Final Draft: Title Page, Copyright Page, Introductory Essays

A Separate Identity

 

 

 

ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTITY

AMONG READERS OF ZION’S WATCH TOWER

1870-1887

 

 

 

Volume One

 

 

B. W. SCHULZ

 

AND

 

 RACHAEL DE VIENNE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fluttering Wings Press

2014

 

 

About the Authors

 

Bruce W. Schulz teaches writing, history, and literature. He is the lead author and general editor of this series.

 

Rachael de Vienne raises children and goats. She teaches literature and history to gifted and talented students.

 

 

 

 

[photo here]

Pittsburgh and Allegheny City in 1874.

Woodcut View by Alfred R. Waud.

Pittsburgh & Allegheny City, Pennsylvania: 1874 Woodcut View by Alfred R. Waud

Copyright 2014 by B. W. Schulz

Permissions: BWSchulz2@yahoo.com

 

 

The first book in this series is:

Nelson Barbour: The Millennium’s Forgotten Prophet.

Introductory Essay

 

            It was once the fashion to introduce books similar to this one with an apology for adding another work to an already well-covered topic. We offer no such apology. The Watch Tower movement is one of the most controversial and most written about religious movements of the last two centuries. It is also one of the least understood and most misrepresented movements. There is no accurately presented history of the Watch Tower movement’s foundation years. This book exists because neither the friends nor the enemies of Charles Taze Russell have produced anything approaching a reasonably well-researched and accurate account of the Watch Tower’s early years.

Despite a persistent mythology to the contrary, the emergence of the Watch Tower movement as a cohesive and separate religious identity owes far less to Russell personally than it does to the adoption of mutually agreeable doctrines. This process filled the years from 1871 to 1886. No one doctrinal choice marked Russell and a growing body of associates as unique. The collective did, resulting over time in a separate religious identity.

Friends of the Watch Tower and of Charles Taze Russell, the founder of Zion’s Watch Tower, have seldom passed beyond an uncritical reading of a biographical article published first in 1890, but a wealth of detail is available. A Russell-centric view overlooks the interplay of personalities and the debates that molded the loosely connected group into a distinct religion. Russell’s friends have separated the spiritual from the mundane. Compartmentalizing history leaves no room for an accurate narrative. Worse, one recent writer whose book presents a largely favorable picture of Russell manufactured out of his or another’s imagination an entire narrative, almost none of which is correct.

Russell’s admirers put him in a historically untenable position. Even when presenting reasonably accurate narrative, they tend to create or perpetuate a myth. For many of them, Russell was God’s special instrument to restore vital truths. This apotheosis disconnects Russell from the realm of critical history. It presents a false picture of Russell, his associates and opponents. Even if one believes Russell was favored by God, no person of faith should pursue myth-building at the expense of carefully researched, accurate history. If God’s hand directed the Watch Tower movement in Russell’s day, would that not best be shown by a reasonably well-researched presentation of events that reconnects Russell to his environment? If Russell had a place in God’s work, mythologizing him hides it.

Almost none of the published material meets an academic standard. Of those few books that do, none of them consider the founding period in any detail. All of them derive what little they say from a single Watch Tower article with some additions from Alexander Hugh Macmillan’s Faith on the March. There is a consequent failure to grasp key events in the growth of an independent religious movement. And there is a significant misdirection, because of the very narrow and contracted view of Watch Tower history found in Russell’s 1890 article.

Opposition writers also manufacture, distort and misrepresent events. This is especially true of former adherents. Several examples come to mind. Some suggest Russell plagiarized Paton’s Day Dawn. One frequent though seldom accurate writer suggests that Russell stole the Herald of the Morning subscription list. One former adherent has turned himself into an Internet “troll,” posting in the comments section of any news article about Jehovah’s Witnesses that Russell was an Adventist. The claim of Russellite Adventism is common. Aside from the fact that this is wrong, we are at a loss to explain how having been an Adventist would tarnish Russell’s character. Russell was baptized a Presbyterian; he was a Congregationalist; he became a One Faith Millenarian with Age-to-Come views. He was never an Adventist. Only the intellectually lazy would define him as an Adventist.

            Without looking further, writers have uniformly suggested an Adventist origin for Watch Tower theology. There were undeniable contacts with Adventism, and many of the early adherents came from the fractured Adventist movement. Researchers tend to focus on what became the Advent Christian Church, ignoring interchanges with other Adventist bodies, including the Life and Advent Union, independent Adventist congregations and Sabbatarian Adventists. The focus has been on the development of Watch Tower doctrine from Millerite Adventism. This is a mistake.

            As commonly told, Russell was introduced to Millerite Adventism by Jonas Wendell and other Adventists. Some suggest a Seventh-day Adventist connection, which is laughably ignorant. Russell is supposed to have adopted much of Millerite theology. Though he denied ever having been an Adventist, he was one. 

This is wrong. None of Russell’s doctrines owe their origin to Millerism or any of the descendent Adventists organizations. Russell’s belief system, with a few key exceptions, was developed while in association with Age-to-Come believers, especially those in the One Faith Movement. This movement was most closely associated with The Restitution, a newspaper published in Plymouth, Indiana. Russell’s closest associates were connected to One Faith or some form of Age-to-Come belief. This includes George Storrs.

            Storrs was an independent Age-to-Come believer, abandoning Millerite Adventism in 1844. You will find some of that history documented in this book. Storrs and those loosely associated with The Restitution avoided organizational structure. The movement spoke with conflicting voices, but they held some key doctrines in common. They believed in a restored paradise earth without the fiery destruction predicted by Adventists. They believed that the prophecies, indeed all of scripture, should be taken literally. The Jews would be restored because the plain literal sense of Scripture suggested they would be. They were divided on other issues. Storrs taught a Fair Chance doctrine that some called Second Probationism. A significant minority of One Faith believers followed this path.

            There are several reasons why this part of Russell’s history is misrepresented. Many of Russell’s contemporaries, particularly those outside the two movements, lacked a clear understanding of what Adventism was and how it differed from Age-to-Come and other pre-millennialist beliefs. One finds One Faith and Christadelphians described as Age-to-Come Adventists – a name they rejected. Because Adventists, Millenarians, and Christadelphians believed that Christ’s return was near, outsiders lumped them under the one name.

            While some of Russell’s contemporaries and some academic writers today confuse Age-to-Come belief with Adventism, the two parties saw themselves as doctrinally distinct. The decade of the 1870s was a transitional period for the Advent Christian Association. It was rapidly transitioning from a loose association of those believing in the near return of Christ with good Christian conduct as the sole standard of association into a Church with more closely defined doctrine. Some who associated with them were ostracized and found new associates among Age-to-Come believers. George Stetson was one of these, though he died before a decisive break between the two bodies occurred.

            The division between Literalist and Adventist belief affected Watch Tower adherents. Subsequent tensions between Russell and Adventists derive from his Age-to-Come (also called Millenarian) belief system which was derived from British Literalism. These differences would serve as a sieve that would catch and remove from fellowship those who accepted other systems. Paton and his followers, many of whom had been Adventists, rejected Literalism, and this rejection of “plain sense” exegesis accounts for many of their differences. Arthur Prince Adams says that his differences with Russell are based on his rejection of Literalist belief. Adams sought the “hidden meaning” behind the Bible’s plain words. He explained this in the introductory article to the first issue of his magazine:

 

By Spirit of the Word I mean its real and intended meaning, in contradistinction to its apparent and surface meaning, or the “letter.” It is a common mistake among Christians to suppose that the Bible is written in very plain and simple language, and that the correct meaning is that which lies upon the surface – the most obvious and apparent sense. If I err not, the truth is just the opposite of this. The Bible often means something very different from what it says; there is a hidden, mystical sense that is like the pearl hid in the depths of the sea, the real jewel.[1]

 

            This stands in stark contrast to Russell and his associates. They sought the Bible’s plain words. It is not our purpose to suggest he succeeded in that quest. That determination is best made by our readers. But we state the difference in theological perspective. It explains much.

