of his books appears to be a product of Storrs’
own pen, and, as such, probably speaks authoritatively about his early
religious beliefs. Not surprisingly, his introduction to spiritual thought came
from his mother. Storrs and his siblings received their first and primary
religious instruction at her knees. Storrs remembered her as “ever watchful
over their religious instruction, while the father was most studious to promote
their temporal welfare.” Lucinda Storrs “gathered her children around her,
particularly on the Sabbath, to give them instruction in the things pertaining
to God, and our Saviour, Jesus Christ.”
We
want it “right.” If we fail, it’s our own fault, of course. But we strive for
accuracy no matter where it takes us.
Another
example, this one from a discussion of the Allegheny Bible Class:
A.
D. Jones was not a member, despite claims by various writers. Neither was
George Stetson, though he may have met with them on the odd occasions when he
was in Allegheny. Jones came into the picture in 1878, and Stetson was centered
in Edinboro and could not regularly attend though he preached to the Church of
God congregation every other week for a period, and in December 1872 he
preached there twice each Sunday. The claim made by an Internet based
encyclopedia that George Storrs attended regularly is a fabrication. The entire
article in which that claim appears should be rejected by serious researchers.
Wading
through secondary sources for this period (roughly 1870-1887) leaves the stain
of Augean Stables on one. … Which is a nice way of saying really bad stuff
about what most have written. We understand that we’ve had extraordinary access
to some material not available to most writers. But most of this story has been
available to anyone who looked. They just haven’t looked.
Writing
this has been a challenge. Melding two writing styles into one readable
document is not the least of our challenges. Finding material has been an even
bigger task. If you’ve read this blog for a while you’ve seen a long list of “needs
and wants.” We still need most of those.
On
the other hand, family members of some of those we write about have found us or
we’ve found them, and they’ve contributed surprising things. We’ve had help
from Wendells, Barbour descendants, von Zech’s family, J. A. Brown’s distant
granddaughter, and others. This has added richness to this story.
Mr.
Schulz often says, “The story is in the details.” This is an excellent maxim.
[1] G. Burns: Exit From Soul-Abuse: Redefining Extremist
Cults, Trafford Publishing, 2012, page 454. Burns is an ex-Witness. One
wonders how he could associate with that religion for twenty-four years and not
know the basics of Watch Tower history.
[2] O. W. Muelder: Theodore Dwight Weld and the American
Anti-Slavery Society, Jefferson, North Carolina, 2011, page 89. Storrs
ministry in this period is well documented, presenting this record: Admitted on
trial to the New England ME Conference 1825; Ordained deacon by Bishop Hedding
at Lisbon, June 10 1827 and elder by the same at Portsmouth, June 15 1829;
Appointments Landaff, 1825; Sandwich, 1826-7; Gilmanton and Northfield, 1828-9;
Great Falls, 1830 and 1832; Portsmouth, 1830-1; Concord, 1833-4; Henniker and
Deering supernumerary 1835; left the Methodists 1840; Without charge,
Montpelier Vermont, 1841; Supplied Albany, New York, 1841-2. – See N. F.
Carter: The Native Ministry of New Hampshire, Concord, 1906, page 428.
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
I know i'm asking for the moon, but we need:
1. Any and all of the semi-monthly issues of Herald of the Morning except the June 15, 1877, issue. We especially need the issues for April and May.
2. We have a very limited number of contemporary reactions to their failure to be "translated" in April 1877. We would love to have more comments from outside the movement.
3. We still seek Russell's personal letters. Since I last asked, we've come up with six, one of which was very helpful. If you have one (or some), no matter how trivial the content may seem, please scan it and send it to us.
4. We still need Barbour's Spiritism booklet from 1883.
5. We need a photo of William I. Mann. We've checked with the university where his son was provost. No joy there. Anyone? Even a poor quality newspaper photo would work.
6. Letters between early Bible Students, no matter what the date are important, even if they seem trivial. Do you have any you can share?
Update on progress:
Mr. Schulz is writing the introductory essay for volume one. I'm reading through and re-researching and re-writing something he wrote about 1990 for someone else's book. This will become the last chapter of volume one. We're moving a chapter planned for volume one to volume two where it will be more appropriate; the same is true of one appendix.
I noted a discussion of Russell's supposed membership in the Masons over on another site. Just so you know, the membership list for the lodge his uncle belonged to is available. Neither C. T.'s dad nor himself is on it. We deal with all of this in an appendix in volume one.
We're hoping to have volume one in print early next year.
2. We have a very limited number of contemporary reactions to their failure to be "translated" in April 1877. We would love to have more comments from outside the movement.
3. We still seek Russell's personal letters. Since I last asked, we've come up with six, one of which was very helpful. If you have one (or some), no matter how trivial the content may seem, please scan it and send it to us.
4. We still need Barbour's Spiritism booklet from 1883.
5. We need a photo of William I. Mann. We've checked with the university where his son was provost. No joy there. Anyone? Even a poor quality newspaper photo would work.
6. Letters between early Bible Students, no matter what the date are important, even if they seem trivial. Do you have any you can share?
Update on progress:
Mr. Schulz is writing the introductory essay for volume one. I'm reading through and re-researching and re-writing something he wrote about 1990 for someone else's book. This will become the last chapter of volume one. We're moving a chapter planned for volume one to volume two where it will be more appropriate; the same is true of one appendix.