Another reason Russell is seen as a closet-Adventist derives from unreasoning opposition to his teaching. The name Adventist was seen as a pejorative. Adventists were uniformly seen as on the fringe of American religious life. Newspapers noted every passing and failed prediction, every supposed and real extreme among Adventists. They described as “Adventist” those who were not such. They manufactured events. Adventism became a hot-tar-soaked brush for editors to use when news was sparse. Painting Russell with the brush of extremism is a fad among opposers.  There is, however, a real story behind the myth.

            We believe our research restores detail. In doing so, we believe that a clearer understanding of events emerges. We examine the roots of Russell’s theology, tracing his doctrinal development to various individuals and publications. This dispels the myth that Russell and his early associations studied in a vacuum, independent of the commentary or exposition of others. We explore the doctrinal disunity among early adherents. How Russell and his associates addressed this explains the transition from mere readership to an ecclesiastical unity.

            There is a startling lack of perspective in most “histories” of the Watch Tower movement or of the antecedent and cognate groups. Advent Christians liked to claim there were thirty thousand adherents world wide. We could discover no valid basis for that claim and believe the number was much smaller. One Faith believers played a significant role in Watch Tower history.[2] They counted about four thousand adherents in 1880. Russell sent out six thousand copies of Zion’s Watch Tower’s first issue. Numbers dropped precipitously as real interest replaced hoped-for subscribers. Yet, by 1882 Russell could report a circulation of nearly fifteen thousand.[3] The belief system reached England before Russell first published his magazine. There was an adherent in France in the 1870s. The message reached Germany in 1885, perhaps earlier. It reached Norway about 1880 via personal letters. This represented a social shift not just among millennialists but in American religion, and that makes this story important.

            The actors in this religious and social drama are archetypical. Of special interest to us is the self-view of the principal and many of the minor players. You will find N. H. Barbour who saw himself as God’s spokesman even if almost no one else did. In his later years Brarbour claimed a thousand adherents, but realistically probably had fewer than two hundred truly-interested followers. You will meet Frank Burr who believed he heard Christ’s voice. There is John Paton who saw himself as divinely chosen, the recipient of divine revelation. There is Russell who believed himself divinely led, as God’s “special agent for special times.” We find Elizabeth [Lizzie] A. Allen who agonized over her life choices. We meet J. C. Sunderlin who because of war wounds became an opium addict, seeking relief in religion and a quack cure. Which of these you sympathize with will depend on your approach to this story.

            We leave issues of faith largely untouched. We’ve taken a historian’s approach. We will tell you what Russell said of himself and others. We will tell you what his associates said and did. We will not tell you that all this was guided by Holy Spirit or God’s own hand. That’s not a historian’s place. We will leave that analysis to your own prayerful (or skeptical) estimation. We have avoided the trend among modern historiographers to analyze motives. We’ve borrowed our approach from 19^th Century historians who told their tales in detail, but with little commentary. So we owe much to Francis Parkman, H. H. Bancroft, and Israel Smith Clare, historians who within the limits of available documentations gave their readers detailed, largely accurate, narratives.

            However, we cannot entirely escape addressing motives. When required to do so, we limit ourselves to presenting them in the words or by the unambiguous acts of those involved. Russell is overly kind to Albert Delmont Jones. Jones was a disreputable man, a thief, a fornicator, a religious fraudster. We tell that story in Volume 2 from the public record and his own words. Other scandals will appear. (We humans are prone to stupidity.) So you will read about William Henry Conley’s faith cure house, its pastor, his relationship to the women and girls associated with Conley’s faith-cure belief. There are others you won’t read about because we cannot verify to our satisfaction that there was real scandal. Suspicion attaches to one of Russell’s early associates and a young teenage girl. We tell as much of that story as we can verify. We leave the unverified gossip to the ebay posters, the Internet scandal mongers, and the conspiracy theorists and inept Wikipedia writers.

            As perverse as it seems to say so, the endless divisions that we chronicle here resulted in doctrinal unity. They were key to the formation of an ecclesiastical unity centered on Zion’s Watch Tower and its editor, Charles Taze Russell.

 

***

           

            Watch Tower history as it has been written resembles Greek mythology. As with Greek mythology the stories are often told in conflicting ways. If you have ever read the myths of Pan’s parentage, you understand what I mean. In the Russell mythology there is Russell the saint and there is Russell the devilish, religious fraudster. We have limited ourselves to Russell the man. We deal with unfounded claims in each chapter. In the process, we probably offend everyone with a personal commitment to the myths. We have enjoyed bursting bubbles. Watch the footnotes carefully. We detail false claims in footnotes where we do not always do so in text. We’ve been even handed in this. You will find us faulting claims made by true believers and by opposition polemicists.

            The first chapter considers Russell’s youth. Several key ideas and some minor statements fall to research. Unlike a Bible Student writer, we do not chronicle Russell as the modern-day Samuel, destined to be God’s special servant in the last days. We do not question his belief. This is not about belief. It’s about accurately told history, kept within the context of real, verifiable events. We only tell the story as we can verify it, and we do that largely through Russell and his contemporaries’ own words supplemented with documentary evidence.

            Mythology replaces history when lack of curiosity is coupled with lack of thorough research. This is especially pronounced among Russell’s modern-day friends. A number of letters passed between us and institutions representing descendant religions. In a nearly uniform way, they focus on Russell, express lack of interest in anyone else, and simply do not look for detail. This distorts the history. Russell did not function in a vacuum. He was influenced by his friends, by his enemies, by what he read and experienced. These details are recoverable. The biographies of his early associates are available to a determined researcher. The “brothers” Lawver, Hipsher, Tavender, Myers, and a host of others who receive more or less mention in Zion’s Watch Tower were living people who had a physical and spiritual presence in Russell’s life and an effect on his beliefs. There are many others, some of considerable but forgotten prominence, who significantly contributed to Watch Tower history and to the development of a unified body of believers. But where is Aaron P. Riley or the small group in West Virginia who withdrew from the Church of Christ to form a congregation? Not in any history of the Watch Tower of which we are aware. Why is Calista Burk Downing a name without biography in histories of Zion’s Watch Tower?

            Probably there are several reasons why the Watch Tower story hasn’t been told with any sort of depth. Lack of curiosity is a prime one. Exchanges with interested parties elicited comments such as, “Thank you for the photocopies. We’re only interested in Russell himself.” This approach is part of the Saint Russell myth. Time and circumstances have wounded this approach so that some who sustained it in the past are no longer able to do so. A recent change in Watch Tower Society theology diminishes Russell’s’ status as interpreted through a doctrinal lens. A new religious paradigm does not alter the historical significance of C. T. Russell and his many associates.

Another major problem has been lack of resources. The resources we use to reclaim the biographies of Russell’s earliest associates and to restate their place in Watch Tower history have always been out there. They are somewhat easier to find now than they were twenty years ago. But individuals and organizations with more resources than we have could have found them if they had the curiosity to pursue the matter.

Attachment to a religious mythos in preference to accurately told history has stifled curiosity. We have encountered a certain amount of fear and resentment while writing this book. A university professor who is writing a competing book strongly objected to our consideration of One Faith belief because it undermines his premise. Another writer fears that we will refute a story she wishes to tell. A Bible Student expressed considerable discontent that we do not present Russell as the God-directed Faithful and Wise Servant. We’re writing history, not religious commentary. A person with considerable talent as a writer, though he is published anonymously, suggested that this history might show his religion as other than the Truth. Truth rests with God. Simply because they are human, truth is never embodied in His human servants.

            Another issue we address, though on a limited scale, is the disconnect between the lives of Russell and his associates and the world they lived in. The only redeeming feature of a recently published biography of Russell is the author’s attempt to reconnect to contemporary history. Russell was born into a world without flush toilets. In court testimony someone tells of carrying “the slops” through Bible House to drop them down a drain. I’m old enough to remember my stay in a forty room mansion in Ohio where the only facilities were a two-door wooden outhouse. Most of our readers aren’t that old. Russell was born into a world of no garbage collection, where the streets were rank with filth. He walked down streets littered with the leavings of draft animals and their owners. He was taught by teachers who were outnumbered by students one hundred to one, who had little education of their own and few resources to improve what they had.

            We are disconnected from the social issues of Russell’s day. Allegheny City and Pittsburgh were by reputation better, more peaceful cities than some of their more easterly cousins. Yet, they were filled with prostitution (we give details) and violence. A gruesome murder took place just doors from the Russell’s home. The Western states were subject to Native American uprisings and brutal repression. The period from the 1870s to the 1890s was one of re-occurring financial depression. Shoeing the feet of children was a major concern and a major expense. Scandal was the norm in politics. People were willing to see the period as “the last days” because it was violent, politically unstable, and seemed to be exactly what Jesus had predicted.

            An English writer described Allegheny City and Pittsburgh in terms of the industrial area of Staffordshire. Writing in 1859, he said that “there are the same red brick housed and workshops, the same smoke, the same uneven streets – from the heavy weights drawn over them – and at night, the glare of the iron furnaces at work.” The houses were built “close up to the very tops of the hill-sides, and presenting something of the appearance which the old town of Edinburgh does when viewed from off the Calton Hill or Arthur’s Seat.” Pittsburgh and Allegheny City were large, rambling, ill designed places. In 1853 the combined population was about one hundred ten thousand. It was an area of churches. We detail Russell’s associations with several denominations.

 

***

 

This was the era of Louisa Alcott’s Little Women. Read it. It will help you connect to the age we consider. Pay attention to the details. Note the cold, rat-infested house; consider the poverty, the infant mortality, the approach to morals and religious infidelity. The era in which these events transpire is both familiar and alien. This was an era of invention. The telephone was a marvel. Cities were electrified, but most homes were without electricity. They had gas if they were fortunate – oil lamps or candles if not. Few saw a telephone. The Penny Press and letter from friends connected one to the outside world.

            The American west was still the Wild West. The year Russell met Jonas Wendell the first transcontinental rail tracks were joined at Promontory Point, Utah. New and more powerful steam engines were marvels. Indian wars replaced the Civil War. When the Allegheny Bible Study Class was re-examining old belief, grasshoppers plagued Kansas, Nebraska and Missouri, eating varnish off furniture, paint off houses and peaches to the pits. War and rumors of war were everywhere. The Franco-Prussian war altered the face of Europe. Russia and Turkey fought, both brutalizing civilians, especially women and little girls. Fears of a general European war found a place in newspapers. Discontent and abuses in the Reconstruction South led to talk of a second Civil War. The United States had unsettled claims against the United Kingdom related to the Confederate raider the CSA Alabama. There was talk of war. An English parliamentarian suggested a test of arms. Cooler heads within the British government noted that while America maintained a severely reduced army, it had a million men trained to arms and baptized in blood. Any war with America would in high probability cost the empire the newly formed Canadian Confederation.

            Disasters beyond human control brought with them a sense of impending or wrought Divine judgment. Currency and credit manipulation by European banks, prominently the Bank of England, amounted to a quiet war against the United States. Credit manipulation brought consequences beyond those foreseen in boardrooms. Labor issues, oppressive working conditions and issues of social equality led to riot and insurrection. The year of Barbour and Russell’s grand missionary tour saw Pittsburgh burned and Federal troops engaged in battle with railroad workers. A large segment of Americans embraced protectionism. Depressions swept America and Europe. “Banker,” always a ‘dirty word,’ became a blacker pejorative.

            A pope died and another was elected. Many Protestants (and interestingly, some Catholics) saw the popes and the Roman Catholic Church as the embodiment of the more negative prophetic images. American Protestants watched Catholic affairs in that light. The pope was variously seen as the Biblical “man of sin” or the Anti-Christ. The Roman Church was seen as Babylon the Great, the Mother of Harlots. By the last quarter of the Nineteenth Century, a significant number saw Protestant churches as the Harlot’s Daughters. Interactions with Catholics were suspect and scrutinized as a possible fulfillment of prophecy. Otto von Zech, a German-born Evangelical Lutheran clergyman was expelled from the Ohio Synod in part for refusing to characterize the Catholic Church as Anti-Christ.

            Our ancestors were not (taken as a whole) stupid, nor were they more gullible than our contemporaries. But their frame of reference was different. While the shift to a secularist society had begun, most were still profoundly religious. Religion was a social and political power, influencing –sometimes irrationally – public decisions. If they were ready to believe what might seem to us irrational doctrines, we should note that the same tendency exists today, though more often expressed in conspiracy theory, political polemic, or ill conceived private and public policy. We haven’t improved; we have only changed focus. The characters in this history deserve a sympathetic consideration.

 

***

 

            This is a far different book than we envisioned. We anticipated a slim volume somewhat like our biography of Barbour. We believed the basic facts were known, though as presented by most writers the story lacked detail. As our research evolved, we made format and content decisions, some reluctantly. Among the decisions we hesitatingly made was that leading us to present more or less extensive biographies of the principals. You will find most of those in volume one. We believe these biographical excursions are necessary for a comprehensive understanding of the Watch Tower movement’s early years.

 

B. W. Schulz

My Turn: R. M. de Vienne’s Comments

 

Bringing this volume to print isn’t exactly like giving birth, but there are similarities. Original research has its own set of pains, agonies, and irritations. And it has its joys.

You will better understand portions of this book if you first read Nelson Barbour: The Millennium’s Forgotten Prophet. We should note that our quotations retain original spelling, punctuation and formatting. Unless we note otherwise, all italics, capital letters and puzzling grammar are as they were in the original.

 

****

 

            We knew error and fabrication colored how this story has most often been told. We did not appreciate the extent to which this is true. We expected a reasonable amount of competence among those who have tackled Watch Tower history, and we found some authors reliable. Most are not. Even among the most reliable, we found a tendency to turn presumption into “fact.”

            Many of those who preceded us were polemicists. This is true of some who presented themselves as credentialed historians or sociologists, and it is especially true of most clergy who’ve written on the subject. It amazes me that these writers are taken seriously merely because they were published.

            We do not fault anyone for having a point of view. We have our own, and privately we debate issues ranging from our personal theologies to interpretation of historical evidence. However, a point of view should not lead one to turn presumption into ‘fact.” It should not lead one to fabricate.

            The works of some are characterized by logic flaws. An anonymous writer substitutes capital letters for reason, presuming that capitalizing random words proves a point. This reflects a seriously defective education on his part and on the part of those gullible enough to find this convincing. He also withholds from his readers documentation. If the antiquated psychological-descriptor “anal retentive” has any validity, it applies here.

We reject this approach. We tell you what our sources are, and, though that results in copious footnotes, it leaves no doubt about the trail we followed. Occasionally we tell you where to find rare or otherwise hard to find sources. Don’t ignore the footnotes. We adopted the dictum “the story is in the details,” probing and poking at original sources, following hunches and hints where ever they led.