I noted a discussion of Russell's supposed membership in the Masons over on another site. Just so you know, the membership list for the lodge his uncle belonged to is available. Neither C. T.'s dad nor himself is on it. We deal with all of this in an appendix in volume one.
We're hoping to have volume one in print early next year.
Monday, June 10, 2013
Friday, June 7, 2013
Working on the last chapter of volume 1
This is what we have. Can you add detail. ...?
A. H. Macmillan reported a later claim made by “Pittsburgh
newspapers” that Russell “was on the Sixth Street bridge dressed in a white
robe on the night of the Memorial of Christ’s death, expecting to be taken to
heaven.” We could not find the original of this newspaper report, though we do
not doubt its existence. The fact of the report is interesting, but the
conclusions many have drawn from it are distorted. The report, no matter who
printed it, was long removed from the events of 1878. Macmillan’s association
dates from 1900.[1] The newspaper article
could be no older than that and is probably dated later, perhaps after 1906. So
at best it reports on events twenty years pervious. As Macmillan has it,
Russell’s reaction was to laugh “heartily” and say:
I was in bed that night between 10:30
and 11:00 P.M. However, some of the more radical ones might have been there,
but I was not. Neither did I expect to be taken to heaven at that time, for I
felt there was much work to be done preaching the Kingdom message to the
peoples of the earth before the church would be taken away.[2]
One should
dispose of the ascension-robe claim first. It was an old often repeated calumny.
Everyone with clearly defined end of the age expectations was subject to it,
though there is not one verifiable instance. It is especially out of place when
applied to Russell. He expected a change to a spirit body, making any self-made
ascension robe irrelevant. He understood the “white robes” of Revelation [vs]
to be symbolic, not literal. That he or any of the Pittsburgh Barbourites
dressed in robes is a newspaper reporter’s lie. Some writers have taken this on
face value. The story delights Russell’s enemies who discount his denial, and
others simply repeat it as is, believing it to be accurate because it saw
print.
If
Macmillan reports Russell’s belief that “there was much work to be done” and
that he didn’t “expect to be taken to heaven at that time” with any sort of
accuracy, then we must presume his doubts to have arisen in the last weeks
before April 1878. Any time prior to the spring of 1878, we find Russell and
Barbour believing with equal fervor that translation impended.[3] It
is apparent that he believed and preached that translation was due. Taken as a
whole, this seems a very unreliable report. But we come away from it noting two
things: There was among the Pittsburgh brethren a “more radical” party; they
were somewhat fragmented. And doubts grew as the time approached.
[1] A. H. Macmillan: Faith on the March,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1957, page 42.
[2] A. H. Macmillan: Faith on the March, page 27.
[3] C. T. Russell: A Conspiracy Exposed and Harvest
Siftings, Zion’s Watch Tower, special edition, Apriil 25, 1894, pages
103-104. The Prospect, Herald of the
Morning, July 1878, page 11.
We need to locate the original of the ...
newspaper article mentioned by A. H. Macmillan that claimed that Russell and his associates were on the sixth street bridge on passover day 1878. Anyone?
Thursday, May 30, 2013
Monday, May 27, 2013
Setting matters straight
Several have presumed that the Watch Tower Society some how supports this project or that they feed us information. This is our own personal project. It is not sponsored by, approved by, or otherwise supported by the Watch Tower Society.
They do not feed us information. We have written or emailed them five or six time over the course of our current project, usually to ask a specific question. Most often their answer has been, "We don't know" or "We don't have that." They have sent us exactly seven pages of photocopy, some of it material we already had. In point of fact there were only three pages we did not have. We appreciate receiving that much. But, that is all we have received from them. It is wrong to suggest on a public forum or in private that they are a secret voice of support behind this project.
The research is ours. Outside help comes from interested individuals who read this or the private blog. Some of them are Jehovah's Witnesses, some Bible Students and a couple are educators who have a historian's interest. None of them are part of the official Watch Tower staff. All the conclusions we draw are our own. We are not writing a polemic; we're writing history. If there prove to be mistakes in the book, we are to blame. If we take you places you've never been, show you history you've never seen, the praise is ours too.
A recent forum post says that Mr. Schulz is using a pen name. He is not. I write as Rachael de Vienne, and that is a pen name, an extract from a much longer personal name. That is my name, just not my first or last name. I teach and I raise children and goats.
Mr. Schulz did not write scripts for a television show. He wrote childrens' stories. They are all out of print. He used a pen name for those. They aren't relevant to the history we write.
Our next book must stand or fall on its merits. Either it is sound, well-researched history, or it is not. It does not matter who our ancestors were or who our living relations may be. Some of them are not praise-worthy people anyway.
They do not feed us information. We have written or emailed them five or six time over the course of our current project, usually to ask a specific question. Most often their answer has been, "We don't know" or "We don't have that." They have sent us exactly seven pages of photocopy, some of it material we already had. In point of fact there were only three pages we did not have. We appreciate receiving that much. But, that is all we have received from them. It is wrong to suggest on a public forum or in private that they are a secret voice of support behind this project.
The research is ours. Outside help comes from interested individuals who read this or the private blog. Some of them are Jehovah's Witnesses, some Bible Students and a couple are educators who have a historian's interest. None of them are part of the official Watch Tower staff. All the conclusions we draw are our own. We are not writing a polemic; we're writing history. If there prove to be mistakes in the book, we are to blame. If we take you places you've never been, show you history you've never seen, the praise is ours too.