After reading rough drafts of some of our chapters, another writer suggested that this book is destined to be the classic presentation of Watch Tower history. I appreciated the kind comment, but we see this work as preliminary, as the first step in research that should have been undertaken decades ago. We look for more and better research from others more competent than ourselves or who are willing to follow trails we could not. A major flaw in previous research is willingness to parrot the unfounded assertions of others. If you take up the themes we’ve opened in this volume, ask this critical question of each writer you consult: “How do you know that?” Check their sources; probe for detail.

The story we tell here is, as Mr. Schulz observed in his introductory essay, different from what we presumed it would be. We presumed a “unity of belief” among Russell and his associates that did not exist. In volume two we will detail the divisions and separations and early controversies that resulted in ecclesiastical unity, a separate religion. Our premise as it finally developed is that exploration of Bible teaching resulted in a settled doctrine developed out of debate, difference, and controversy. The doctrines finally settled on created a new religious unity. It peeled off dissenters who went their own ways.

In this volume we examine the historical and theological roots of Zion’s Watch Tower. That the story is more complex than and often different from that usually presented should surprise no one. One largely-accurate history presents this entire period in six paragraphs. We presume the author told us everything he knew or thought important. The fault isn’t in what he wrote. It is in what he omitted.

Theologically I’m a skeptical believer. I approach historical research in the same way, which means I question everything including commonly believed “facts.” Many of those proved absolutely true. Some proved false. As you explore this first volume of A Separate Identity you will encounter the familiar and the new.

The men and women in this story, long dead though they are, produced an emotional response. I came to like some of them. Some of them are remarkably distasteful, mean spirited and delusional. No historian writes an impartial history. But we have written to the full measure of our ability an accurate one. Despite our best efforts, we have probably made some errors of fact. We hope not, but given the depth and complexity of this research – and the newness of some of it – it seems inevitable that we got something wrong. It won’t hurt my feelings if someone points out a flaw, but I expect proof, not mere opinion. I expect critics to be as competent as we are, and I hold them to the same standards of historical research we manifest here.

A number of people have taken an interest in our research, assisting in various ways. We cannot name them all, and some wish to remain anonymous.

            Institutions that were especially helpful included the Methodist archive at Wofford College through Dr. R. Philip Stone; the State University of New York at Plattsburg; Franklin County Ohio through archivist Sandy Eckhart; the Archives of the Episcopal Church at Austin, Texas, through archivist Laura Kata; Ohio State Historical Society through Elizabeth Plummer; Almont District Library though its librarian, Kay Hurd; Junita College through librarian Janice Hartman. I’ve probably left out others equally helpful. I apologize to those I’ve omitted.

            Some institutions were distinctly unhelpful, even hostile. We’re still waiting on replies to emails and letters sent to some several years ago. The Library of Congress was hostile and unhelpful. The National Archives of the United States of America sent us key documents connected to one of Russell’s early associates. They refused to help when we requested other documentation that may hold the Department of Justice in a bad light, even though the material is about a hundred years old. The archivist at Boston University refused to provide photocopies of key material based on her reading of the papers. One of the friends of this research traveled there and made the copies in person.

            Though the Watch Tower Society declined access to a key document, they forwarded nine pages of photocopy, four of which we did not have. They are, of course, not responsible for our research or our conclusions. Given the opportunity to review volume one, they made no comment. They did not sponsor this work.

            Some individuals were exceptionally helpful. This would be a significantly diminished work without their help. Some names that should appear in this list do not because of privacy concerns.

[list follows]

---

[1]           A. P. Adams: The Title of the Paper, Spirit of the Word¸ March 15, 1885, Finley Reprint Edition, page 6.

[2]           Most of our readers will be unfamiliar with the term. We explore One Faith/Age-to-Come belief in chapter two.

[3]           The 1882 edition of N. W. Ayer & Son’s American Newspaper Annual reported 14,800 copies per issue. See page 600.

Apparently everyone in the world knew this but me ...

Lytel is the old English spelling of Little and is so pronounced. Joseph L. Russell connects to the Little/Lytel family of N. Ireland.

We need a volunteer to ...

We need a volunteer to transcribe the entire article entitled Redemption appearing in the November 1878 Herald of the Morning. Anyone?

We need a good, readable photocopy or scan of this ...

It was on ebay for an unreasonable price. It didn't sell. It's now on Bookfiner for an even higher price.

The seller has no understand for this material, and doesn't even know what he has.

If you have a copy, please scan it for us.

Help if you can.

As of this morning we have had 73,808 visitors to this blog. That’s not a huge number considering that accounts for repeat visits and is the total count since the blog was new.

If you like this blog, tell your friends and anyone else you think might be interested. I know I’m the one saying so, but there isn’t another Watch Tower history sight that is as detailed or as well researched. We don’t turn a soda-ash and salt mine into a secret Gold Mine. We don’t make up scandal where it doesn’t exist. If we find it, we tell you either here or in whatever book we’re writing.

We don’t cry about current Watch Tower policies, belief, or practices. Mr. Schulz is a Witness. I am not. I am not unsympathetic, but I believe enough differently that I’m not an adherent. You will get the facts from us as we find them. We have no agenda but accurately told history.

We have an invitation only blog that is in abeyance as we finish volume 1 of A Separate Identity. We’ll return to it after this volume is published and we resume work on volume 2. So tell your friends. …

 

We have a huge wish list. On it are items we do not expect to find, but we keep looking. We need any issue of Rice’s Last Trump. Paton’s personal letters would be helpful. Any letter by Russell. (We have a few, but only a few.) Opposition booklets published in Russell’s lifetime. Any of the German language Watch Tower with von Zech as editor. Von Zech’s magzine. (We have one year only.) Anything related to the earliest days of Watch Tower evangelism in Europe. Most of this history is earlier than the Year Book histories suggest, but the evidence is sparce.

We need a volunteer living near the Library of Congress who can copy some items with a digital camera and make photocopies of others. Some of this is simple work and some will require turning pages in an archive.

We need a volunteer to visit the National Archives of the United States.

Other than the first year, we need any and all issues of A. P. Adams’ magazine, The Spirit of the Word.

We need at least the location of The Millenarian, a magazine or paper.

We need copies of as much of the Canadian National Archives records of the word war 1 ban. That will require someone to visit, and, at their expense, make copies and mail them to us. Or if you’ve made copies, to scan them and get them to us. This is a  huge imposition, and you’d have to be really interested. We hope there is someone that interested.

Personal letters of any Russell era Bible Student would help, even if the contents seem inconsequential. Many of our readers have no clue how important small bits are. We are led to sound, important research by small clues.

Help if you can.

I should add … 

There are a few congregational histories out there. We don’t have many of them. If you have notes or a finished manuscript detailing the history of a Watch Tower congregation, please pass it along.

We need ...

Any and all material related to Russell's newspaper sermons and their syndication.

Biographical material concerning M. F. Russell, even if you think we probably have it.

There were numbers of booklets published about the 1881 speculation. Only one of them was published by the Watch Tower, but we're interested in all of them. We aren't interested in the Mother Shipton booklets  unless they cover a wider field than the fake Shipton  prophecy.

We need Paton's private letters. (Probably wishful thinking.)

Afterward

Mr. Schulz tasked me with writing an afterward for volume one. Here's what I have in very rough draft. Comments welcome.

What to Expect … 

            We do not have a release date for volume two of this work. If one measures by our current outline, it’s about half complete. Ultimately, this is not a good measure. Experience has taught us that we will stumble into the hidden closets and passages of history. This will force us to revise existing work and perhaps to add new chapters. But in a broad way I can tell you what to expect.

            For readers of Zion’s Watch Tower the years from 1879 to 1887 were tumultuous. They set the course for a new religious movement for decades. With some exceptions, volume two is limited to these years. Zion’s Watch Tower was launched. Russell and his associates traveled, visiting small groups, preaching their message and trying to sway their hearers to their point of view. A Year Book history asserts the formation of congregations. We will tell you what these groups were like. In most cases, they were not at all like what the Year Book suggested.

            The dispute of the nature of salvation, ransom, and atonement continued. It intensified as the movement fragmented. Paton, A. D. Jones, and others left. Each fragmentation has the unexpected effect of unifying what remained. Issues were openly debated between key periodicals.

Adams left Barbour starting The Spirit of the Word. Myers, an Age-to-Come evangelist, dropped his initial interest, starting his own periodical to advocate contrary doctrine. He published The At-One-Ment about 1883. We don’t have this, and cannot find it. We know of it from other sources. If one of our readers has this, please use the email on the copyright page to contact us.

With Russell’s blessing, Jones started Zion’s Day Star, soon to be renamed simply Day Star. Within a short time Jones was swayed by Josephite belief, the claim that Jesus was the biological son of Joseph. Jones fell into wealth, squandered it, and then turned to fraud to recoup.

W. Conley drifted into the Faith-Cure movement, becoming entangled with a rogue Christian and Missionary Alliance clergyman who seduced and molested the women connected with Conley’s Faith-Cure home. Conley had other issues. We tell you what they were and how they affected his relationship with Russell.

We consider early interest, focusing on new evangelists, their work, and the push to alter Russell’s views in key areas. We tell you of new doctrinal developments, a key one being the change from belief in a two-stage advent to a belief in a totally invisible advent. L. A. Allen played an important role in this. As far as I know, no-one has ever documented this.

We explore the publication of Food for Thinking Christians. There is a hugely unexplored story here. While this did not open the “foreign field” (There was prior interest in Canada, the United Kingdom, and France), it expanded if largely. We tell you in detail about the early work in the UK, Canada, China, Liberia and elsewhere. We explore the roots of foreign language work within the United States. These chapters restore names and biographies to people long forgotten. They give, we think, a clearer insight into the nature and cohesiveness of the earliest Watch Tower adherents.

We tell you about their expectations for 1881. Watch Tower readers were neither the first nor the only group to focus on 1881 as a year of prophetic significance. You will see that among Watch Tower readers expectations differed. The 1881 failure was disastrous for Barbour. It shook Jones loose from his spiritual moorings. Russell promulgated a new doctrine which some readers found disturbing.

This period is one of developing self view. We’ve detailed some of that in this volume. We explore it more fully when we chronicle the division between Russell and Paton.

We tell you about the publication of Plan of the Ages, exploring Maria Russell’s claim to joint-authorship. We tell you about the first booklets and tracts. We explore the influence of Smith-Warleigh. We present a biography of one of Russell’s early associates, an English writer.

The last chapter, as we have it in our outline now, is a consideration of the first congregations. We explore their nature and development. We tell you something of the individuals who helped found them. This is an interesting story that takes us to a ship’s captain, a man who fled a murder charge to become a newspaper editor, and others equally colorful.

You will find a more complex, more interesting story than is usually told. Personally, I like volume two. I think this volume is important for the background it presents, the clearer picture of Russell’s youth and of those who influenced him. But the story we tell in volume two explains the nature of the movement started with the publication of Zion’s Watch Tower, and that is the heart of this history.

Fretting

I've written and rewritten my introduction. I threw everything out and wrote this instead. Rough Draft follows:

My Turn: Rachael’s Comments

 

Bringing this volume to print isn’t exactly like giving birth, but there are similarities. Original research has its own set of pains, agonies, and irritations. And it has its joys.

 

****

 

            We knew error and fabrication colored how this story has most often been told. We did not appreciate the extent to which this is true. We expected a reasonable amount of competence among those who have tackled Watch Tower history, and we found some authors reliable. Most are not. Even among the most reliable, we found a tendency to turn presumption into “fact.”

            Many of those who preceded us were polemicists. This is true of some who presented themselves as credentialed historians or sociologists, and it is especially true of most clergy who’ve written on the subject. It amazes me that these writers are taken seriously merely because they were published.

            We do not fault anyone for having a point of view. We have our own, and privately we debate issues ranging from our personal theologies to interpretation of historical evidence. However, a point of view should not lead one to turn presumption into ‘fact.” It should not lead one to fabricate.

            The works of some are characterized by logic flaws. An anonymous writer substitutes capital letters for reason, presuming that capitalizing random words proves a point. This reflects a seriously defective education on his part and on the part of those gullible enough to find this convincing. He also withholds from his readers documentation. If the antiquated psychological descriptor “anal retentive” has any validity, it applies here.

We reject this approach. We tell you what our sources are, and though that results in copious footnotes, it leaves no doubt about the trail we followed. Occasionally we tell you where to find rare or otherwise hard to find sources. Don’t ignore the footnotes. We adopted the dictum “the story is in the details,” probing and poking at original sources, following hunches and hints where ever they led.

After reading rough drafts of some of our chapters, another writer suggested that this book is destined to be the classic presentation of Watch Tower history. I appreciated the kind comment, but we see this work as preliminary, as the first step in research that should have been undertaken decades ago. We look for more and better research from others more competent than ourselves or who are willing to follow trails we could not. Where we reached “dead ends,” others may find a trail to follow.

A major flaw in previous research is willingness to parrot unfounded assertions of others. If you take up the themes we’ve opened in this volume, ask this critical question of each writer you consult: “How do you know that?” Check their sources; probe for detail.

The story we tell here is, as Mr. Schulz observed in his introductory essay, different from what we presumed it would be. We presumed a “unity of belief” among Russell and his associates that did not exist. In volume two we will detail the divisions and separations and early controversies that resulted in ecclesiastical unity, a separate religion. Our premise as it finally developed is that a group exploration of Bible teaching resulted in a settled doctrine developed out of debate, difference and controversy. The doctrinal set finally settled on created a new religious unity. It peeled off dissenters who went their own ways.

In this volume we examine the historical and theological roots of Zion’s Watch Tower. That the story is more complex and often different than usually presented should surprise no one. One largely accurate history presents this entire period in six paragraphs. We presume the author told us everything he knew or thought important. The fault isn’t in what he wrote. It is in what he omitted.

Theologically I’m a skeptical believer. I approach historical research in the same way, which means I question everything including commonly believed “facts.” Many of those proved absolutely true. Some proved false. As you explore this first volume, you will encounter the familiar and the new.

The men and women in this story, long dead though they are, produced an emotional response. I came to like some of them. Some of them are remarkably distasteful, mean spirited and delusional. No historian writes an impartial history. But we have written to the full measure of our ability an accurate one. Despite our best efforts, we have probably made some errors of fact. We hope not, but given the depth and complexity of this research – and the newness of some of it – it seems inevitable that we got something wrong. It won’t hurt my feelings if someone points out the flaw, but I expect proof, not mere opinion. I expect critics to be as competent as we are, and I hold them to the same standards of historical research we manifest here.

A number of people have taken an interest in our research, assisting in various ways. We cannot name them all, and some wish to remain anonymous.

            Institutions that were especially helpful included the Methodist archive at Wofford College through Dr. R. Philip Stone; the State University of New York at Plattsburg; Franklin County Ohio through archivist Sandy Eckhart; the Archives of the Episcopal Church at Austin, Texas, through archivist Laura Kata; Ohio State Historical Society through Elizabeth Plummer; Almont District Library though its librarian, Kay Hurd; Junita College through librarian Janice Hartman. I’ve probably left out others equally helpful. I apologize to those I’ve omitted.