A recent forum post says that Mr. Schulz is using a pen name. He is not. I write as Rachael de Vienne, and that is a pen name, an extract from a much longer personal name. That is my name, just not my first or last name. I teach and I raise children and goats.
Mr. Schulz did not write scripts for a television show. He wrote childrens' stories. They are all out of print. He used a pen name for those. They aren't relevant to the history we write.
Our next book must stand or fall on its merits. Either it is sound, well-researched history, or it is not. It does not matter who our ancestors were or who our living relations may be. Some of them are not praise-worthy people anyway.
Saturday, May 25, 2013
Friday, May 24, 2013
Thursday, May 23, 2013
Names
I have an hour or so before I go teach my one class of the day. I’m using it to organize the mass of photocopies we received. There are maybe 200 pages, but little of it is useful for our work in progress. However, it will be useful for book three in this series.
Some short newspaper articles give names of those active in the movement, many of which are new to me.
There is an Alexander Graham of Summerville, Minnesota. I’ve never heard of him. Eventually, I’ll hunt him down. He shows up in an article from September 23, 1899.
J. H. Moffatt of Micanopy, Florida, was giving Bible lectures in 1904.
An Elder Staples and Charles N. Friend preached alternate Sundays in Richmond, Virginia, in 1901.
This one is confusing. Two Charles N. Friends, both near Richmond. One was a druggist, the other a minister. The one we want lived in Chester VA in 1901.
Elder appears to be a first name instead of a title.
George Ceariners (or Geariners) held meetings in his home in Houston, Texas, in 1896.
C. R. Raymond of Cleveland, Ohio, lectured in St. Louis in 1903.
J. A. Gillespie was lecturing in Omaha in 1912.
Samuel Williams lectured in Huston in 1903.
S. J. Arnold was in Marietta, Ohio, to lecture in March 1900.
N. W. Mottinger led the congregation in Akron, Ohio, in 1902.
This is Noah W. Mottinger, born in Ohio in 1846 and died in Ohio in 1907. He was a Civil War veteran.
"Evangelists Williams and Howel" lectured in Houston, Texas, in 1902.
Howel is John (Jonathan) Marshman Howell, a horticulturalist and carpenter. (1849-1925). We think but don't know for certain, that Williams is A. E. Williams.
T. H. Lloyd was advertising Millennial Dawn in Salem, Oregon, in 1896.
This is Thomas H. Lloyd, a carpenter (stairbuilder), born in wales in 1851 and died in Salem, Oregon in 1901.
George H. Draper of Conde, South Dakota, lectured in Minnesota in 1908.
Mr. Anderson held meetings in his "studio" in Huston, Texas, in 1896.
J. Wyndetts was an adherent living in Huston, Texas, in 1899.
J. O. Sandberg of Grants Pass, Oregon, placed an ad for a lecture in 1904.
Appears to be the John O Sandberg burried in the Fox Valley, Linn County, Oregon Cemetery. Birth and death years are given as 1846-1926.
G. W. Hessler, a carpenter, was an adherent in Scranton, Pennsylvania, in 1898.
Mrs. N. E. Rolison was secretary of the congregation in Elmira, NY, in 1911.
D. W. McClay of Schenectady was lecturing in 1905.
Fredrick Clapham opened his home up for meetings in Albany, New York, in 1900.
Morgan T. Lewis of Cohoee was lecturing in New York in 1900.
James G. Hill was lecturing in Yonkers in 1908
Maurice McKinny was lecturing in Elmira, New York, in 1905.
This list continues to grow … I can see lots and lots of hard, detailed research in my future.
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
I hope you're not getting tired
of all the newspaper articles ... I found bunches of them that are new to us. Some of these answer questions we've had and some are just interesting. I found one from 1888 about Viola Gilbert. We mention her twice in our upcoming book. It's brief but adds significantly to the story. As a result we'll move a footnote into main text and elaborate.
These raw, sometimes little bits of newspaper text have furthered our story in huge ways. I hope you enjoy them.I"m focused on articles published before 1910 even though that date is two decades past the cut off date for our next book. We foucus on names, slogans and catch-phrases. The history doesn't stop at 1890, though our book focuses on the years before that. It would be silly to confine ourselves to material before that date.
So ... what you're seeing is material we've just found. It's not exactly surprising, except for a few new names we'll have to track down. But it adds detail. If you think about it, lack of detail has choked the story, turning it into a myth. Our goal is to restore detail so subsequent writers can follow the trails we have and add new research or simply abreviate the story, but accurately.
The advertisement from Salem, Oregon, is especially important because it illustrates what some Watch Tower evangelists did. This is not news to us, but it gives us a usable visual. Without explaining all of the details, Russell was exposed to and part of a religious movement that struggled with names and identity. He was very reluctant to give a name to the organization that grew up around Zion's Watch Tower. We're documenting the many names used by individual groups. The articles we've found recently helps with that.
Something that did surprise me is a series of "Millennial Dawn State Conventions." These were held in the 1890s and into the early 1900s, and while Mr. Schulz did not find this "new," I did. Anyway, I hope I'm not boring you silly by posting these articles.
These raw, sometimes little bits of newspaper text have furthered our story in huge ways. I hope you enjoy them.I"m focused on articles published before 1910 even though that date is two decades past the cut off date for our next book. We foucus on names, slogans and catch-phrases. The history doesn't stop at 1890, though our book focuses on the years before that. It would be silly to confine ourselves to material before that date.
So ... what you're seeing is material we've just found. It's not exactly surprising, except for a few new names we'll have to track down. But it adds detail. If you think about it, lack of detail has choked the story, turning it into a myth. Our goal is to restore detail so subsequent writers can follow the trails we have and add new research or simply abreviate the story, but accurately.
The advertisement from Salem, Oregon, is especially important because it illustrates what some Watch Tower evangelists did. This is not news to us, but it gives us a usable visual. Without explaining all of the details, Russell was exposed to and part of a religious movement that struggled with names and identity. He was very reluctant to give a name to the organization that grew up around Zion's Watch Tower. We're documenting the many names used by individual groups. The articles we've found recently helps with that.
Something that did surprise me is a series of "Millennial Dawn State Conventions." These were held in the 1890s and into the early 1900s, and while Mr. Schulz did not find this "new," I did. Anyway, I hope I'm not boring you silly by posting these articles.
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
S. O. Blunden and other matters.
In early to mid 1888 Blunden was arrested in Harrisburg, PA, for handing out tracts in from of a Methodist church. We would like to see original records of some sort. We can't find them. Anyone?
We need a public domain photo of City Gospel Tent, New York City, as it looked between 1885 and 1890.
We need any records of "New Church of Brooklyn." It was in existance in 1892-1893. A photo would be stellar.
We need copies of any letters from or to or among Bible Students in the period before 1916, no matter how unimportant they may seem. Anyone?
We need a public domain photo of City Gospel Tent, New York City, as it looked between 1885 and 1890.
We need any records of "New Church of Brooklyn." It was in existance in 1892-1893. A photo would be stellar.
We need copies of any letters from or to or among Bible Students in the period before 1916, no matter how unimportant they may seem. Anyone?
On the Private Blog
We posted a chapter on early Watch Tower finances. It profiles some of the first directors and discusses early donnors and such.
We need to know J. F. Smith's middle name, and we'd love to find a photo of him and William C. MacMillan and Simon O. Blunden.
We have very little information about the sale of donated land in Florida in the 1880s. Any small detail will help.
We need to know J. F. Smith's middle name, and we'd love to find a photo of him and William C. MacMillan and Simon O. Blunden.
We have very little information about the sale of donated land in Florida in the 1880s. Any small detail will help.
Monday, May 20, 2013
The Ross Libel Case
In 1912, J J Ross, a Baptist
clergyman in Canada, published a booklet “Some Facts about the Self Styled
Pastor Russell.” It attacked CTR over a number of issues, including his marital
problems, his business ventures and his ordination and education or lack of same.
CTR sued Ross, but the indictment
got no further than the magistrates court. As a result, Ross published an
expanded booklet with extracts from the court transcript, claiming that he
“won” and CTR “lost”. The accusations made in this booklet, especially over
whether CTR could read or understand Biblical Greek have been re-circulated
down to this day. Opponents of CTR accuse him of perjury. Others reading the
limited transcript available see a far more innocent explanation; one given by
CTR at the time.
Regrettably, the full transcript
of the key hearing, where CTR was cross-examined by George Lynch Staunton, is
not currently available. Staunton’s copy does not appear to survive, nor that
of J J Ross, and the one owned by the Watchtower Society was lost for many
years, then reportedly rediscovered, then apparently mislaid again.
While it might give many
interesting historical morsels in CTR’s testimony, it probably covered similar
ground to other trials of the day involving CTR. This can be seen by examining
how the newspapers of the day reported the proceedings.
What is noteworthy is that the
reporters in court never picked up on any accusations approaching perjury. Any
reference to CTR’s ability to read Greek, be it letters or language, was so
peripheral it didn’t merit comment. In their minds the accusations made by Ross
focussed more on CTR’s marital difficulties and ordination – subjects already raised
by newspapers such as the Brooklyn Eagle, from where Ross’s original booklet
admitted he had obtained most of his material. And crucially, the newspapers of
the day explained why Ross was not found guilty. (One must always remember that
in law it was Ross who was the defendant, not CTR).
The answer is given very clearly
in the cutting at the head of this article. And it reflects what CTR himself
said by way of explanation at the time.
When later asked about the case,
CTR made his defense in the Watch Tower, September 15th, 1914, pp. 286-7
(reprints page 5543). This was a reproduction of a letter published in a
newspaper in Trinidad, apparently in answer to Ross's second booklet. The key
part is as follows:
(all underlining mine):
'I am quite familiar with the
slanderous screed issued by Rev. J.J. Ross. In Canada they have just two laws
governing libel. Under the one, the falsifier may be punished by the assessment
of damages and money. Under the other, criminal libel, he is subject to
imprisonment. I entered suit against Rev. Ross under the criminal act at the
advice of my attorneys, because, as he had no property, a suit for damages
would not intimidate him nor stop him. The lower court found him guilty of libel.
But when the case went to the second judge he called up an English precedent in
which it was held that criminal libel would only operate in a case where the
jury felt sure that there was danger of rioting or violence. As there was
no danger that myself or friends would resort to rioting, the case was thrown
out. I could still bring my action for financial damages but it would be costly
to me and impotent as respects Rev. Ross.'