            Some institutions were distinctly un-helpful, even hostile. We’re still waiting on replies to emails and letters sent to some several years ago. The Library of Congress was hostile and unhelpful. The National Archives of the United States of America sent us key documents connected to one of Russell’s early associates. They refused to help when we requested other documentation that may hold the Department of Justice in a bad light, even though the material is about a hundred years old. The archivist at Boston University refused to provide photocopies of key material based on her reading of the papers. One of the friends of this research traveled there and made the copies in person.

            Though the Watch Tower Society declined access to a key document, they forwarded nine pages of photocopy, four of which we did not have. They are, of course, not responsible for our research or our conclusions. Given the opportunity to review volume one, they made no comment. They did not sponsor this work.

            Some individuals were exceptionally helpful. This would be a significantly diminished work without their help. Some names that should appear in this list do not because of privacy concerns.

            ** and his wife took time from a business trip to photocopy archival material at an archive that was reluctant to help. This provided key documentation.

            ** provided photocopies of rare material.

            An individual we’ll leave unnamed visited the New York Public Library to view and copy documents we would otherwise not have seen.

            ** of the Netherlands provided significant research assistance, forwarding his “finds” on a regular basis. Key documentation came from his efforts.

            ** of the United Kingdom gave us access to much of the material we used to develop our profile of George Storrs. He helped us analyze a mass of One Faith material and he obtained in our behalf rare magazines and pamphlets. He carefully read our manuscript, challenging some statements and adding to our understanding of some issues. Our greatest debt is to ** and **.

            Dr. ** sent copies of key early booklets. This book would not be as accurate without access to them.

            William Buvinger allowed access to the Buvinger family archives and provided the relevant photos used in this book. Members of the Barbour, von Zech, Wendell, and J. A. Brown families forwarded important material, including wills, family papers and photos.

            Jan Stilson, editor and author of Biographical Encyclopedia, Chronicling the History of the Church of God Abrahamic Faith, 19th & 20th Centuries, shared her research with us and read a key section of this book. She helped us access material from the archives of Atlanta Bible College.

            ** of Italy transcribed the articles found in Appendix 2. He said nice things about us in the two books he edited, and he provided moral support that I found valuable.

            ** and ** helped us overcome copyright issues connected with two photographs. Additionally, we found ** research very helpful.

            ** of Austria provided key help with some of Russell’s earliest associates.

            I’m certain we’ve left off many who helped in various ways. To those not found in this list, I apologize. To those who wish to be anonymous but who helped in various ways, my thanks.

 

Rachael de Vienne

 If you should be on this list and don't see yourself here, email me. I didn't intentionally leave anyone off except those who should remain anonymous.

 

 

 

Essay

            Writing solid, well-researched history is a challenge. Success depends on persistence and serendipity. A narrow view of events will kill what may have been, given more attention to detail, an adequate history. Let me illustrate: Jehovah’s Witnesses: Proclamers of God’s Kingdom mentions Benjamin Wallace Keith once, saying: “Then, in 1864, Benjamin Wilson had published his Emphatic Diaglott with the interlinear reading “presence,” not “coming,” for pa·rou·si′a, and B. W. Keith, an associate of Barbour, had drawn it to the attention of Barbour and his associates.”

Keith was a contributor first to Herald of the Morning and then to Zion’s Watch Tower. He was one of their most prominent evangelists. But this is all the author chose to tell us, and it appears that this is all that he knew. When we wrote Nelson Barbour: The Millennium’s Forgotten Prophet we included Keith’s basic biography. We have enlarged it and new details will appear in A Separate Identity. Among the most basic facts is Keith’s statement that he entered the Barbourite movement in 1867. He gave the date only, no details.

Persistence and a willingness to see beyond Russell’s biography brought us solid details that help us reclaim Keith’s history and something of his personality. The latest detail is a single sentence article in a Philadelphia newspaper. It cited a New York newspapers report of a tent meeting held at Rochester, New York, in August 1867. While this only makes it to a footnote it adds detail we didn’t have. Can we place Keith at that tent meeting? No. But it was near Dansville, Keith’s residence. So while we cannot say with surety that Keith was converted at that tent meeting, we can present the likelihood.

Keith’s life was filled with accident and tragedy. He was a committed believer. He was a talented writer, but, unlike Sunderlin, he wasn’t educated for the ministry. He was a widely-read autodidact.

In another post, Rachael discusses myth busting. Detail trumps myth. The claim that various of Russell’s early associates were Millerites is the product of an imagination unrestrained by good judgment. Paton, Keith and most of the others were too young to have been Millerites. So what were they prior to their interest in Barbour’s speculations? We tell you. And to the extent we know, we tell you what attracted them to Barbour’s doctrines. We cannot penetrate the psyche of people long dead, leaving us dependent on what remains of their writing.

Another example of detail clarifying and enlarging the story is found in Russell’s association with the Plymouth Congregational Church. We’ve found fabricated details in an online encyclopedia, in dissertations, and in print. Zydeck made up details he couldn’t otherwise find. But with very little effort we found the name of the church, the names of the two pastors Russell knew, and its address. We found samples of the first pastor’s teaching. Knowing that Russell heard millennialist preaching as a young man furthers the story.

Not everything comes to us with ease. Some details resisted persistent and informed research. Uncovering Emeline Barbour’s basic biography came from a find by one of our blog readers. They sent us a link to a webpage. We contacted a librarian who in turn sent us a scan of a newspaper article. We exhausted all the New York papers we could search. We have what we have because of that assistance. It is detail we’ve probed for since 2005. Knowing what little of her biography we do places her in her proper light.

Unresolved is speculation that Barbour was previously married to a woman who died about 1870. The evidence is slight, almost non-existent. We do not mention our suspicion in Separate Identity. But we continue to look.

Recovering the biographies of the principal actors reconnects them to contemporary events. We see these details as key to a clear understanding of events and personalities. Those details that help us the most are those that explain an individual’s self-view. So there is Paton’s dream that he took for a vision; there’s Barbour’s fluffy cloud revelation, and there’s Russell’s plainly-stated self-view.

Such is historical research …

 

Now, if only people will read the book.

Update to the Updates

Mr. Schulz asked me to post an update. Except for the last chapter, the ebook version is formatted. We printed it out. We’ll make some changes, though not many.

Volume One of A Separate Identity has eight chapters. Before you read the main text, read the two introductory essays. Mr. Schulz’ is more important than mine, and you will find it first. Chapter one considers Russell’s family, his youth, religious experiences before meeting Wendell, and his business ventures. Obviously we don’t tell the usual story or this chapter would be a paragraph or two long. We name names. We detail events usually overlooked.

Chapter two considers his interactions with Wendell, Stetson and others. We take you into the lives of the Adventist and Age to Come evangelists we know he met. You will find characters you knew nothing about. We tell you what kind of men they were, what they taught and what they wrote. This chapter covers the years 1869-1873.

Chapter three continues this discussion. We focus on Storrs and others that appeared in the years 1874-1876. If you read the Wikipedia articles on Russell and Storrs, you will find that they are wrong. This isn’t surprising given the research standards adopted by those who’ve contributed to those articles.

Chapters two and three takes one into the complex world of One Faith belief as contrasted with Adventism. You will find that Russell’s doctrinal set is One Faith, not Adventist. We continue that theme in chapter four.

Chapter four details the formation and growth of the original Allegheny Bible Study Group. We tell you to the extent we know it who participated. We tell you what they read and discussed. We uncover their doctrinal development. We tell you that the group was not unified. We tell you the story usually told about this group is a myth, and we show you why that is so.

Chapter five discusses Russell’s entry into the Barbourite movement. We provide significant biographies of the principals with photos. You will see John Paton in a new light. This chapter introduces our readers to Benjamin Wallace Keith, Samuel Howe Withington, Ira Allen and his daughter Lizzie, and Avis Hamlin. Some of these are important to the story told in volume one; some come to prominence in volume two.