(CTR then discusses at some
length the issues raised on Biblical languages and ordination and presents his
side of the case).
So CTR states he was advised to
try for criminal libel, but because of an English precedent relating to
resulting 'rioting' and 'violence', it was thrown out. The English law
(obviously governing Canada at this time) is put simply in Reader's Digest
Family Guide to the Law (1971 edition) page 675: (underlining mine):
'Libel is normally a civil wrong
- what the law calls a 'tort' -·but it can be also a criminal offense if the
prosecution shows that the libel caused, or was likely to cause a breach of
the peace. Such prosecutions are rare because the person libelled normally
prefers to seek damages in a civil action; for even if someone is found guilty
of criminal libel the person defamed does not get any damages.'
In discussing how certain rare
circumstances allow for criminal libel of the dead, it states:
'If the dead person is libelled
in such a way that his relatives are understandably angered into a breach of
the peace, the writer might be prosecuted for criminal libel.'
So the key point in law is, will
the one libelled be likely to cause a breach of the peace, or will his
relatives?
This is backed up by Stones
Justice Manual, 1985 edition, Section 4-5671. After the definition of criminal
libel, and various decisions on whether or not the dead could be so libelled,
we have the British precedent to which CTR referred: (underlining mine):
(quote) Lord COLERIDGE CJ,
directed a grand jury at Berkshire Assizes, Reading, February 1889, that there ought
to be some public interest concerned, something affecting the Crown or in
guardians of public peace, to justify the recourse by a private person to
criminal libel by way of indictment. If either by reason of the continued
repetition or infamous character of the libel a breach of the peace was
likely to ensue, then the libeller should be indicted: but in the absense
of such conditions, a personal squabble between two individuals ought not to be
permitted by grand juries, as indeed it was not permitted by sound law to the
subject of criminal indictment, and he invited them to throw out the bill,
which, in accordance with his suggestion, was done (33 Sol Jo 250).
In summary – if no breach of the peace
was actually caused by, or threatened by, the one libelled, a private individual
bringing a charge of criminal libel would have it thrown out – irrespective of
the merits of the case. Had CTR brought a civil action against Ross it may have
been a different result. This is what he did with actions against the
'Washington Post' and Chicago 'Mission Friend' where both cases were decided in
his favour. The issue of CTR’s 'divorce/separation' was common to all cases.
The whole object of the exercise
was to silence Ross, and CTR wrote to him while the case was pending offering
to withdraw the suit if Ross would discontinue his (quote) "injurious
slanderous course". (See Watch Tower, October 1st, 1915). On this occasion
the strategy backfired!
In hindsight it would appear that
CTR received flawed legal advice to go for the rare charge of criminal libel,
rather than civil libel as before.
In the Watch Tower for October
1st, 1915, when answering a question about why he, CTR, took someone to court,
when Jesus didn't, he stated about the Ross case: "We are not certain that
we did the wisest and best thing – the thing most pleasing to the Lord in the
matter mentioned."
Saturday, May 18, 2013
Friday, May 17, 2013
Another Page. This one from Chapter 5
These sample pages will give you an idea of what to expect, at least in apperance, and some idea of content. We don't have a release date yet, but we're hoping for near February 2014.
We have a major chapter to finish, followed by a thorough edit and re-write. We don't know if there will be an index with the first volume or if that comes with volume 2.
We have a major chapter to finish, followed by a thorough edit and re-write. We don't know if there will be an index with the first volume or if that comes with volume 2.
The List
Mr. Schulz made this list for someone else. I think it may be interesting to you too. It's a short description of the chapters to be found in volume 1 of the next book:
Chapter
one considers Russell family antecedents and C. T. Russell’s childhood with
some reference to his business ventures. We draw heavily on Russell’s accounts
as scattered through the pages of the Watch Tower and Convention Reports,
public and church records.
Chapter
two takes us into his meeting with Wendell, Stetson and others. We provide
extensive biographies of Wendell and Stetson and more brief notices of others
Russell met between 1869 and 1874. We define the difference between Age-to-Come
(One Faith) belief and Adventism and explore which most influenced Russell’s
associates. Among those we profile and whose interactions with Russell and his
associates we explore are George Darby Clowes, John T. Ongley, and George W.
Cherry. We explore Stetson’s shift from Adventism to One Faith belief. Photos
of the hall Wendell first spoke in and the one in which Russell met him and
copies of newspaper notices and similar matters illustrate this chapter
Chapter
three considers interaction with Storrs. We present an extensive biography of
Storrs, emphasizing his shift from Millerite Adventism to Age-to-Come belief.
This discussion is drawn from contemporary records. We also consider the
Russells interactions with Eleazer L. Owen, Seventh-day Adventists and
Christadelphians. We detail the history of the One Faith congregation that grew
out of Wendell’s visit. We consider claims made about Russell’s view of William
Miller and his connections to other, non-Adventist millenarians.
Chapter
four considers the formation of the Bible Class, following the trail of their
doctrinal development and connecting it to contemporary persons and articles.
We discuss in some detail William Conley’s background, his connections to
Peters and others, and his doctrinal differences with Russell. We leave the
history of their separation and Conley’s shift to faith-cure advocacy to volume
two.