Chapter six tells the story of Barbour, Russell, and Paton’s early ministry. We tell this from Barbour and Russell’s own words and from newspaper articles that haven’t seen the light of day in 150 years. Payton G. Bowman makes a brief appearance. We address some persistent mythology in this chapter.

Chapter seven profiles their principal converts. These include Caleb Davies and wife, William I Mann (we can’t find his photo), Charles and Emma Buvinger, Joshua Tavender, John Corbin Sunderlin, A. P. Adams, and Emeline Bigelow-Jobes who became Mrs. Barbour. Some of these names will be familiar to our readers and some not. They’re all important to this history, though most of them come to prominence in volume two. We present their biographies frankly and in some detail. We tell about Sunderlin’s opium addition, Adam’s intimidating manner, Tavender’s generosity, Mann’s reputation among his contemporary. This story is told from original letters, papers from the Methodist Archives, newspaper articles, and from the Watch Tower and Herald of the Morning.

Chapter eight examines the collapse of their expectations for 1878 and the aftermath as it played out in the Atonement controversy. This takes us up to the first issue of Zion's Watch Tower. We tell you who H. B. Rice really was. We dissect the claims made by all the parties, putting some things in the trash bin and introducing events new to most of our readers.

A short article follows. It tells our readers what to expect in volume two. An appendix considers Russell’s relationship to the Masons. Another reproduces the Atonement articles from the Herald of the Morning.

 

We don't have a firm release date yet ... but soon.

 

Original research entails significant expense. Several have helped, but there is always something else to buy and our funds are very limited. Clothing and putting shoes on the feet of my five daughters comes first.

We have a limited time opportunity to purchase part sets of two key 19^th Century magazines. We’re focusing on the older of these, a magazine published in the 1830s that stands in the background of the One Faith movement. If we return to the earlier years (I’d like to), and write the history of Watch Tower antecedents, we will need this. The problem is lack of money. We anticipate that the entire collection (both magazines; one with three bound volumes and the other with five) will cost about two hundred and fifty dollars. We don’t have that. I doubt we can raise the total amount.

So, now you know. If you want to donate (any amount is welcome) you may do so through the donation button on the invitation only blog or contact me at rmdevienne at yahoo dot com and I’ll tell you how.

We need ...

We need a clear, readable scan of pages 46-47 of the October 1881 Herald of the Morning. We needed it yesterday ....

In May 1881 Barbour issued a revised edition of Three Worlds. A few hundred paperback copies were printed. We've never seen this and we really need to see one. Anyone?

Obituaries and H B Rice again

by “Jerome”

Obituaries are a good source of information, although when it comes to accuracy they can leave a lot to be desired. The events involving the subject are often a long time in the past, and memory can let people down or cause them to even embroider the story; much as funeral orations tends to (in the words of a popular song) “accentuate the positive, and eliminate the negative...”

So we have the obituary of Joseph L Russell, which states he came to America “about 1845.” The word of hesitation – “about” – has since been turned into a more definite statement in some writings, and also in the commentary of a history DVD. However, Joseph’s naturalisation papers, completed in 1848 show that he needed to have been in the United States for at least five years prior to signing the document.

Then there is also some detail in the obituary of Hugh Brown Rice, the main subject of this article.

Rice died in 1905, and his obituary in the Los Angeles Herald for November 3, 1905, highlighted that he was a religious man, but concentrated on his business success as a travel agent for Steamship Lines. His pallbearers were all business associates, not religious associates. There is no mention of his passing in the Restitution, a paper that once carried letter after letter from him. Anyone can check the full obituary on the Find a Grave site.

But there was another obituary published in the Obituary Record of Graduates of Amherst College, for the Academical Year Ending June 27, 1906, Amherst, Massachusetts, 1906, page 158.

This adds some more detail, and it is here that the memory of surviving relatives lets the side down. It states: “During the last twenty-five years of his life he regularly taught a large and enthusiastic Bible class in Los Angeles. He was a frequent contributor to religious publications, and for several years published a small monthly paper called The Last Trump.”

Let’s do the math here. He regularly taught a large and enthusiastic Bible class in Los Angeles for twenty-five years? That would take us back to around 1880, the time he had a brief association with CTR and Nelson Barbour. Was his Bible class large and enthusiastic and continuous? In the latter part of the 1880s many letters from Rice were published in the Restitution newspaper. They showed Rice struggling to makes ends meet as an unsuccessful farmer, and storekeeper, and bemoaning his isolation from those of like faith. They repeatedly ask for financial help so he can go preaching. On one documented occasion he leaves his family in near penury, goes preaching far away and runs out of money and has great difficulty getting home. For more details of Rice’s continuing tales of woe, see an earlier article on this blog from July 1, 2012, H B RICE - AN IMPECUNIOUS MAN.  There is also a typical letter from the period reproduced at the end of this article, which stresses both his isolation and lack of funds.

The Amherst obituary also mentions his paper The Last Trump running for several years. This would appear to be a “folk memory” on the part of his family. It ran for about three issues and then folded prior to the start of Zion’s Watch Tower. When a dramatic reversal occurred in Rice’s fortunes at the very end of the 80s, he disappears completely from the pages of extant One Faith/Age to Come publications.  For Rice to have published for several years would have meant his re-starting it when he finally got on his feet financially in the 1890s. While the old adage holds true that absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence, it would seem extremely doubtful.

Once Rice finally gets his finances in order, his dreams of an active ministry disappear into the relief of actually making a reasonable living for a growing family. The Los Angeles Herald obituary mentions a N W J Straub, whose Bible class he attended, but Straub is not to be found in the Restitution.

Perhaps the main thing the Amherst obituary does for us is draw two diverse pictures together. On one hand we have the financial failure – the struggling letter writer regularly pleading year after year for financial help – and on the other we have the prosperous businessman with his own travel agency. The two are so disparate, you could be forgiven for wondering if these were two different men – both coincidentally named Hugh B Rice. At least the Amherst obituary shows this was the same man – even if the details have been blurred and distorted in the telling.

Basically, Rice’s obituary highlights the major flaw in all obituaries – the one person who could verify the information is unfortunately not there to do so.

Below is a typical letter from H B Rice, as published in The Restitution for November 7, 1888, page 4.

DELANO, Cal.

Dear Restitution:

Although far away from any church organization and having none of that “fellowship of kindred minds” which Christians so much need and which I so much covet, I must write to express my deep interest in the movement now being towards organization of our forces. Co-operation is certainly Scriptural and wise and needful in our work. How I would rejoice could I be present in Philadelphia at the General Conference. May God direct you all in your planning and may the much needed union of effort be well begun and enthusiastically carried out.

Since it has pleased God by the “foolishness of preaching” (not foolish preaching), to save those who believe, we canst preach if we save any. Now I am too much burdened by the cares of a large and helpless family, and poverty, brought on by sundry mistakes in business enterprise and consequent indebtedness, to hope to be able to give my whole time to this glorious work soon. Some who have heard me preach in years past urge that I ought to give my attention to that work. Surely I am not a Jonah! I would rather preach the gospel than any other work. Hardships and privations for myself I mind not at all. But when my honest debts state me in the face, and a wife and five children appeal to me for bread and clothing, how can I go forth among strangers, most of whom are not in the least interested in such things, with no brethren able to aid me, no organized or systematic methods among them to sustain me while my time and labor is given to gospel work?