Russell describes their doctrinal development several times. Combining his various
statements we outline the salient points as: 1. End of the age; 2. Second
Probation; 3. Ransom and Atonement; 4. Parousia and Restitution; 5. Restoration
of the Jews; 6. World Burning; 7. Baptism; 8. Resurrection; 9. End-times
chronology and prophetic framework; 10. The Trinity; 11. Devil and Demons; 12.
Great Pyramid, and 13. Other doctrines including congregation “ordinances.” We
connect their study to contemporary events, discussions and articles in
journals we know they read or tracts by people they knew.
Chapter
five considers Russell’s introduction to the Barbourite movement. It profiles
the principals and discusses his meeting with Barbour in Philadelphia and his
meeting with Paton in Pittsburgh. There is some newspaper documentation of
Barbour’s activity in Philadelphia. This chapter presents a thorough biography
of Paton and biographies of those most prominent among Herald of the Morning
readers: Benjamin Wallace Keith; Samuel Howe Withington; Ira and Lizzie
(Elizabeth) Allen; Avis M. Hamlin. It ends with a consideration of the social
milieu and Russell’s commitment to the work.
Chapter
six considers in detail Barbour and Russell’s ministry up to the spring of 1878.
We explore newspaper articles detailing their first missionary trip. We discuss
their publishing ministry and some new doctrinal developments. They abandoned
belief in an earthly heaven in mid 1877, causing some considerable controversy.
We look at reactions to their ministry both from Adventists and from One Faith
believers, quoting from articles appearing in their journals.
Chapter
seven considers their ministry’s fruitage. We profile some who were prominent
in the following years. These include Caleb Davies; William Imre Mann; Joshua
Tavender; John Corbin Sunderlin; and Arthur Prince Adams. We draw on private
letters, church records and contemporary newspaper articles.
Chapter
eight considers the atonement controversy and separation. This exists as notes
only.
We
plan an additional chapter considering Barbour and Russell’s households, their
wives and other connections. This may be inserted between chapters six and
seven. An appendix on Russell’s supposed Masonic connections is ready. A second
appendix considering Russell’s preaching with evangelists connected to The
Restitution is partially complete.
A rough page count of volume one is 380 pages. That will change with edits.
Thursday, May 9, 2013
Discussion
We’re close to the break point for what would be volume one
of our next book. When chapter eight is finished and we do a thorough re-write,
we could publish it. We’re debating this. There is a huge amount of work left,
almost all of it for volume two. We could put out volume one, but we’re afraid
that alone it will not hold our reader’s interest.
It might. There is good stuff in it, new, well-researched
and interesting at least to me. But it ends with Russell and Barbour’s
separation and he controversies that followed it. We don’t expect to sell many
copies anyway, but we worry that interest will wane between the publication of
a volume one and the final volume.
I’m in no shape physically or mentally to make a rational
decision. (I’m very sick right now.) And Bruce seems torn by a desire to get it
out and wanting to tell the whole story at once. So we’re opening it up for
discussion here.
Lack of interest here, and we my shelve the project.
Sunday, April 21, 2013
A statement
We haven’t had to restate "the rules" for some time. And I suppose that’s not exactly what I’m doing now. We post minor bits of our research on this blog. Serious research goes up on our private blog for review by a group of knowledgeable, interested readers.
We write history books. Our research supports our own writing. We’re not here to support your projects. That doesn’t mean we’re not happy to hear from blog readers. It means we cannot further your project beyond a general answer to your questions unless we’re receiving significant material from you in return.
I don’t care who you know or who you pretend to represent. I don’t care who your "important friend" may be. None of that will gain you special access to our research or draw us off into controversy with you. Our sole interest is in accurate research. If you have something to contribute, or a correction to make, or want to offer help, I’m more than happy to hear from you.
As an aside, no member of the Governing Body would send you to us back channel. Don’t take that tack with us. It will make me raise my eyebrows, but it won’t get you access to aspects of our research we haven’t published here. The Watch Tower Society knows Mr. Schulz’ address and its representatives are perfectly capable of asking their own questions.
There are older bits of research we’ve left up on this blog. Be aware that some of it may be dated. We are far beyond what remains on this blog, but we don’t post it here. We stopped posting updates here because some used our research as if it were their own discoveries and because of low-grade harassment by religious zealots.
Our work in progress is two thirds done, and we’re at 220,000 words including a mass of footnotes. There will be many never seen or seldom seen photos. It presents a new approach to the era between 1870 and 1887. There will be things you’ve never seen or heard of. We think it will change the approach to this era of Watch Tower history.
We tackle a series of mythologies built up around Russell. When it is finally published and you read it, don’t ignore the footnotes. Most are just references, but if you don’t read them you’ll miss interesting things. (Millennial Dawn evangelist arrested for threats is an example). We identify people left unnamed in official histories, telling their stories. We tell you about the criminal behavior of one of Russell’s associates. (a dirty rascal indeed!) But be aware that we’re writing well researched history, not a scandal rag, and we’re not parroting the anti-Russell or pro-Russell mythologies that abound.
We draw almost exclusively from contemporary sources, including letters and personal papers of the principals. So much for that.
Ultimately, how we respond to an email from you depends on how you present yourself. We size you up by what you write. Think about that before you send me an email.