I do preach, not often in public, for I have no opportunity for that, but by the wayside, on the path, on the road, in private houses, to individuals, to all who will listen anywhere and everywhere. I lend books and tracts, and can see some fruit of my labor. But after various wanderings in search of a home for my family, I am at least located here on a government claim, a homestead of 160 acres, two miles from Delano. One year has rapidly passed away. I have a plain but comfortable house of four rooms, and a fence enclosing less than an acre about the house, a few grape vines and a dozen fruit trees growing misely, a two-horse wagon, a two-horse buggy, a gang plow and seeder, eight or nine tons of hay, and four work animals.

It is too dry to slow saw. We have had no rain except a light shower not sufficient to lay the dust well, since the forepart of last March! Last season was too dry to raise a crop except on irrigated land. But water is only twelve to fourteen feet from the surface on my land, and windmills would enable me to put in and raise an orchard and vineyard and a few acres of alfalfa; if I could only get them. Two or three cheap mills would be needed for ten or fifteen acres. The soil and climate are exceedingly favorable if we only had water. Rabbit-proof fencing is also a necessity. But here I am, unable to get work, without means to make these needed improvements; among strangers, no brethren anywhere near me, and, at present, no work of any kind by which I can earn a dollar. As soon as it rains I can get all the plowing I can do at good prices, but that does not supply present needs. Well, perhaps I ought not to say so much of my present condition, but it just occurred to me it might serve as an example of how some who long to preach cannot.

No one is more ready and anxious to help himself than I am, and in fact, when one reflects that a year ago I had nearly nothing and had to borrow from an old San Francisco acquaintance the money to file on my land, I feel great gratitude to our Heavenly Father for the success attained. Educated and trained for the ministry in the Presbyterian Church, having seven or eight years of practical experience as a preacher, in that church first, and then in the Christian Church or among the Disciples, having been pastor of a church for two years at Rock Island, Illinois, and then in San Francisco, California, and preached in many other places acceptably while knowing only a meagre part of the truth as it is in Jesus, I feel certain that I could do good heralding forth the “glad tidings of great joy which shall be to all people” were it in my power. It is my purpose, if the Lord tarries so long, to give my whole time to preaching as soon as I can get my farm into a condition that will enable my family to support themselves thereon. I am trying to teach my children (for I cannot send them to school at present) and am not neglecting the word of the Lord. This work may be more important now than any other, but of course when I get work to do I must be busy at that and may be compelled to be away from home, when such teaching will be interrupted.

In the meantime were the Lord to open any door for me to engage in my chosen work, I would try to do that rather. I have threatened several times to write to THE RESTITUTION and announce myself ready to fill calls in California to preach if any were interested and would pay my expenses to reach the place and return home. But I have been so isolated and so busy I have hesitated. This letter is written on the impulse of the moment, in view of the notices I have read concerning the General Conference and its aims. The thought came, unless the brethren know of my condition and feelings they certainly can never help me to devise ways and means to do gospel work, and perhaps, if they knew, some might be able and willing to join hands with me and so the good news be sounded out in California.

Your brother in Christ

H.B.RICE

Now's the time ...

Any material you have relevant to the era from Grew to July 1879 that you wish to share should be sent now. Attach it to an email and send it to rmdevienne [at] yahoo [dot] com.

We're formatting the ARC now. (Advanced reading copy). Its in ebook format first. An afterward and the last three or four pages of the last chapter remain to be written. Last chapter of volume one will need a good edit.

I'm typing up my introductory essay today. I'm compiling a list of people to thank. I have very bad memory, so if you helped at all and think you should be mentioned, refresh my memory. Do that soon.

Two Newly Found Newspaper Articles

This one was a poke in Barbour's eye and explains some things Barbour wrote in this period:

 

This one is S. O. Blunden's death notice. Notice that he had a non-Bible Student funeral.



cover

progress ...

There will be roughly 350-370 pages in volume one. It will contain about 100 photos, either of individuals or of original documents. While it will have a table of contents (of course), we’ll wait on an index until volume two is complete. There are eight chapters and two appendices. Appendix one considers Russell and the Masons. Appendix two reproduces the pertinent Atonement articles. 

Each of us has written an introductory essay. We’re still tinkering with those. There will be an afterward, telling some of what is to come in volume two.

The ebook version is being formatted first.  

We’re getting there … be patient.

A volunteer

 

We need a volunteer who can merge the several chapters into one document. We need the formatting of each chapter, including the footnote numbering to stay as is. We don’t want changes to the font, the alignment, the footnote format or anything else in the text. We just want the separate documents merged.

We need this in two formats. The first is as is with one inch margins. This will be the ebook format. The second is print as book format with variable margins. Word has a template. It must be set to lulu.com’s standard. 

This is a huge chore. I thought I could do this using wordperfect, but the images are distorted by wp. Wordperfect has the advantage of a footnote continued message. 

Can you help?

Problem solved. So we don't need a volunteer after all.

From Bruciolis and Roberto

A personal post

by "Jerome"

Blogs are funny things, and there is no accounting for what appeals to readers out there.

I am very pleased to have been granted an outlet for writing on Society history on this blog for nearly four years now – plus more on the restricted blog - although I corresponded with Bruce for some time before that, and contributed to other forums in the past.

This post is really a personal one, but also raises a question that puzzles me. In the scheme of things, there is a list for blog administrators of the most accessed posts of all time. It lists the top nine (why nine and not ten I have no idea). Six of mine have made it, which is very gratifying, although that is probably because I generally write articles rather than requests for information. The latter are staple fare for this blog, and will be far more useful for the overall project, but by their very nature, tend to date quickly.

In the given list, first by a long way is a post from Bruce entitled Millennial Dawn from 22 April 2008. This was a very early post that discussed the amount of assistance Maria may or may not have given CTR in writing Millennial Dawn: The Plan of the Ages. No doubt this material has been incorporated into later re-writes, and will see the proper light of day in Volume 2 of the project.

Then two of my articles come second and third. For several years, the second highest was Guest Post - Review of Charles Taze Russell – His Life and Times – The Man, The Millennium and The Message. This was published on 18 February 2010.

This was my very first post on this blog, sent originally to Bruce and posted by him. I had read Zydek’s book, found him to be very readable and very sympathetic to CTR, but – alas - with many details incorrect. One only wishes the author had checked with a few more “historians” before going to press – it would have been quite easy to rectify the more obvious errors, based on hearsay statements and “folk tales” rather than primary sources. It was a shame, because the overall ambience of the book was fine by me. However, on reading subsequent comments, it appears my friendly criticism did not go down too well with all readers. Readers today can still access this article if they wade back through the blog to 18 February 2010 or just punch the relevant search terms into Google or similar.

But in recent months, another article has been gaining on this in overall readership, and this week forged ahead to second place. This was an article entitled The Emphatic Diaglott and the Watch Tower Society and first published on 20 November 2011.  The article was later expanded as a result of further research, and the more recent version can be found on 23 July 2013.

If this post encourages anyone to read back, the more recent version will give a fuller picture.

But I do find it hard to understand how this article became so widely read – and is still being read. Is there some link from a site other than Society-related?

At the time, I viewed it as a “fringe” article – when I was at a loose end research-wise, and could find nothing more direct to write about. It was prompted by the discovery of who really was the anonymous donor of the Diaglott plates to the WT Society – an acquisition that no doubt annoyed the Church of God/One Faith movement no end at the time. However, anybody who reads through the transcription of the 1907 hearing between CTR and Maria would discover that information. I have come to the conclusion that while many people have copies of historical documents, far fewer take the time to actually read them. I am sure there is much key information out there already in our collections just waiting for someone to actually read the bits that matter today.

So, on a personal level I guess it is keep reading, searching and keep writing, and hopefully we will all soon have the promised volume one from Bruce and Rachael to add to our essential reading list.

 

Can you help?

This notice appeared in the June 1879 Herald of the Morning:

 

Can we document this meeting from newspaper reports?