We write history books. Our research supports our own writing. We’re not here to support your projects. That doesn’t mean we’re not happy to hear from blog readers. It means we cannot further your project beyond a general answer to your questions unless we’re receiving significant material from you in return.
I don’t care who you know or who you pretend to represent. I don’t care who your "important friend" may be. None of that will gain you special access to our research or draw us off into controversy with you. Our sole interest is in accurate research. If you have something to contribute, or a correction to make, or want to offer help, I’m more than happy to hear from you.
As an aside, no member of the Governing Body would send you to us back channel. Don’t take that tack with us. It will make me raise my eyebrows, but it won’t get you access to aspects of our research we haven’t published here. The Watch Tower Society knows Mr. Schulz’ address and its representatives are perfectly capable of asking their own questions.
There are older bits of research we’ve left up on this blog. Be aware that some of it may be dated. We are far beyond what remains on this blog, but we don’t post it here. We stopped posting updates here because some used our research as if it were their own discoveries and because of low-grade harassment by religious zealots.
Our work in progress is two thirds done, and we’re at 220,000 words including a mass of footnotes. There will be many never seen or seldom seen photos. It presents a new approach to the era between 1870 and 1887. There will be things you’ve never seen or heard of. We think it will change the approach to this era of Watch Tower history.
We tackle a series of mythologies built up around Russell. When it is finally published and you read it, don’t ignore the footnotes. Most are just references, but if you don’t read them you’ll miss interesting things. (Millennial Dawn evangelist arrested for threats is an example). We identify people left unnamed in official histories, telling their stories. We tell you about the criminal behavior of one of Russell’s associates. (a dirty rascal indeed!) But be aware that we’re writing well researched history, not a scandal rag, and we’re not parroting the anti-Russell or pro-Russell mythologies that abound.
We draw almost exclusively from contemporary sources, including letters and personal papers of the principals. So much for that.
Ultimately, how we respond to an email from you depends on how you present yourself. We size you up by what you write. Think about that before you send me an email.
Don't name drop.
My answer to a recent email:
I forwarded your email to Mr. Schulz. The information on our public blog about William Imre Mann is old research, and we have updated it since. We do not have a photo for him. If the Watchtower Society has questions about the first Watch Tower directors they may contact Mr. Schulz directly. They have his address.
Mr. Schulz has been a Witness since 1952 or earlier. I am a simple historian with a religion of my own. Personally, I'm reluctant to share our hard won research without an expectation of reciprocity. Mr. Schulz is more giving than I am.
We have some photos of Russell's early associates, but though we've searched for Mann's we haven't located one. We don't have Simon Osborne Blunden's photo or that for J. F. Smith, though we have a photo of his place of business and some letters he wrote. William C. McMillan's personal records have come our way in a limited way. We have H. B. Rice's photo; several for Paton; B. W. Keith's photo; original letters by and a photo of Sunderlin.
As I said above, if the Watch Tower needs this information, they should contact Mr. Schulz directly. We no longer post significant research to our public blog because of harassment from various sources and the unattributed use of our research. All our current research goes up on an invitation only blog.
We are no longer taking requests for access from people we do not know. Access is open to professional historians who we many know personally or individuals who come with a recomendation from someone we know and who can contribute in a meaningful way to our current research.
R. M. de Vienne
I forwarded your email to Mr. Schulz. The information on our public blog about William Imre Mann is old research, and we have updated it since. We do not have a photo for him. If the Watchtower Society has questions about the first Watch Tower directors they may contact Mr. Schulz directly. They have his address.
Mr. Schulz has been a Witness since 1952 or earlier. I am a simple historian with a religion of my own. Personally, I'm reluctant to share our hard won research without an expectation of reciprocity. Mr. Schulz is more giving than I am.
We have some photos of Russell's early associates, but though we've searched for Mann's we haven't located one. We don't have Simon Osborne Blunden's photo or that for J. F. Smith, though we have a photo of his place of business and some letters he wrote. William C. McMillan's personal records have come our way in a limited way. We have H. B. Rice's photo; several for Paton; B. W. Keith's photo; original letters by and a photo of Sunderlin.
As I said above, if the Watch Tower needs this information, they should contact Mr. Schulz directly. We no longer post significant research to our public blog because of harassment from various sources and the unattributed use of our research. All our current research goes up on an invitation only blog.
We are no longer taking requests for access from people we do not know. Access is open to professional historians who we many know personally or individuals who come with a recomendation from someone we know and who can contribute in a meaningful way to our current research.
R. M. de Vienne
Sunday, April 14, 2013
help with this?
We need the first name of Mrs. Bell, the wife of Rev.
William Bell, head master of Dover College, Dover, Kent, England, in the 1880s.
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
Can you help with this ...?
One of those who read our history blogs needs a really clear, color scan of the 1931 Convention Program. Anyone?
that was quick! thanks
that was quick! thanks
Joseph Dunn
We need solid biographical information about Joseph Dunn, apparently a clergyman, living in Hague, New York, in 1901. Anyone?
Friday, March 29, 2013
Convention picture
A convention photograph with some familiar faces. The front row is A H MacMillan, J F Rutherford, C T Russell, E W Brenneisen, F F Cook (?) and O L Sullivan.
All these men were on the same convention program at Mountain Lake Park, Maryland, in September 1911, so my best guess is that the photograph dates from then.
Friday, March 22, 2013
John Bohnet vs. Benjamin Wilson
John A Bohnet was a
well-known name in Watch Tower history. Donator of Miracle Wheat, manager of
the cemetery where CTR was buried, he later wrote articles for the Golden Age
magazine.
Benjamin Wilson of course
was the author or compiler of the Emphatic Diaglott.
The two men met by
appointment in 1892, and Bohnet later wrote up the experience in this article
from the Bible Student newspaper, the St Paul Enterprise. It was featured on
the front page of the issue for April 4, 1916.
Note that Wilson states
that he is not a Christadelphian.
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Interviewing a reluctant writer
... wherein I interview B. W. Schulz, pretty much against his will ... Enjoy it while it lasts. -Rachael
An Interview
R: So, you’re really going to let me interview you? … and post it to the blog?
B: Reluctantly.
R: Do I need permission to treat you as a hostile witness?
B: [Laughs]
R: You’re probably the most knowledgeable expert – maybe the only expert – when it comes to early Watch Tower history. Tell us how you became interested in Watch Tower history.
B: In 1955 The Watchtower published a series on its history. It was my introduction to the subject. Then, at the Awake Ministers District Assembly in 1959 the book Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Divine Purpose was released. It’s a heavily-footnoted history written in dialogue format ….
R: That was in 1959?
B: Yes.
R: You read the book …
B: Yes, most of it in our hotel room that evening. Later, I looked up as many of the references as I could.
R: The Watchtower has published other histories since. Would you still recommend the Divine Purpose book?
B: No serious researcher can afford to ignore it. When H. G. Wells History was published – in 1924 I think – a number of historians reviewed it. They praised it fairly uniformly, but many of them said something like, “Well, this is great, except my area of expertise should have gotten more attention.” That’s my opinion of Divine Purpose. It’s worth a read. Don’t ignore it. But for the era we’re researching it’s abbreviated and wrong.
R: When did you start writing about Watchtower history?
B: In the mid-1960s.
R: Published?
B: No, strictly for myself.
R: Tell me about it.
B: Reading the available material left me believing that most of the story was untold. I pursued original material, took notes and wrote them up. The net result was a three hundred page manuscript that covered much of the era we’re writing about now. It was very unsatisfactory.
R: Why?
B: Significant parts of it came from secondary sources. That seldom produces good history.
R: You wrote other things?
B: Some commercial product and two lengthy research papers on Watchtower history.
R: Those were for …
B: The research papers? For someone else’s book. They didn’t use or used very little of it.
R: You are a Witness.
B: Yes, since the early 1950s.
R: Does this color what you write?
B: When I started, yes. There is a sort of mythology surrounding Russell. This developed during his lifetime. There is Russell the Saint, and Russell the Villain. I was predisposed to the “sainthood” myth.
R: What changed?
B: Moses, Jeremiah, Jonah, Paul.
R: [Puzzled look]
B: The Bible is a remarkably candid book. Noah’s drunkenness, Lot’s incest, Moses’ temper, the raped concubine, Jeremiah’s peevishness, and Jonah’s reluctance find their place in the Bible’s narrative. The Bible depicts men of faith in blunt way, telling us of their godly deeds and their faults. That’s my model. The Bible is an excellent example for historians who may also have a religious belief system.
God is perfect. His worshipers are not. The peevish, sometimes perverted, occasionally stupid or silly behavior of his worshipers may be unattractive, but it is part of their story.
R: Your first book in this series …
B: Our first book …
R: Our first book was Nelson Barbour: The Millennium’s Forgotten Prophet. Tell me how that project started.
B: It started life as an article for a religious history magazine. They wanted ten to fifteen thousand words, original research with end notes. In short order – as these things go – it became apparent that what we were writing would be significantly longer. I measured what we had against the magazine’s requirements, deciding that we had a developing book instead of an article. I begged off from the article.
R: Reactions to the book? … You’re smiling ….
B: A wry smile, I’m sure.
Reactions were mixed, though mostly favorable. A literary-agent friend of yours looked at it and pronounced it excellent but not something she could readily sell. Someone asked me not to publish it because it made ‘the truth’ seem less than divine. A Bible Student railed against it because it was about Barbour. Another pronounced it ‘just history.’ He is dismissive of everyone’s work but his own. He already knows what another may discover, he already owns the reference material though he never produces it. One reviewer suggested it was boring because there is no great scandal in it. On the other hand, professional historians love the book. It is, in a minor way, a myth-busting book. Those who want an accurate history like it. Those with an interest in preserving myth don’t.
R: The next book pops cherished myths …
B: Yes.
R: Such as …
B: There are endless myths connected to Russell. We peel away as many of those as we can. Claims about his childhood, his connections to various groups and philosophies, claims made about his business. We put him back into his historical context and tell as fully as possible the paths he took and who his associates were and what part they played in his theological development.
R: There will be surprises?
B: Maybe … probably.
R: A publication date?
B: Not yet; too much left to research. We find something new almost every day.
R: The next book will focus on the years 1870 to 1887?
B: With overlap on each side of that date span.
R: Now that didn’t hurt at all, did it?
B: I have a head ache now.
R: One last question: Tell us about your academic credentials.
B: No.
R: Please …
B: Okay, stop pouting. I have a history degree and an education degree both from colleges of little note. I teach.
R: [Insert un-lady-like snort here.]